Kucinich Thrown Under The Bus
Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich is truly a far-left liberal. He supports a Department of Peace, told me he was against free trade when he visited my campus, was the only 2008 Democratic candidate for President who voted against invading Iraq and was slammed by Daily Kos founder and far-left fanatic Markos Moulitsas for being too principled on health care reform. (Kucinich is opposed to the current version of health care reform because it is not liberal enough.) Being a conservative, I disagree with Kucinich on just about every policy issue and perspective. However, as is true with most extreme Members of Congress- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), for two examples- I respect his holding to his principles.
Unfortunately for Kucinich, President Obama has an odd way of showing his respect for Kucinich’s principles. The president was in Kucinich’s district to talk about health care reform today, where he commended Kucinich for fighting for the average person. As a follow-up, literally seconds later, Obama asks an audience member who yelled “Vote Yes” to repeat his statement.
Perhaps I’m reaching for straws here, but why is President Obama needling Kucinich? The man introduced impeachment articles against former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, and supports enacting a new Fairness Doctrine. He is not going to bow to pressure. Besides, as AllahPundit put it, Kucinich could very well be the deciding vote on health care reform. Alienating him is not a good way to get his vote.
Another Sign of the Obama Administration’s Commitment to Israel
As part of my duties as an intern with Laura Ingraham, I went to the State Department’s web site to find information about Israel. I clicked on Israel…and found this: “We’re sorry. That page can’t be found and may have moved.”
Here is a list of countries I went through that did have links: Afghanistan, Iceland, Italy, Venezuela, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Egypt, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Syria, Turkey, Tajikistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz Republic, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Palestinian Territories,
In short, what I believe is every Middle Eastern country (except for the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Yemen, which did not have links), plus a few others I decided to check, have a link to the State Department’s information about the site. To verify, I asked two friends to check, one from his home computer and one from his work computer, and they found the same thing. I have also checked on two different computers that have two different servers. Israel is not on the State Department’s web site.
For those who are conspiracy theorist conservatives, perhaps UAE, Jordan and Yemen are other countries we are cutting ties with under Obama, or for those believers in the military industrial complex, we are going to bomb them. For me, it’s kind of funny that- coinciding with the Biden/Obama slam of Israel this week- they do not have the page up. Perhaps we shall check in next week?
The Call List To Stop More Government In Health Care
Laura Ingraham has a call list on her website of 18 Democrats who voted “No” on health care reform last year but may vote “Yes” this time around. The list is below. Please contact these offices and tell them to vote against Democratic health care reform.
DC office numbers and links to office e-mails:
John Adler, N.J.
202-225- 4765
EMAIL
Jason Altmire, Pa.
202-225- 2565
EMAIL
Brian Baird, Wash.
202-225-3536
EMAIL
John Barrow, Ga.
202-225-2823
EMAIL
John Boccieri, Ohio
202-225-3876
EMAIL
Rick Boucher, Va.
202-225-3861
EMAIL
Ben Chandler, Ky.
202-225-4706
EMAIL
Lincoln Davis, Tenn.
202-225- 6831
EMAIL
Bart Gordon, Tenn.
202-225-4231
EMAIL
Tim Holden, Pa.
202-225- 5546
EMAIL (Must be a constituent)
Suzanne Kosmas, Fla
202-225-2706.
EMAIL
Betsy Markey, Colo.
202-225-4676
EMAIL (Must be a constituent)
Jim Matheson, Utah
202-225-3011
EMAIL
Scott Murphy, N.Y.
202-225-5614
EMAIL
Glenn Nye, Va.
202-225-4215
EMAIL (Must be a constituent)
Ike Skelton, Mo.
202-225-2876
EMAIL (Must be a constituent)
John Tanner, Tenn.
202-225-4714
EMAIL
Harry Teague, N.M.
202-225-2365
EMAIL
Dependency Will Destroy Our Republic
Yesterday, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis Director, Bill Beach, presented at The Heritage Foundation’s weekly Bloggers Briefing. Unfortunately, I was a few minutes late, but the gist of Mr. Beach’s presentation was that the seventh annual Dependency on Government Index shows that this country is increasingly dependent on government. See a primer Mr. Beach wrote for The Foundry here, and the full report here.
I had seen the primer last week, and was confused as to why Beach had written the following:
Most disturbing of all, all of the evidence points to even more rapid increases in dependency ahead, which well could threaten democratic government.
No, of course dependency on government is not good, but if we don’t necessarily correlate dependency with government control- though, of course, they generally go hand-in-hand- how does that destroy the (as Beach put it) democratic underpinnings of our republic?
Beach’s answer was simple (if paraphrased for this post): in order to have a functioning civil society and republic, there had to be an appropriate separation between the public and the private. It made a lot of sense, though admittedly it was more profound when he said it than when I typed it.
The core of Beach’s presentation was terrifying. Not only are we going into incredible debt, we are not solving the entitlement issues so crucial to erasing that debt over time. Add private sector subsidies and bailouts, military overspending, welfare programs etc. we have a perfect storm. As Beach put it, we have 40% of taxpayers not paying taxes. These people vote on how federal money is spent, but have no skin in the game.
Solutions offered by Beach: stop expanding the programs that exist (including making them more efficient); tax reform through expanding the tax base by encouraging fewer taxes paid by each person but more people included in the tax system (thus, with more people having skin in the game, more people will watch how the programs work); and Congress needs to get control of mandatory spending. Other, side solutions include generally living within our means (government-wise) and holding down inflation.
The presentation can be heard here. I think Beach does an excellent job of talking about conservative policy principles as well as showing how conservative philosophical principles will help on the humanitarian level more than dependency programs. I encourage everyone to listen to Beach’s presentation by clicking on the Blog Radio on the top right of the page. It is the first presentation of the Briefing, so just hit play and enjoy. Or, rather, don’t enjoy, but be inspired to step up and become part of the solution.
Apology- Sort of- To Senator Richard Shelby
Last month, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) put a hold on scores of President Obama’s nominees in exchange for earmarks. This was roundly criticized by liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. (In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote a post about this on Daily Caller. Unfortunately, due to a mix-up, the initial draft was published, not the final one- read it if you must, but I’m quite embarrassed at what I wrote…) The earmark was billions of dollars in military spending for Alabama.
Yesterday, Shelby slammed the fact that Boeing is now the sole bidder for a multi-billion dollar tanker deal. Northrop- which was going to bring over 1,000 jobs to Mobile, Alabama if it received the contract- dropped its bidding attempts, and both Shelby and Alabama’s other senator, Jeff Sessions, joined the state’s governor in claiming politics caused Northrop to drop their bidding.
Objectively speaking, this is a really interesting scenario. Shelby is infamous for earmarks, and this certainly is a case of trying to get earmarks for his state. What is interesting, however, is that when I called Shelby’s office on behalf of Conservative Congress, his Communications Director informed me that Northrop had a lower price, and so the real issue for Shelby was trying to save the taxpayers money.
I doubt that Shelby was simply being Mr. Efficient with our tax dollars in trying to get Northrop the deal. However, given the charges of political gaming he is bringing, and assuming his Communications Director was telling me the truth, perhaps those of us who hammered Shelby owe him a partial apology.
I found out today- completely by accident, by talking to a random woman I ran into on the sidewalk- that Northrop has a location two or so blocks from my apartment complex. I think I may visit them, and request an interview. This should be very interesting.
Democrats Don’t Understand Economics
Stymied by the failure of their mortgage modification plan, the Obama administration is trying a new tactic- paying people to sell their homes.
I’m not sure which of the following negative consequences of this program is worse- that the government is encouraging irresponsible, “no-consequences” behavior; that the government is butting into the housing market again; or that the New York Times article linked above has this near the beginning (emphasis mine):
This latest program, which will allow owners to sell for less than they owe and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way, is one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts to grapple with a problem that has defied solutions.
This is yet another stupid waste of taxpayer dollars. Don’t these people get it? By getting involved in the housing market, the government is skewing the housing market, much as it did to create this mess. Secondly, the government is telling people that they will be rewarded for their irresponsible behavior with government assistance, something that also helped create this economic downturn. Lastly, the NYT author clearly doesn’t understand that a recession has exactly one solution, namely for people and government to let the cycle swing as it will.
In reality, the problem has not defied solutions- it has defied solutions to change its course before the mid-term elections.
Economics 101
The Congressional Budget Office, in its role as the God of Economic & Budget Estimates in Washington, DC, has done the unthinkable- it has concluded that putting a tax on the big banks that accepted government money would “invariably be borne to varying degrees by an institution’s customers, employees, and investors.” In non-Beltway speak: Duh.
As a conservative, I am very much against governments playing favorites through subsidies, bailouts etc. However, we must accept the reality that TARP passed. As such, I would note the following: the big banks have paid back a large portion of their borrowed funds. It is the government-owned companies (General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which are failing to pay back what they owe.
I managed to find the CBO letter, which was sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) yesterday. According to the letter (Emphasis mine):
What is the overlap between firms that would pay the proposed fee and firms that generated losses for the TARP? For the most part, the firms paying the fee would not be those that are directly responsible for losses realized by the TARP. Some firms subject to the fee are expected to generate such losses, including the American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, and CIT Group (which filed for bankruptcy protection on November 1, 2009). However, the fee would not apply to firms in the automotive industry, which account for $47 billion of the program’s estimated total cost of $99 billion. Other firms that would be subject to the fee have either paid back all of the funds received from the TARP or are current on their repayment schedule and unlikely to generate losses from their participation in the program. However, all of the institutions that might be covered by the fee benefited to varying degrees from the program’s contribution toward stabilizing the nation’s financial system and overall economy.
In defending the tax, Think Progress- which had the link to the letter- made some excellent points rebutting conservative arguments cheering the CBO’s conclusions. They include, but are not limited to, the fact that the letter states smaller banks would have a leg up on their larger competitors because the tax does not go after them, and that the tax’s cost could be offset by lower employee compensation. (Read: executives could be paid less.) Additionally, something I noticed was that CBO said the economic impact would be minimal.
Think Progress and other liberal people and organizations will pounce upon the points noted above, and others, but when it comes down to it, the tax will not hurt the business’ executives, the “if we had to be honest” target of the tax-supporting Democrats. They will hurt, as the CBO said, consumers, investors and employees. It’s economics 101. Unfortunately, Democrats fail to understand this.
Ed Morrissey was kind enough to extrapolate this basic concept to other government policy proposals Democrats sometimes don’t understand- I’ll let him explain them:
Let’s make sure we extrapolate this for everyone onto other public policies, while we’re at it:
- Increasing the minimum wage forces businesses to pay more for labor. Either they hire fewer people or they raise prices — which undermines the buying power of those who make the least amount of money.
- A carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill will force energy producers to either raise prices to its customers or scale back power production, which will force businesses to either raise prices or cut back production, which will mean more cost or more scarcity for consumers — both of which are inflationary.
- Higher fees on insurers, medical-device manufacturers, and other goods and services in the health-care industry mean higher prices for consumers in the form of increased premiums or in greater scarcity as suppliers fail to come to market.
Imposing higher costs on business means higher costs for consumers. It means fewer jobs, less consumer choice, less innovation, and economic decline. I’d be surprised if the CBO analysis itself doesn’t end with the word duh in the last sentence.
To summarize this post:
What Democrats should be saying after this letter was publicized:
What Republicans (and the CBO) are saying to Democrats about their intent regarding the tax after the CBO letter:
New York Times Is Off By A Bit
Following the tradition of liberals nationwide, The New York Times editorial- which I found thanks to a link on Daily Kos- this morning encouraged Democrats to push for health care reform through any means possible. It did a fair job of tackling how reconciliation would work, and how Republicans are using sound bites against it that are not entirely accurate. However, there are a few misnomers that should be addressed.
First, the editorial says this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix health care in this country. Beyond the ideological/philosophical disagreements, health care reform could take place without the misleading “once-in-a-generation” label and political risk therein and still be incredibly effective. Tort reform, insurance purchasing across state lines, getting rid of the insurance monopoly exemption, cutting fraud/waste/abuse and, most importantly, beginning the ideas of payment reform proposed by the Dartmouth Atlas Group. These are relatively simple reforms that would decrease health care and health insurance costs; decrease the number of unnecessary, expensive and sometimes harmful tests done to protect doctors and increase profits at the expense of the patient; create quality of care incentives as opposed to quantity of care incentives; and provide higher coverage through the simple idea that less cost has a direct proportion to higher insurance. (Since Democrats constantly argue- correctly- that higher costs decrease coverage, I assume they will agree with me.)
Secondly, the Times seems to be okay with making the final bill budget-neutral by raising taxes. That may end up being the case- doubtful but possible- but why not make changes that won’t raise taxes many billions of dollars? THAT would be a true budget-neutral situation.
Thirdly, the editorial says the Senate and House bills are outrageous violations of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. I don’t need to explain why this is a detestable and ridiculous point of view- abortion is not a right. LIVING is a right.
The editorial accurately portrays Republican talking points about reconciliation a bit overreactive, and largely about politics. This is the state of Washington, where the parties argue for political reasons as much as to help the country (though I think most Democrats and Republicans are saying what they are about health care for the latter reason as well). Why do we want to centralize more control of health care in Washington, where politics, not efficiency, are the standard? Secondly, as someone wrote last year (I forget who), there hasn’t been a free market in health care in America for over 40 years. If we say health care is too expensive, should we blame the market…or the government that is colluding with insurance companies and has created a horrible payment system in Medicare that permeates our entire medical system?
In Support of Gun Rights
Hot Air’s “Doctor Zero” makes an excellent, tie-all-the-loose-knots-together argument in favor of the right of private citizens to own guns. Some clips are below.
I wish the Supreme Court would do more than rule the Second Amendment applies to the states. It’s long past time the last, ridiculous cobwebs of ambiguity were cleared away from the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control has been simmering on low heat for a while, after boiling over in the Nineties. We should clear it off the Constitutional stove altogether. We have better things to do than slip into another bitter, tedious argument about whether the government can interfere with our right, and duty, to defend ourselves.
The very areas of privacy that allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft targets for criminals… unless we fortify them ourselves. The police arrived at my house several minutes too late to play a role in my attempted execution. They made excellent time – there happened to be a unit in the area. If things had gone a little different, they might have arrived just in time to avenge me.
Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense. The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.
Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements.
The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.
The New York Times article about the case before the Supreme Court ends this way:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns.
Carefully drawn laws will not protect you from other people’s guns. Believe me. None of the people carefully drawing those laws will rely upon them for their protection.
Doctor Zero points out the many facets of supporting private ownership of guns. Those who say we need onerous regulations because of the high number of gun deaths per capita in America- at least, when compared to other countries- forget that it is not the weapon that causes harm, it is the person pulling the trigger. To paraphrase what a professor told me before class once, every male over 18 in Switzerland has a weapon. They are all deputized. The high gun deaths in America take place because we are a more violent country, not because we have a lot of guns.
My professor was correct. If you want fewer gun deaths, create a culture of responsibility. Do not put people at risk. After all, if we take guns away from the law-abiding citizens, who will have weapons? Only those are with the government or law-breakers. I don’t trust the latter to protect me, and in fact can guarantee they will use guns frequently in their crimes, which will happen with more and more frequency themselves. Too, while the vast majority of police and military members are hard-working, dedicated citizens, tyranny is not something I want to avoid through trust in government. Guns are a great political, physical and psychological deterrent to taking away the rights of a nation’s people.
Obama Won Because He Promised Ice Cream
From an e-mail I received from a friend:
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATINS
OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
–From a teacher in the Nashville area
“We are worried about ‘the cow’ when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream.’
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year…
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.
We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia’s mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better
place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.
Her speech was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.”
She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes!
We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?
She wasn’t sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it.
She didn’t know.
The class really didn’t care.
All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and
52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They want ice cream.
The other 48 percent know
they’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.”
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone –
that they have not first taken away from someone else.?
