So, talk has already started about the need for a 2nd stimulus. Reid says no, but one of Obama’s advisers is already calling for a second stimulus. Americans, on the whole, agree with Reid on this one. But David Axelrod won’t rule out another stimulus. Conservatives are already taking to the streets over the first pork-fest, and only around 10% of Stimulus I has been spent. And the stimulus doesn’t seem to be doing much stimulating. In fact, much of the money spent so far has gone to keep teachers employed, or provide benefits to the unemployed. Good causes, but not stimulus. Social Security managed to already spend the $13 billion (or $13,000,000,000 )they got for this year. So, just to recap, with 90% of the money unspent, and no evidence of a stimulative effect by that spending, some liberals are suggesting doing another round of stimulus.
Since I’m tired of watching the GOP leaders shoot themselves, and each other, in the foot, I’m here with a suggestion. Instead of fighting on liberal turf (do we or don’t we need a second stimulus?) let’s take the fight to them. Why not re-open debate on the first stimulus package? Or at least CALL for it? Given a few weeks, we’ll still have over 80% of the stimulus money in the bank (or, more accurately, not covered by new issuance of debt). That’s HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars.
It’s time to call on Congress to go back to the stimulus bill, strip out the pork, and provide some smart, simple, targeted tax cuts whose purpose is to kick start the economy. While we’re at it, we could take a big fat helping of lard out of the bill altogether, allaying some of the public fears about the U.S. deficits. And that would make China feel a little better about buying our debt, too.
Just as good, it keeps the focus on the WASTE of the last bill, and off of the temptation to pass another crap sandwich. The GOP can’t seem to find a good message – here’s one:”Liberal spending plan failed, as GOP predicted. Let’s try putting American business to work.” Announce a 5-year cut to capital gains, and many businesses will push ahead work they had planned for the future in order to realize the tax advantages.
What? It’s unheard of for Congress to reconsider past legislation? First, they do it all the time. The stimulus itself was full of revisions to prior legislation. 2nd, it would be no worse than giving the shaft to bondholders in favor of unions — that was unprecedented. Or having the government set salaries for bank employees. Or having the EPA regulate the stuff that comes out of my lungs, or a cow’s ass. Or agreeing to an arms control treaty without Senate approval.
If you like this idea, share it with your Congressman. While you’re at it, you might ask them if they ever read the bill. You know, the one they didn’t read BEFORE they passed it…
On Friday, the House passed a cap & trade bill. The bill is likely to die in the Senate, thankfully. But still, we should remember these 8 GOP Congressmen as we consider the future economic costs of taxing the very air we exhale:
Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765
List comes from MichelleMalkin.com. She was also one of the first to spotlight the EPA report that we’re not supposed to see. Seems that the EPA isn’t interested in the findings of their own scientists on this matter.
But, all of this keeps climate change in the realm of the abstract. What we need is a way to make climate change a real issue for individuals like you and me, right? Only then will we realize how serious the threat is. So, here’s my proposal.
If you’re really sure that climate change is going to cause higher ocean levels and widespread destruction, then surely you can support your belief with your wallet. I suggest that we meet in Times Square, 30 years from now. If Times Square is underwater, or partly underwater, or if New York had to build dikes to hold back the water, I’ll pay you $100. If the oceans have NOT overwhelmed the city, then you pay me $1. If you don’t like the odds, I’ll double them, to $200 to $1. If the time scale is the problem, we can change it to any number of years. Are you willing to back up your convictions with your money?
Feel free to pass this along to friends, I’m happy to welcome any takers for this wager. If Paul Krugman is convinced that people who oppose the cap & trade bill commit “treason against the planet”, then perhaps he’ll be first in line. I wonder if Krugman realizes that he’s calling Greenpeace traitors to the planet now?
Way back in 2007, the Washington Post did an excellent expose on conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They found dilapidated buildings, overcrowding, long lines for care, and bureaucratic mismanagement. In fact, the scandal was not about the doctors. Walter Reed still provides world-class medical help. The problem was in follow-up care, physical therapy, and the longer-term patient services handled by the administrative folks. This quote captures the problem nicely:
Vera Heron spent 15 frustrating months living on post to help care for her son. “It just absolutely took forever to get anything done,” Heron said. “They do the paperwork, they lose the paperwork. Then they have to redo the paperwork. You are talking about guys and girls whose lives are disrupted for the rest of their lives, and they don’t put any priority on it.”
That, folks, is what government services are all about. Many unionized government workers are more concerned about cashing a check than providing good customer service. And the ones that do care are overworked. Professionals in government systems are in shorter supply, often because they’re paid less. Oddly, WaPo doesn’t seem to bring up the state of EXISTING government medical and insurance systems when they talk about the latest round of Healthcare reform. Do Medicare and Medicaid provide higher-quality service than private plans? Definitely not. And the budget overruns in those systems is a major contribution to our massive debt.
A closer look at another government insurance system puts the lie to the notion that the addition of a government plan creates more competition. In Florida, the state crafted it’s own homeowner’s insurance plan. It was intended to be a lower-cost option for peope who couldn’t afford the “excessive” costs of public insurance companies. The state-run insurance is priced lower than it’s public competition. As a result, State Farm, the largest home insurer in Florida, has stopped writing new policies. As a bonus, the state insurance fund is insufficient to cover the claims that Florida will see after the next hurricane hits.
I challenge anyone to come up with any state-run or federal example of a health care or insurance system that provides good service, cheaper, and at less risk to the taxpayer than a private company.
The young people of Iran are in the streets again today, protesting the recent election results. It’s worth noting that in many regions, more than 100% of the voters turned out. That’s better GOTV than even ACORN can do.
Most security experts agree that Mousavi will not end the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Not that it matters much. On Friday, Khamenei indicated that the protesters need to go home – or else. With Iran thought to be a year or less away from being able to build a nuclear device, it’s worth considering what effect the riots will have on foreign policy efforts to eliminate Irans nuclear threat. Most governments seem to be split on how to respond. While several Israeli leaders belive the riots will be brutally supressed, a few feel that the protesters have a chance at succeeding.
As long as people feel that the youth of Iran (who make up 60% of Iran’s population) have a chance to overthrow Khamenei, they will be hesitant to engage in either UN sanctions or negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Iran will be able to produce a nuclear warhead by 2011, according to Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen. If we spend months waiting, fingers crossed, for the Iranian youth movement to seize control, then more months analyzing the changes in Iran’s power structure and motivations, we’ll be almost out of time to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. And if, as many suspect, Iran is learning from North Korea, they may be much closer than we think. And there’s strong evidence of a North Korea-Iran alliance.
If the 3-year time period is really a long estimate, we may have a year to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How many of those 12 months can we spend waiting for Iran to settle on a new leader? Clearly, an American or Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would dramatically change the situation in Iraq. But how much would it really hurt? It seems to me the lesser evil is one in which Iran has no nukes.
WSLS 10 is reporting that Deeds beat Terry McAuliffe and Brian Moran for the Democratic nomination. Here’s their quote from AP:
Deeds was the only Democrat in the race not from the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Primary rivals criticized him for legislative votes supporting Virginia’s broad, pro-gun laws, actions popular in rural areas that don’t play well in cities and affluent suburbs.
What does that tell you about which sort of Democrat Virginans voted for? Terry McAuliffe practically had Bill Clinton as his running mate, and picked up only 26% of the vote. Brian Moran, who was leading Deeds in straw polls a year ago, tacked left to counter the entry of Terry McAuliffe. Says the Washington Post:
And he tacked to the left, emphasizing such issues as repealing the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. He spent less time on the moderate, bread-and-butter issues such as fiscal conservatism and fixing the state’s clogged roads — issues that had been the hallmark of virtually every successful Democrat in Virginia this decade.
How did that work out? He finished 3rd, with 23.79% of the vote.
Just to summarize: The Clinton-backed career pol and the nice guy who tacked left finished behind the guy who ALREADY LOST to Republican candidate Bob McDonnell, back when they both ran for Lt. Governor.
So for all you folks promoting moderate Republicans remember that moving to the right has once again worked to win an election, this time for the Democrats.
Update: Apparently, they could only support contract law for 24 hours or so. They declined to stop the sale of Chrysler, saying the Indiana Treasurer failed to establish sufficient evidence of need for the Court to step in. Here’s the best writeup I could find, as usual from a Brit paper. When investors start avoiding bonds, realizing that preferred status in bankruptcy is now worthless, SCOTUS may realize their error.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg granted a stay of the Chrysler-Fiat merger. Indiana had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Their argument was two-fold. One, that the Chrysler “bankruptcy” overturned the traditional payment of senior creditors, with no legal authority to do so. Second, the use of TARP funds in the Chrysler bailout was done without Congressional authority. I think the second argument is weak, especially in light of Keith Hennessey’s detailed account of how the auto bailout came about.
Ginsburg is a liberal member of the Court, but even she can see that upsetting contract law is a bad precedent. As the Indiana Treasurer, Richard Mourdock said on CNBC, upsetting contract law would result in investors moving their money to safer foreign markets.
Fox News’ coverage of the announcement included this interesting quote from Congressman Gary Peters (D) of Michigan:
“Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chrysler’s autoworkers, accepted shared sacrifice because they recognized their interest was better served keeping Chrysler alive rather than forcing liquidation. Why the officials who decided to take their objections all the way to the Supreme Court can’t recognize this is beyond me,” Peters said.
Since when is sacrifice an American value? Funny, the autoworkers he bows to in this statement don’t seem to have shared in the sacrifice as much as the bondholders. Peters was parroting Obama’s remarks to the bondholders. Many of the people that would be hurt by this deal are teachers and other government employees. Doesn’t Obama care about them, too? The Obama settlement would’ve cost bondholders $4.9 billion; that money would’ve gone to Fiat (who’s getting a share of Chrysler with zero money down) and the UAW.
It’ll be interesting what the Supreme Court decides to do with this case. There have been reports of the White House strongarming Chrysler, and the bondholders. Will the Court mention these?
Obama, Dick Cheney, and Congress have been wrestling with GITMO and waterboarding for months. Commentary magazine has a good look back at how GITMO was formed, and how some of the stories about the place came about. Waterboarding has been a key topic of the debate.
The intelligence community says that enhanced interrogation techniques were performed on 3 (three) detainees. Tampa Bay online claimes that it was done over 267 times, which is supported by the record. But what do you think that means? Do think that means prisoners were taken from their cell, 267 times? Nope. That’s only the number of times the water jug was tipped. During a given session, you can be waterboarded dozens of times, though the Office of Legal Council specified a limit on the total amount of time that could be spent pouring. So most of the 267 “sessions” likely lasted for 1 or 2 seconds. Fox News has an excellent breakdown of the conditions that were allowed, as well as the Red Cross’s investigation. So, maybe it wasn’t 267 sessions, but instead, it was more like 5 sessions. But still, torture is torture, right?
It depends on who you ask. Like the Attorney General, Eric Holder. In testimony before Congress, Holder said that intent was critical in determining whether or not torture has taken place. While AG Holder belives the CIA committed torture, he said that the US Military is not commiting torture by using waterboarding during SERE training:
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah
Does that clear things up? To me, the term “torture” implies some sort of severe physical or mental pain to the subject. That’s also the Red Cross’s view. I picture people shackled to dungeon walls, with hot coals being dropped in their mouths. Or bamboo under the fingernails. To me, torture is not something I’d want to watch.
And yet, lots of folks have undergone waterboarding for the benefit of an audience. Don’t believe me? Here’s a few samples:
Playboy journalist Mike Guy: says it might not be torture, and it might give you a buzz.
Radio personality Erich “Mancow” Muller: Says it’s torture, but also says he nearly drowned as a child. Then proceeds to thank the torturers.
Jesse Ventura: start at around 2:43. His was in SERE training when he was a Navy Seal – he said SERE training was torture.
Sean Hannity said he’d get waterboarded for charity. Olberman bet him $1,000 a second.
Some guy named G man his response “I’m ok”
Some more demonstrators, in front of the Justice Department
Kaj Larsen: did it in service, does it again here.
Berkley demonstrators: note that the actor who got waterboarded doesn’t break character.
Some more demonstrators, in front of the Justice Dept. Note that this session lasts longer than the CIA and OLC would recommend. Again, the actor who got waterboarded doesn’t break character.
Christopher Hitchens was waterboarded.
Some high school kids do waterboarding USA. Before: “It’s a lot of fun it’s not torture”. Ok, so that’s not really waterboarding.
Demi Moore was quasi-waterboarded in GI Jane. She wasn’t inverted, though, so the sensation was much less intense.
So, all these folks have been waterboarded to some extent. None of them have any damage. In fact, they all seem able to continue with their planned activities just fine. Is waterboarding tough? Sure. Do I want to be waterboarded? No way. Is waterboarding torture? I don’t think so.
Later this week, I might right about some of the other evil tactics used on “inmates” at GITMO. Like the “attention grab“. I guess every football coach in the 50s could be guilty of this.
Two men in Miami robbed and assaulted an elderly man in a wheelchair. The video is pretty disgusting. I do wonder why they didn’t steel the motorized wheelchair, though. It’s certainly worth a bit of money.
Meanwhile, the House recently passed HR 1913, an expansion of hate crimes legislation to include crimes against people because of age, disability, or sexual orientation.
Is there a hate crime on that video? If so, did they hate the victim because of his disability, his age, or both? To me, this is an example of why hate crime legislation is superfluous. The perps should be sentenced harshly because their crime was heinous. But I don’t care if they robbed and beat the man out of hate, or because they thought he was rich. Regardless of their motivation, people who rob and attack others should be punished.
Is hate crime legislation really a mechanism to ensure stiffer sentences for certain crimes? To me, a better solution would be to prove the prosecution’s case better.
Soros Helps New York Charity Raise Record With $50 Million Gift is the headline for Bloomberg. The NY Times puts it this way Soros giving millions to city’s Robin Hood foundation.
I suppose it’s nice when Soros and Tom Brokow can work together on something. NBC and Soros so seldom see eye to eye on anything. Turns out Brokow is on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, which has given ACORN over $820,000. Geoffry Immelt, CEO of GE, and Jeff Zucker, president of NBC, are also on the board.
So, a foundation that’s ostensible goal is to help the poor, but which really funnels money to Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, got $50 million from George Soros. No surprise, really. But it bugs me that they do it in the name of Robin Hood. Robin Hood did not primarily rob from the rich and give to the poor. (Which, by the way, is a hilarious position for Soros and most of these board members to endorse). Robin Hood supported the good King Richard; his real foe was corruption, especially corruption in government. Robin Hood fought to stop government from taking property. He lived as an Outlaw in the King’s forest, and killed the King’s deer. Are Soros and the GE folks really using this foundation to support honest and limited government? It looks to me that they’re trying to buy the support of the poor, while they really funnel the money to Democratic groups.
