BEFORE You Pass the Unemployment Extension!
Unemployment is the new-old hot button issue that is all over the news again since we finally corked the oil spill in the Gulf for the time being. This is also a topic that affects far more Americans directly, so naturally, it is back on the front burner before Congress takes their August recess. Today it is looking like we are going to get the extension passed without any consideration for how it will be paid for, or what it will even accomplish.
There is one talking point I would like clarified by our friends on the left: has the stimulus been successful, or are we in a dire situation? We cannot have it both ways, and yet, President Obama and his cabinet would like you to believe that the stimulus was successful while at the same time lecturing the Republicans on the reasonableness of passing the unemployment extension because we are in a crisis (and God knows, this Administration won’t let any crisis go to waste!). You can’t have your cake and eat it too, although, we are supposed to eat ours.
So which is it? Those of us with a more Conservative (or rugged individualism) proclivity are likely to say, “a year for unemployment benefits is ample time! Suck it up and get a job!” Those of us who may be more mindful of taking care of our fellow man (or, at least forcing others to do so through government so we don’t have to do the dirty work ourselves) might argue, “there are no jobs, what are they supposed to do?”
Taking only one side of this issue leaves one without a complete understanding of our present crisis’ gestalt. There are certainly a number of situations where people have been using unemployment benefits to subsidize their sloth; while one cannot take away from the fact that some areas of a state simply have no infrastructure for job growth. You cannot deny that the job situation has gotten worse, the New York Times has an interactive map that shows the growing unemployment rates state by state and how they climbed over time. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not show a particularly peachy picture of jobs to come, considering at the present moment there are five Americans competing for every one job.
I know it won’t happen, but there are two things I would like to see done if Congress and the President are to pass the Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension:
First, I cannot imagine why we can’t find a way to pay for it. Emergency unemployment benefits are not paid by the employer during the worker’s tenure, it comes straight out of thin air thanks to the Federal government’s Nietzschean ability to posit something from nothing; in this case, create money and with it, value. The Federal government sets aside a block grant to the state, whose Department of Labor hands out the benefits accordingly. Our Federal deficit stands at a paltry $1.6 Trillion dollars this year, as projected by the administration. The Unemployment bill that is set to pass today will add yet another $36 Billion to our gluttonous budget, and all the Republicans and a few Blue-Dogs ask for is a means to pay for it… part of it? Half of it? Any of it? Somebody please go to YouCut and find one of those programs that Representative Cantor’s office has bulls-eyed and we could have this extension paid for.
Secondly, I’ve already hinted to it earlier in the piece, but the Wall Street Journal has an article about stimulating unemployment where a crazy correlation was made: “A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, ‘It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.’” Imagine that: incentivizing people to not get jobs, and then telling them “well instead of getting a job call your Congressman and ask him or her to extend unemployment benefits” would lead people to strive for nothing. That’s as stupid as setting time-tables in a war. Nevertheless, if we are going to do this last emergency extension, why the hell would we not get something out of it in return? Why not ask of people (and I say ask now, but rather, I’d be much more willing to demand it as part of the prerequisite for receiving such benefits) to help out their community? I would make it mandatory for people to volunteer at least 20 hours of their week towards their community, state or nation in exchange for their free benefits (because we must remember, that they did not pay into this unemployment pool). This would allow people to create at least some value from their benefits outside of paying for the bare necessities that had to be paid for already. Giving money away doesn’t add value; but giving money to people in exchange for something does.
When I mentioned this on my Twitter account (follow me, rcaster – we are not afraid of shameless self promotion here) I was accosted by some #P2 fellow, which means he is a “Progressive” in Twitter lexicon. He claimed my idea was unfair because “the unemployed are not criminals!” I would have re-posted the conversation for you, but BlackJedi”somethingorother” was embarrassed enough to just erase his entire end of the conversation, and my tweets went as well (I guess that means I was blocked).
Imagine that, doing something for your community is an activity that should be relegated to those people who are being punished. Perhaps this is the truth about the soul of our communities, and why liberal areas tend to lack it. Doing community service is a punishment? Well I would rather bestow benefits upon people willing to contribute to their community, than give it to those who do not. And besides, who can take away the fact that people will feel better once they get into a productive groove; perhaps they will put their rear-into-gear afterward and go look for that next job with some new skills; perhaps they won’t sit around and feel sorry for themselves, but feel a sense of accomplishment for having achieved something, and that may just be the push they need to go out the door and apply. I used to get into arguments with my high school history teacher, Mr. Lubenetski, about FDR’s New Deal and whether or not it ended the Great Depression. He would say to me, looking exactly like Teddy Roosevelt (he did, red hair, mustache, glasses and all) and explode with his booming voice, “it may not have brought people all the way up to their feet, but it kept them off their knees!” If we are going to pay people who lost work, I say we put them back to work, because you may not be able to measure the benefit of doing so, but a man’s pride can carry him further than his pouting ever will.
-rj
Wanted: A Mainstream Media That’s Actually Mainstream
Yesterday, an interesting series of articles came out that say a lot about the national media and the Tea Party movement.
First, allow me to introduce a Washington Post article describing the anti-racism battle the Tea Party movement is fighting in the public arena. I found the article on the Huffington Post political page (since updated). According to the article,
The challenge is made tougher by one of the defining elements of the tea party movement: No one person controls it. There is no national communications strategy. And incidents of racist slogans and derisive depictions of President Obama continue to crop up, providing fuel for critics who say the president’s skin color is a powerful reason behind the movement’s existence.
In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most Americans see the movement as motivated by distrust of government, opposition to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party, and broad concern about the economy. But nearly three in 10 see racial prejudice as underlying the tea party.
Supporters and opponents alike say the movement draws its strength from opposition to Obama’s policies, but they split deeply on the race question, according to the poll: About 61 percent of tea party opponents say racism has a lot to do with the movement, a view held by just 7 percent of tea party supporters.
A matter of perception
That indicates that the issue of race and the tea party is largely about differing perceptions, reflected in how people view the well-known illustration of Obama made up like the Joker from the Batman movie “The Dark Knight.” Some see the image, with its exaggerated lips, as an offensive reference to minstrelsy. Obama’s critics, however, say President George W. Bush was also portrayed as the Joker, as well as Dracula.
Now, there are multiple errors in this article, including the fact that neither of these Post sources regarding the poll cite the demographics in the poll- such as how many Democrats were polled, etc. Secondly, the article fails to note that the Joker picture was made by a liberal college student, not a conservative activist or conservative racist. Lastly, the racist slogans referred to could easily be the ones held by the liberal LaRouche supporters…but the Post simply sticks to the unprofessional and politically hackish general statement of “incidents,” without a single source or citation of the alleged incidents.
Next up on the “interesting article” stage is a Politico article describing the Post’s leftward tilt towards liberal bloggers. To be fair, the Post does have the tremendous writings of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other conservative columnists, but the article makes a great case that the Post is clearly heading towards a particular demographic- the young, Internet-savvy liberal. Given the initial article I quoted above, I think Politico was quite timely in its publication of the article.
Last, but not least, on stage we have The New York Times, which as of late has been acting strangely neutral/non-liberal in some of its articles. This latest betrayal of “mainstream” media values is a pretty interesting article about how a record number of black Republicans are running for Congress- a full 32. In the article, accusations of racism within the Tea Party are shot down by the candidates:
The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”
As Ed Morrissey noted (emphasis mine),
There was more violence at May Day rallies this past weekend than there have been in over a year of Tea Party rallies. Did the New York Times [sic] cover those and assign them to the entire liberal politisphere in the manner they do here with conservatives? Did they link that violence to the immigration-reform movement in the same way they have with no violence at all at Tea Parties with its attendees?
The same media double standard is true with the supposed racism they keep reporting at Tea Parties. These rallies back candidates like West, Princella Smith, Vernon Parker, Ryan Frazier, and others. They support these candidates for the simple reason that these candidates best represent their views on governance, fiscal policy, and national security. Will they all win? Probably not, although this year looks better than most, but it shows that conservatives have no barriers to entry except on policy and philosophy — just like any other political movement. The media spin on Tea Parties and conservatives has gotten very, very threadbare — and increasingly desperate.
Morrissey is absolutely correct. Poll after poll, as well as outright statements, show just how much liberal power players and media members are missing the mainstream-America nature of the Tea Party, and in doing so, are alienating themselves and their influence in providing real news. When you lose the Times, though…maybe it’s time to admit you have a problem.
Eric Holder vs Liz Cheney (Part Deux)
Originally Posted on Draft Liz Cheney:
Attorney General Eric Holder took his turn in front of the Senatorial talking-points firing squad (also known as a “Senate Committee Hearing,” where Senators don’t bother with what could be regarded as inquiry and instead try to fit as many one-liner rhetorical pot-shots they can during their allotted time) Wednesday. Interestingly enough, the New York Times reported the event in a considerably concise manner: touching upon the concerns Republicans (and Democratic New Yorkers) had with the idea of the Justice Department holding terrorist trials in New York, or in the United States period. The Times is also sure to point out the small spat between Senator Jeff Sessions (R – AL) and Mr. Holder, while de-emphasizing Mr. Holder’s respectable ability to quibble his way around Senator Session’s questions and points. In the end, even Senator Schumer (D – NY) pointedly registered his view that New Yorkers’ had developed a fairly strong consensus against any terrorist trial being held in the state.
Of course, I write for this website that encourages Liz Cheney in a direction that would land her in some sort of public office. With that in mind, I had to journey into forbidden waters to find what truly interested followers of Draft Liz Cheney, which was the part of the testimony where the Attorney General goes out of his way to address his contempt for Keep America Safe’s campaign to elucidate the nine lawyers working on terrorism cases that had defended ‘suspected’ terrorists in the past. Fortunately, the HuffingtonPost does a fair and balanced article on the Attorney general’s scornful remarks:
“There has been an attempt to take the names of the people who represent Guantanamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud,” he said, when pressed to disclose more information about these lawyers by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There were reprehensible ads in essence to question their patriotism. I’m not going to allow these kids… I’m not going to be a part of this effort.”
Holder continued: “Their names are out there now. I’m simply not going to be a part of that effort. I would not allow good, decent lawyers who have followed the best traditions of American jurisprudence… I will not allow their reputations to be besmirched. I will not be a part of that.”
Had Mr. Holder answered the questions raised regarding the Justice Department’s employment of attorneys that had been involved in terrorist defense cases, no one’s reputation would have been “dragged through the mud.” Furthermore, it was not for the purpose of dragging through the mud that Senators (before Keep America Safe even became involved) asked the Attorney General for those names in November to begin with, it was in the interest of full disclosure and transparency: these two nefarious notions that the Obama Administration promised would be at the forefront of their Administration. When the Justice Department ducked and dived, Keep America Safe stepped up to the plate and Liz Cheney called Attorney General Holder out on it.
I find it interesting that Holder’s lawyers are “good” and “decent,” while the Bush Administration’s lawyers faced possible indictments the entire year following Bush 43’s ride into the sunset. What is killing the Obama Administration is the knowledge that they might be able to kick around Sarah Palin and a few others by calling them stupid or letting SNL do their dirty work for them; but they cannot do the same with Liz Cheney. This is what makes her such a force inside the beltway, and why we need to push her in that direction.
-rj
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.
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?
Media Fail
Remember Tiger Woods and his many sordid affairs? The media ate that up. It only took two weeks for our media sources to have “investigated,” found him guilty and hung him out to dry. Meanwhile, it has taken months for the media to “officially” report that former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards had a child out of wedlock, denied it…and did both while a major candidate in the 2008 race. Too, remember that it was the National Enquirer that broke the Edwards story wide open. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER. Not The New York Times, which had this profile about Cindy McCain in 2008, or the Washington Post, which had a front-page story about Governor McDonnell’s thesis from two decades or even Drudge, which only last week had a picture of Senate Majority Reid (D-NV) and a story about his alleged facelift as the leading story.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- our professional media has failed us. However, in the age of the Internet, we have zero excuses. Let’s hold the professional media responsible by using the free market choices we have via the Internet, TV, newspapers, radio and magazines to show them Michael Jackson, facelifts, the Balloon Boy and other non-stories won’t cut it anymore.
Punishing the Guilty- Unless We Don’t
The Heritage Foundation nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday:
The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As The New York Times reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”
So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.” Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that helped create the crisis.
It’s time we told our elected officials to stop picking winners and losers, and voted in people who are in favor of term limits and in favor of a separation of business from government. Beyond liberal or conservative, these are the issues that are so important to America. After all, when Howard Dean, Markos Moulitas and Arianna Huffington agree with The Heritage Foundation…perhaps it’s time for- and I dislike using this word- change to how our system works. Of course, it’s up to us, the voters and citizens of America, to make said change.
What it Means To Be A Conservative
From Austin Russell:
At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand. Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government. That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.
The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.
Health Care Updates
Lawsuits galore from at least a dozen states over the individual mandate, says The New York Times. The Times cites a Heritage Foundation legal analysis on the subject that is being used by many mandate opponents, including the Florida Attorney General highlighted in the article, to show how such an individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Other conservatives are attacking the mandate by reminding us that the Congressional Budget Office had multiple issues with the idea during the Clinton health care reform efforts.
Also, good times for Democratic Members of Congress and their trial lawyer buddies. Apparently, the latter worked really hard to make sure their industry wouldn’t get tagged in the health care reform efforts, and Democrats appeased them. Of course, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made clear this would happen months ago. Unfortunately for Democrats, the CBO used real numbers and evidence to show tort reform would save the public $54 billion over ten years. (Conservatives, this is where we write, call, e-mail and fax our Senate and House Members of Congress to tell them they are not representing us…)
For fun- H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air- here are some lobbying numbers from the law industry. Surprisingly, Republicans have averaged around 25% of lobbying efforts from lawyers since 1990. I didn’t expect it to be that high.
Honduran Crisis Resolved?
Last week there was a major breakthrough on the Honduran crisis- the New York Times reports that a US-sent team helped create a compromise where Zelaya would return to power but not run in the upcoming elections. The deal still must be approved by the Honduran Congress, but it has the potential to do a great deal of good for the situation.
Of course, this leads to several questions:
1. Why wasn’t this done in the first place? The presumptuous decision by the administration to not send a team, or do any real investigative work in looking closely at this strict following of the Honduran constitution, until so recently makes them seem like they don’t know what they are doing on foreign policy.
2. Will Senator Kerry (D-MA), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, apologize to the Library of Congress for asking them to take back their report? The report is at odds with the administration’s and many Democrats’ stances on the Honduran crisis.
3. Why is the United States pressing for this as the final resolution? Zelaya broke the law, and the rule of law is, you know, the law. The same Congress that will have to vote on this agreement is the one that voted Zelaya out of power. So now we respect that Congress’ decisions?
4. What happened to non-interventionist policies?
Overall, this is a better-than-most situation; the people of Honduras will get the international support they lacked during the crisis, Zelaya gets to feel powerful for about five weeks, and the United States gets a tiny bit of credit for doing SOMETHING partially right on foreign policy for about the first time this year. Let’s just hope Zelaya doesn’t try anything else- both for Honduras and for this country’s foreign policy credentials.
