RUSH: The Keynesian Cure. This is a story here that the International Monetary Fund has issued an economic warning for the UK. Of course, the European Union is in a state of disarray, and what did they do? They just spent and spent and spent and spent, they followed the Keynesian theory which says that you spend and spend and spend and create deficits and that will revive an economy and that will create jobs. And of course it didn't over there and it hasn't and it's not working here. "But, Rush, the unemployment numbers are down." Yeah. You take the census workers out of this, folks, and you don't have any gains whatsoever.
EXCEPT IN GOVERNMENT
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Stupid
"I want smart", that was Terry's cry when supporting the great "O". He is so smart, he will figure out our problems.
Smart is letting people be free: free to buy, sell, own, worship, not, win, lose, fail. Smart is enforcing the law and setting fair rules. Smart is hard because freedom and responsibility are sometimes hard to explain and harder to execute especially when a political party specializes in class warfare.
"spreading the wealth around is"...smart?
No, that is just stupid. Spread means, by force take from one and give to another. Spreading creates nothing. There is no government multiplier, to believe there is, is stupid.
Now we must endure the continuing idiocy of our Socialist/Communist president who while he may be believed to be smart, has never created anything or worked in the rough and tumble of the real world.
See...smart...smart does not say this...smart understands that the head of the government cannot make such pronouncements, should not believe this and knows it is stupid to say it and even stupider to believe it.
OBAMA: I want to be clear. We're not -- we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.
So how much is enough?
Smart is letting people be free: free to buy, sell, own, worship, not, win, lose, fail. Smart is enforcing the law and setting fair rules. Smart is hard because freedom and responsibility are sometimes hard to explain and harder to execute especially when a political party specializes in class warfare.
"spreading the wealth around is"...smart?
No, that is just stupid. Spread means, by force take from one and give to another. Spreading creates nothing. There is no government multiplier, to believe there is, is stupid.
Now we must endure the continuing idiocy of our Socialist/Communist president who while he may be believed to be smart, has never created anything or worked in the rough and tumble of the real world.
See...smart...smart does not say this...smart understands that the head of the government cannot make such pronouncements, should not believe this and knows it is stupid to say it and even stupider to believe it.
OBAMA: I want to be clear. We're not -- we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.
So how much is enough?
AZ New Illegal Law
One has to wonder why the President of the United States thinks it is OK to force health care down our throats, and if you do not comply there will be a fine of possible jail time...in other words if asked if you have health care..SHOW YOUR PAPERS. But at the same time, but not in the same breath, says that stopping people and having them "show their papers" is not the right thing to do...Help me out with this...could it be that he is looking for votes...OH no not our loyal, look out for American President.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obama to Appoint Christ to SCOTUS
This found it's way into my mailbox this morning:
President Barack Obama is expected to nominate Jesus Christ, an immigrant originally born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Although Mr. Christ is over 2,000 years old, He is immortal, so Democrats and Republicans expect that He will serve on the high court forever or until He decides to start the End Times.
Republicans are expected to fight the nomination on the grounds that Mr. Christ would radically move the Court to the left. The GOP is also concerned that, despite decades of controversy and speculation, Mr. Christ has never revealed his position on abortion. Mr. Christ, according to many authorities, is expected to oppose the death penalty in all forms. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP national committee, issued a statement: "Christ is a complete mystery to us. He won't reveal His physical appearance and many of His positions are unknown or the subject of speculation. He is a stealth candidate. Why won't He reveal himself? Who does He think He is?"
Republicans are reportedly outraged that Mr. Obama even considered Mr. Christ, who has been widely quoted for his sentiments supporting the poor over the wealthy. In a Facebook post, former half-term Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin called for an investigation into the Bethlehem chapter of ACORN because of what she termed the "highly suspicious" coincidence that both President Obama and Mr. Christ had each spent three years as community organizers. In her post, Palin also wrote that "More and more of good God-fearing smalltime Americans from hardworking smalltime towns from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North, are seeing more and more every day that Christ is a community organizer. We don't need another community organizer in the White House!"
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) asked, "We're not even sure where He was born. Why is He afraid to show us his birth certificate?" Bachmann also announced that she would vote "no" when the Christ nomination came before the House of Representatives. Later, her congressional staff released a statement saying that the Congresswoman had forgotten that the House does not vote on judicial nominations.
According to Rush Limbaugh, "Christ doesn't know anything about free enterprise. This is part of the Obama conspiracy to drag us to socialism. If this guy is approved, I'm moving to Costa Rica." Sobbing, Glenn Beck attacked Christ's support for the separation of church and state, telling his audience "You know who else wanted a separation of church and state? Hitler."
Several Catholic priests were contacted for comment but refused to discuss the issue, and, even though they weren't asked, all emphatically denied that they had personally molested any children.
Democrats are optimistic about their chances of shoving Mr. Christ down the throats of Americans using normal constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Many Democrats are hopeful that Mr. Christ's past associations with prostitutes will earn him at least one Republican vote, that of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
If confirmed, Christ will be the first Supreme Court Justice who has at least one American city named after him: Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
CAPITALISM
IN THE BOOK " THE GREATEST TRADE EVER" John Paulson's personal TAKE amounted to over $10 million A DAY! As many have said something is fundamentally wrong wrong in a financial culture that thrives on "products" that create nothing and produce nothing except new ways to make bigger bets with other peoples money and "stack the deck" in favor of the house. At least in an actual casino, the damage is contained to the gamblers with hopefully their own money. This deal cost the economy 8 million jobs. Let me see if I can put this in simple terms. I secure a mortage for my house, then I buy insurance that pays if I fail to pay my mortage, then I fail to pay my mortage and collect. Seems Fair?
Let's put it old fashion terms, I buy a house and I buy fire insurance and the I set fire to my house how is that any different than what I see on Wall street except I would be arrested for setting fire to my house. That is fraud. Where are the handcuffs! for Wall street!
Let's put it old fashion terms, I buy a house and I buy fire insurance and the I set fire to my house how is that any different than what I see on Wall street except I would be arrested for setting fire to my house. That is fraud. Where are the handcuffs! for Wall street!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Boo
By Mark Steyn
I suppose the thinking runs something like this: All things considered, the polls on Obamacare aren't totally disastrous, and the president's approval numbers seem to have bottomed out in the low 40s, and when you look at what that means in terms of the electoral map this November, you've only got to scare a relatively small percentage of squishy suburban moderate centrists back into the Democratic fold, and how difficult can that be?
Hence Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder-statesman dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing Tea Partiers to the late Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c'mon, they've got everything in common. The Tea Partiers want to reduce the size of government, and so did McVeigh - McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the Tea Partiers through control of federal spending. But these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends. Also, both "Tim" and "tea" are three-letter words beginning with T. Picture him upon your knee, just Tea for Tim and Tim for Tea, you're for him and he's for thee, completely interchangeable. To lend the point more gravitas, Mr. Clinton packed his reading glasses and affected his scholarly look, with the spectacles pushed down toward the end of his nose, as if he were trying to determine whether it was his 10 a.m. intern shuffling toward him across the broadloom or a rabid armadillo Al Gore brought along for the Earth Day photo op.
Will it work? For a long time, Tea Partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say, "I'm becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending," that's old Jim Crow code for "Let's get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson." Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the Tea Party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare opponents were uncomfortable with Rep. Barney Frank's sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank's sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 trillion or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time's Joe Klein said opposition to President Obama was "seditious" because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Mr. Klein, thanks to "educator" William Ayers' education reforms, nobody knows what "seditious" means anymore.
So, enough with all the punch-pulling about seditious racist homophobes. It was time to go for broke and bring out Mr. Clinton to explain why the Tea Party is the new front in the war on terror. Don't worry about Iran's nuclear program, but if you meet a Tea Party supporter waving some placard about the national debt, try not to catch his eye and back away slowly without making any sudden movements lest he put down his placard and light up his suicide belt.
I suppose the thinking runs something like this: All things considered, the polls on Obamacare aren't totally disastrous, and the president's approval numbers seem to have bottomed out in the low 40s, and when you look at what that means in terms of the electoral map this November, you've only got to scare a relatively small percentage of squishy suburban moderate centrists back into the Democratic fold, and how difficult can that be?
Hence Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder-statesman dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing Tea Partiers to the late Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c'mon, they've got everything in common. The Tea Partiers want to reduce the size of government, and so did McVeigh - McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the Tea Partiers through control of federal spending. But these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends. Also, both "Tim" and "tea" are three-letter words beginning with T. Picture him upon your knee, just Tea for Tim and Tim for Tea, you're for him and he's for thee, completely interchangeable. To lend the point more gravitas, Mr. Clinton packed his reading glasses and affected his scholarly look, with the spectacles pushed down toward the end of his nose, as if he were trying to determine whether it was his 10 a.m. intern shuffling toward him across the broadloom or a rabid armadillo Al Gore brought along for the Earth Day photo op.
Will it work? For a long time, Tea Partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say, "I'm becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending," that's old Jim Crow code for "Let's get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson." Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the Tea Party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare opponents were uncomfortable with Rep. Barney Frank's sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank's sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 trillion or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time's Joe Klein said opposition to President Obama was "seditious" because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Mr. Klein, thanks to "educator" William Ayers' education reforms, nobody knows what "seditious" means anymore.
So, enough with all the punch-pulling about seditious racist homophobes. It was time to go for broke and bring out Mr. Clinton to explain why the Tea Party is the new front in the war on terror. Don't worry about Iran's nuclear program, but if you meet a Tea Party supporter waving some placard about the national debt, try not to catch his eye and back away slowly without making any sudden movements lest he put down his placard and light up his suicide belt.
Friday, April 23, 2010
That damn leisure class.
Jonah Goldberg
If We Europeanize, Europe Is in Trouble
We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.
By now you may have heard: America is on its way to becoming another European country.
Now, by that I do not mean that we’re moving our tectonic plate off the coast of France or anything, but rather that a century-long dream of American progressives is finally looking like it might become a reality. The recently passed health-care legislation is the cornerstone of the Europeanization of America. And to pay for it, the White House is now floating the idea of imposing a value-added tax (VAT) like the ones they have throughout most of Europe.
In the egghead-o-sphere, there’s been an ongoing debate about whether America should become more like Europe. The battle lines are split almost perfectly along left-right lines ideologically. Liberals like Europe’s welfare states, unionized workforces (in and out of government), generous benefits, long vacations, etc. Conservatives like America’s economic growth, its dynamism and innovation.
If We Europeanize, Europe Is in Trouble
We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.
By now you may have heard: America is on its way to becoming another European country.
Now, by that I do not mean that we’re moving our tectonic plate off the coast of France or anything, but rather that a century-long dream of American progressives is finally looking like it might become a reality. The recently passed health-care legislation is the cornerstone of the Europeanization of America. And to pay for it, the White House is now floating the idea of imposing a value-added tax (VAT) like the ones they have throughout most of Europe.
In the egghead-o-sphere, there’s been an ongoing debate about whether America should become more like Europe. The battle lines are split almost perfectly along left-right lines ideologically. Liberals like Europe’s welfare states, unionized workforces (in and out of government), generous benefits, long vacations, etc. Conservatives like America’s economic growth, its dynamism and innovation.
illegal immigration
Hummm...I guess like hyperspending and entitlement non reform (which, however, is possible in New Jersey), its just not a good idea to actually do anything about our problems. The problem? The one which is eating up our resources, especially health care? The one where folks plug into a huge entitlement system?
Never enforce the law, no, better just to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy. That is the ticket.
A purple state you say? The one where 80% approve of the new law? The one just passed?
Democratic Dementia:
Never address spending, just raise taxes.
Never admit raising taxes can have a negative impact on collections.
Never ask people to put skin in the game, just increase entitlements.
Never admit that an already strained system cannot handle "illegal immigrants".
Always deny that their country is Conservative
Let's be like Sweden!
Never enforce the law, no, better just to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy. That is the ticket.
A purple state you say? The one where 80% approve of the new law? The one just passed?
Democratic Dementia:
Never address spending, just raise taxes.
Never admit raising taxes can have a negative impact on collections.
Never ask people to put skin in the game, just increase entitlements.
Never admit that an already strained system cannot handle "illegal immigrants".
Always deny that their country is Conservative
Let's be like Sweden!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
BIRTHERS
Arizona has more important things to worry about than Obama's birth certificate, considering their elected politicians have left the state bordering on bankruptcy. They were the last state to recognize Martin Luther King day and have one of the worst education systems in the country.
Their national hero is Barry Goldwater. Oh maybe this birther thing is a distraction by their legislature to keep attention off their incompetence.
The Governor's of Arizona Symington, and Mecham, both left office indicted, and they are worried about the President !!! Can you remember any President being questioned about his citizenship? Smacks of something!!!!
Their national hero is Barry Goldwater. Oh maybe this birther thing is a distraction by their legislature to keep attention off their incompetence.
The Governor's of Arizona Symington, and Mecham, both left office indicted, and they are worried about the President !!! Can you remember any President being questioned about his citizenship? Smacks of something!!!!
YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN THE LEISURE CLASS WHEN:
You know you are in the Leisure Class when:
1) You’re sick and tired of the way they run this golf course.
2) You can’t stand the Home Owner’s Association, but you don’t have time to be on the Board, because it is too much work.
3) You don’t like massages anymore because they ‘kind of hurt.’
4) You want your wife to stop gardening so much, because the hard work is wearing her out.
5) You know all the bank tellers at the local bank branch.
6) You’re just don’t feel up to going to yet another fundraiser.
7) You think Facebook is hard to use.
8) You can’t believe they don’t have more decent restaurants in this town.
9) You think complaining is Work.
10) You think trading stocks on your home computer is Work.
1) You’re sick and tired of the way they run this golf course.
2) You can’t stand the Home Owner’s Association, but you don’t have time to be on the Board, because it is too much work.
3) You don’t like massages anymore because they ‘kind of hurt.’
4) You want your wife to stop gardening so much, because the hard work is wearing her out.
5) You know all the bank tellers at the local bank branch.
6) You’re just don’t feel up to going to yet another fundraiser.
7) You think Facebook is hard to use.
8) You can’t believe they don’t have more decent restaurants in this town.
9) You think complaining is Work.
10) You think trading stocks on your home computer is Work.
This one has Terry written all over it.
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations." In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it. "This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said. I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations." In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it. "This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said. I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
Sunday, April 18, 2010
This is want I want done. These are the hard decisions I want our President to make. Not class warfare. Speak to us as adults!
Last November, voters in New Jersey and Virginia tried to send a message to President Obama by electing Republican governors in the only gubernatorial elections held in 2009. But while conservatives were excited about Virginia's Bob McDonnell, they were less enthusiastic about New Jersey's Chris Christie.
Christie had been largely viewed as the more moderate candidate in the primary, in which he defeated conservative Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. What is more, while the Republican base was delighted to witness the defeat of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, conservatives were skeptical that Christie could make much of a difference in New Jersey.
Just a few short months later, however, Chris Christie has become an emerging conservative hero, mostly by standing up for fiscal sanity in the Garden State. Almost immediately upon taking office, he passed pension and benefits reform. That meant public workers must contribute toward their own health care and it also created a formula for determining the pensions for newly hired employees. He also signed an executive order on transparency, forcing government agencies to post expenditures online with a search engine attached.
It's starting to earn him national attention. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn noted, "If he is to survive the headlines about budget cuts and pull New Jersey back to prosperity, Mr. Christie knows he needs to put the hard choices before the state's citizens, and to speak to them as adults. He's doing just that."
And at a "Newsmaker Breakfast" sponsored by The American Spectator and Americans for Tax Reform last week, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said, "Christie is actually trying to fundamentally change New Jersey..." In a world where politicians are rewarded for taking the easy road, the portly and rumpled governor of New Jersey has become a rare commodity – an elected official willing to make hard decisions, despite the fact that he knows it will cost him politically.
Christie has been in office only a few months, but his hard-line on cutting New Jersey's unwieldy $10.7 billion budget deficit has already taken its toll on his polling numbers. In just a few months, his approval ratings have plummeted. Local officials and Democrats are angry that he wants to cut spending, and that he won't let them raise taxes. At the same time, Christie may be doing exactly what is needed to save his state from further economic calamity. Perhaps this is what we should have expected from a man with the moxie to tell Governor Corzine, "man up and say I'm fat."
Despite the criticism, Christie has stayed the course, which for him means addressing New Jersey's devastated state finances by dramatically cutting spending. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, recalls that the last New Jersey Republican governor, Christine Todd Whitman, "started to fight with the unions and there was screaming and blood on the floor, and she kind of backed down." In terms of how Christie is doing, Norquist quips, "Christie 2.0 is doing better than Christie 1.0."
But it's not easy. Chris Christie's bold action on the budget reflects the sad realities facing the state. For his troubles, Christie has been accused of championing a "slash-and-burn budget." Cutting spending is a popular idea right up until the time a governor actually trims a specific program. At that point, whoever's ox has been gored tugs on the heartstrings of the public and the media by portraying the spending cutter as mean-spirited. Just to give you an idea of how it works, an ad funded by the New Jersey Education Association that is running in the state says Christie is "attacking teachers, school bus drivers and lunch ladies,"
It's political smears like that one that petrify politicians into kicking fiscal problems down the road – and induce governors and legislatures (and presidents and congresses) to ignore painful, but necessary fixes to their own economies. the upshot is that spending almost never gets cut, and taxes continue to rise to cover it. High taxes exacerbate the effects of a sour economy, and a vicious cycle ensues.
For this reason, Chris Christie's political courage is impressive. "How it happens is, you raise spending out of control," Christie explained on Morning Joe. "Over the last twenty years, spending has averaged 16 percent increase a year on the state level ... and you raise taxes 115 times in the last eight years, so you kill your revenue base. You do the two of them, it's a double-whammy..."
But whether Christie can turn New Jersey around or not, his willingness to make bold decisions – and stand firm on them -- may just help Republicans who are running in 2010 overcome the public's skepticism as to whether, once in office, they really will cut spending and not raise taxes. It very well may be that Christie's efforts in New Jersey will send a signal to Republican voters that help is on the way, and that it's not just politics as usual.
Christie had been largely viewed as the more moderate candidate in the primary, in which he defeated conservative Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. What is more, while the Republican base was delighted to witness the defeat of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, conservatives were skeptical that Christie could make much of a difference in New Jersey.
Just a few short months later, however, Chris Christie has become an emerging conservative hero, mostly by standing up for fiscal sanity in the Garden State. Almost immediately upon taking office, he passed pension and benefits reform. That meant public workers must contribute toward their own health care and it also created a formula for determining the pensions for newly hired employees. He also signed an executive order on transparency, forcing government agencies to post expenditures online with a search engine attached.
It's starting to earn him national attention. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn noted, "If he is to survive the headlines about budget cuts and pull New Jersey back to prosperity, Mr. Christie knows he needs to put the hard choices before the state's citizens, and to speak to them as adults. He's doing just that."
And at a "Newsmaker Breakfast" sponsored by The American Spectator and Americans for Tax Reform last week, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said, "Christie is actually trying to fundamentally change New Jersey..." In a world where politicians are rewarded for taking the easy road, the portly and rumpled governor of New Jersey has become a rare commodity – an elected official willing to make hard decisions, despite the fact that he knows it will cost him politically.
Christie has been in office only a few months, but his hard-line on cutting New Jersey's unwieldy $10.7 billion budget deficit has already taken its toll on his polling numbers. In just a few months, his approval ratings have plummeted. Local officials and Democrats are angry that he wants to cut spending, and that he won't let them raise taxes. At the same time, Christie may be doing exactly what is needed to save his state from further economic calamity. Perhaps this is what we should have expected from a man with the moxie to tell Governor Corzine, "man up and say I'm fat."
Despite the criticism, Christie has stayed the course, which for him means addressing New Jersey's devastated state finances by dramatically cutting spending. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, recalls that the last New Jersey Republican governor, Christine Todd Whitman, "started to fight with the unions and there was screaming and blood on the floor, and she kind of backed down." In terms of how Christie is doing, Norquist quips, "Christie 2.0 is doing better than Christie 1.0."
But it's not easy. Chris Christie's bold action on the budget reflects the sad realities facing the state. For his troubles, Christie has been accused of championing a "slash-and-burn budget." Cutting spending is a popular idea right up until the time a governor actually trims a specific program. At that point, whoever's ox has been gored tugs on the heartstrings of the public and the media by portraying the spending cutter as mean-spirited. Just to give you an idea of how it works, an ad funded by the New Jersey Education Association that is running in the state says Christie is "attacking teachers, school bus drivers and lunch ladies,"
It's political smears like that one that petrify politicians into kicking fiscal problems down the road – and induce governors and legislatures (and presidents and congresses) to ignore painful, but necessary fixes to their own economies. the upshot is that spending almost never gets cut, and taxes continue to rise to cover it. High taxes exacerbate the effects of a sour economy, and a vicious cycle ensues.
For this reason, Chris Christie's political courage is impressive. "How it happens is, you raise spending out of control," Christie explained on Morning Joe. "Over the last twenty years, spending has averaged 16 percent increase a year on the state level ... and you raise taxes 115 times in the last eight years, so you kill your revenue base. You do the two of them, it's a double-whammy..."
But whether Christie can turn New Jersey around or not, his willingness to make bold decisions – and stand firm on them -- may just help Republicans who are running in 2010 overcome the public's skepticism as to whether, once in office, they really will cut spending and not raise taxes. It very well may be that Christie's efforts in New Jersey will send a signal to Republican voters that help is on the way, and that it's not just politics as usual.
Rep[ublican History
What do Republicans have against history? You'd think conservatives would know a lot about the old times that they presumably want to conserve? First the TX textbook crowd decides Thomas Aquinas is more relevant to US history than Thomas Jefferson. (Somebody tell Michele Bachmann to quit wearing shirts quoting Jefferson) Then the governor of VA forgets that a little ole thing called slavery might have had just teensy weensy bit of relevance in the Civil War. & now Newt can't recall that his shutting down the government backfired. If memory serves correctly, Newt & Clinton flew home from a funeral & Newt didn't get to sit up in the front of the plane with Clinton -- that & not any more lofty reason was the proximate cause of the shutdown
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Baxter's Fav SCOTUS Prospects
Pamela Karlan – Stanford Professor, Yale Law, reliable liberal. Is America ready for it’s first openly lesbian justice? I hope so.
Jennifer Granholm – Governor of Michigan, Harvard Law, great combination of education and practical experience. Downside? She’s not Protestant, which will leave the court without a member of the nation’s largest religious group.
Elena Kagan – Solicitor General, Harvard Law, should be the most confirmable of the three. Center/Left – defers to government on security issues. Downside? Also not a Protesttant – not that it should matter.
These are not predictions – though Kagan appears to be the conventional wisdom favorite. These are my personal favs. They are united by one quality – they are all young – 50 and under. The last 3 GOP picks were relatively young men that will be around awhile. Obama’s first selection was a 55-year-old smoker. He needs to think in terms of longevity…
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
It is theirs
Much as Conservatives oppose "Obamanation", he and the Democrats got their way.
The economy is theirs, we can argue forever regarding the cause but the proposed solution has been purely Democratic.
Their stimulus.
Their Health care.
Their management of TARP, GM and Unions.
Their management of the expiration of the "Bush" tax cuts.
Conservatives have steadfastly opposed their solution and essentially contributed no votes.
So now it is their unemployment, their health care costs, their taxes, their...everything.
Soon, in November, we are going to have a referendum and voters will see success and support what has been done (or be willing to wait for success) or...
They are going to exact retribution.
We shall see.
The economy is theirs, we can argue forever regarding the cause but the proposed solution has been purely Democratic.
Their stimulus.
Their Health care.
Their management of TARP, GM and Unions.
Their management of the expiration of the "Bush" tax cuts.
Conservatives have steadfastly opposed their solution and essentially contributed no votes.
So now it is their unemployment, their health care costs, their taxes, their...everything.
Soon, in November, we are going to have a referendum and voters will see success and support what has been done (or be willing to wait for success) or...
They are going to exact retribution.
We shall see.
Flawless
If you think that Snooki getting socked in the kisser during an episode of "Jersey Shore" epitomizes life in the Garden State, you haven't been paying attention. The best reality show on television today isn't running on MTV. It's in Trenton, where Gov. Chris Christie is offering the voters a dose of Reagan Republicanism—with a Jersey twist.
When he was elected back in November, Mr. Christie's victory was thought to augur growing disenchantment with Barack Obama. For the former federal prosecutor, however, his victory was primarily about local disenchantment with New Jersey's overtaxed economy and spendthrift government. Now he is in the thick of what will probably be the defining moment of his governorship: the attempt to enshrine his vision for the future in the state budget.
Budgets are serious business, but it's been a long time since anyone in New Jersey has been serious about the budget. This year, gross mismanagement and accumulated fictions have left state taxpayers a $10.7 billion gap on a total state budget of $29.3 billion. Mr. Christie's answer is simple: "a smaller government that lives within its means."
However quaint that may sound, when you have to cut nearly $11 billion in state spending to get there, you are going to get a lot of yelling and screaming. Most comes from the New Jersey Education Association, hollering that "the children" will be hurt by Mr. Christie's proposals for teachers to accept a one-year wage freeze and begin contributing something toward their health plans. What makes the battle interesting is the way Mr. Christie is throwing the old chestnuts back at his critics.
Here are a few examples, culled from his budget address, public meetings and radio appearances:
The children will be the ones to suffer from your education cuts. "The real question is, who's for the kids, and who's for their raises? This isn't about the kids. Let's dispense with that portion of the argument. Don't let them tell you that ever again while they are reaching into your pockets."
Your policies favor the rich. "We have the worst unemployment in the region and the highest taxes in America, and that's no coincidence."
Why not renew the 'millionaire's tax'? "The top 1% of taxpayers in New Jersey pay 40% of the income tax. In addition, we've got a situation where that tax applies to small businesses. I'm simply not going to put my foot on the back of the neck of small business while I want them to try to grow jobs by giving more revenue to New Jersey."
Budget cuts are unfair. "The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word—which, coincidentally, is my 9-year-old son's favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—'unfair.' . . . One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?"
State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns. "[L]et's remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that's just outrageous. And they're going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession."
Isn't your talk of 'stopping the tax madness' just another 'Read My Lips' promise? "[Mine is] much better than 'Read my lips.' I'm sorry, it's just much better. Much stronger. . . . It's gonna be how my governorship will rise or fall. I'm not signing a tax increase."
In some ways, Mr. Christie can speak bluntly precisely because the state is such a mess. Indeed, that's one reason he won election in a blue state. The challenge remains daunting: No governor has yet succeeded in turning around a state as overtaxed and overspent as New Jersey. Indiana under Gov. Mitch Daniels probably comes closest, but Indiana was not nearly as bad as New Jersey.
If he is to survive the headlines about budget cuts and pull New Jersey back to prosperity, Mr. Christie knows he needs to put the hard choices before the state's citizens, and to speak to them as adults. He's doing just that. One reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger summed up Mr. Christie's rhetoric this way: "[F]inally we have a governor who is as teed off as the rest of us at how government spending and taxes have skyrocketed over the past decade."
It's far too early to declare Mr. Christie's Jersey-style Reaganism a success. But it's the one reality show truly worth watching.
When he was elected back in November, Mr. Christie's victory was thought to augur growing disenchantment with Barack Obama. For the former federal prosecutor, however, his victory was primarily about local disenchantment with New Jersey's overtaxed economy and spendthrift government. Now he is in the thick of what will probably be the defining moment of his governorship: the attempt to enshrine his vision for the future in the state budget.
Budgets are serious business, but it's been a long time since anyone in New Jersey has been serious about the budget. This year, gross mismanagement and accumulated fictions have left state taxpayers a $10.7 billion gap on a total state budget of $29.3 billion. Mr. Christie's answer is simple: "a smaller government that lives within its means."
However quaint that may sound, when you have to cut nearly $11 billion in state spending to get there, you are going to get a lot of yelling and screaming. Most comes from the New Jersey Education Association, hollering that "the children" will be hurt by Mr. Christie's proposals for teachers to accept a one-year wage freeze and begin contributing something toward their health plans. What makes the battle interesting is the way Mr. Christie is throwing the old chestnuts back at his critics.
Here are a few examples, culled from his budget address, public meetings and radio appearances:
The children will be the ones to suffer from your education cuts. "The real question is, who's for the kids, and who's for their raises? This isn't about the kids. Let's dispense with that portion of the argument. Don't let them tell you that ever again while they are reaching into your pockets."
Your policies favor the rich. "We have the worst unemployment in the region and the highest taxes in America, and that's no coincidence."
Why not renew the 'millionaire's tax'? "The top 1% of taxpayers in New Jersey pay 40% of the income tax. In addition, we've got a situation where that tax applies to small businesses. I'm simply not going to put my foot on the back of the neck of small business while I want them to try to grow jobs by giving more revenue to New Jersey."
Budget cuts are unfair. "The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word—which, coincidentally, is my 9-year-old son's favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—'unfair.' . . . One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?"
State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns. "[L]et's remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that's just outrageous. And they're going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession."
Isn't your talk of 'stopping the tax madness' just another 'Read My Lips' promise? "[Mine is] much better than 'Read my lips.' I'm sorry, it's just much better. Much stronger. . . . It's gonna be how my governorship will rise or fall. I'm not signing a tax increase."
In some ways, Mr. Christie can speak bluntly precisely because the state is such a mess. Indeed, that's one reason he won election in a blue state. The challenge remains daunting: No governor has yet succeeded in turning around a state as overtaxed and overspent as New Jersey. Indiana under Gov. Mitch Daniels probably comes closest, but Indiana was not nearly as bad as New Jersey.
If he is to survive the headlines about budget cuts and pull New Jersey back to prosperity, Mr. Christie knows he needs to put the hard choices before the state's citizens, and to speak to them as adults. He's doing just that. One reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger summed up Mr. Christie's rhetoric this way: "[F]inally we have a governor who is as teed off as the rest of us at how government spending and taxes have skyrocketed over the past decade."
It's far too early to declare Mr. Christie's Jersey-style Reaganism a success. But it's the one reality show truly worth watching.
Friday, April 9, 2010
What a shocker! :),
Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, targeted for defeat by Tea Party activists for his crucial role in securing House approval of the health-care overhaul, said Friday he would retire from Congress this year.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Drumbeat Begins
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406
Obviously, my drumbeat began some time ago, but we are hearing more and more about the necessity of additional revenues.
Social Security was supposed to fall into deficit around 2015-2016 according to projections as late as 2008. The deficit will arrive this year. Our fiscal circumstances are much bleaker than most folks realize.
This is the new Era of Responsibility and our leaders will be facing many big issues, like it or not. We'll see if the GOP acts responsibly or decides that political expediency trumps all. With the views of the Republican base and the Tea Party movement, it will take courage that I do not see on the right side of the aisle.
Monday, April 5, 2010
RESPONSE
I'm having a hard time following, Jim; I think a demagogue is a person. And 'appauding' must be a typo. Other than that I assume you are taking up the Ayn Rand torch in her absence.
About a hundred years ago, we had a widespread national problem when some successful business owners cut costs by treating their employees like chinese peasants. So we established a few guidelines.
Then about 80 years ago, the financial markets collapsed after a run up in prices was fueled by excessive leveraging of paper investments and boisterous animal spirits. ('Animal spirits' being the economist's euphemistic shorthand explanation for why otherwise intelligent people invest irrationally as a herd.) As a consequence, several well designed laws were put into place to prevent financial institutions from engaging in wild short term speculation with other people's savings.
Beginning about 30 years ago, believing that we had entered a new more rational era, we repealed those laws. Not altogether surprisingly, their repeal has had a disastrous outcome.
What we should probably do is go back to separating depository institutions from proprietary trading activities. Also, we need to register financial transactions so that market participants are well informed. This simple strategy would provide immediate relief to investment markets. Lenders, borrowers, and speculators would all feel that they were once again on solid ground -- able to assess risk in a stable business environment.
It seems to me that the recent financial collapse has caused a widespread fear of further financial ruin. This seems to be surfacing as a lot of talk about socialism, anarchy, totalitarianism, and the like.
I don't see the relevance. The top tax rate, the year I was born (1959) was 91%. It's much lower now.
I do see the deleterious effect of irresponsibly biased mass media. I do see the pernicious loss of my personal rights. And as a businessperson I am all too aware of the explosion in regulations of all types.
So, I support political fixes to these problems and apply the maxim that 'Less is More.'
However, I'm far more concerned about tracking my cholesterol or my blood pressure than I am about terrorists. And I really don't see the commies making a big comeback anytime soon.
Luckily for us, advances in technology are and will continue to improve productivity in the workplace. The internet is only beginning to reap benefits -- with much more to follow.
One possibility is that life has never been better, and that it will continue to improve.
About a hundred years ago, we had a widespread national problem when some successful business owners cut costs by treating their employees like chinese peasants. So we established a few guidelines.
Then about 80 years ago, the financial markets collapsed after a run up in prices was fueled by excessive leveraging of paper investments and boisterous animal spirits. ('Animal spirits' being the economist's euphemistic shorthand explanation for why otherwise intelligent people invest irrationally as a herd.) As a consequence, several well designed laws were put into place to prevent financial institutions from engaging in wild short term speculation with other people's savings.
Beginning about 30 years ago, believing that we had entered a new more rational era, we repealed those laws. Not altogether surprisingly, their repeal has had a disastrous outcome.
What we should probably do is go back to separating depository institutions from proprietary trading activities. Also, we need to register financial transactions so that market participants are well informed. This simple strategy would provide immediate relief to investment markets. Lenders, borrowers, and speculators would all feel that they were once again on solid ground -- able to assess risk in a stable business environment.
It seems to me that the recent financial collapse has caused a widespread fear of further financial ruin. This seems to be surfacing as a lot of talk about socialism, anarchy, totalitarianism, and the like.
I don't see the relevance. The top tax rate, the year I was born (1959) was 91%. It's much lower now.
I do see the deleterious effect of irresponsibly biased mass media. I do see the pernicious loss of my personal rights. And as a businessperson I am all too aware of the explosion in regulations of all types.
So, I support political fixes to these problems and apply the maxim that 'Less is More.'
However, I'm far more concerned about tracking my cholesterol or my blood pressure than I am about terrorists. And I really don't see the commies making a big comeback anytime soon.
Luckily for us, advances in technology are and will continue to improve productivity in the workplace. The internet is only beginning to reap benefits -- with much more to follow.
One possibility is that life has never been better, and that it will continue to improve.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
So - if you aren't ready to eliminate those programs that Americans strongly support, you have to be HONEST and acknowledge the need to massively raise revenues. We have a structural deficit.
Can you say Condescending?
When we repeatedly state how to manage the budget and then you state we don't and make comments like this...well then aren't we feeling pretty.
How to balance the budget, which by the way, college grads most of us, "understand". By structural, you mean...we promised too much.
First stop digging a hole.
Stop funding the rest of the stimulus which has been a big, huge waste of money.
Don't implement health care "reform" which is going to really bust the bank.
Implement tax cuts to stimulate the economy, lower the unemployment rate, and raise revenue by growing the economy.
Raise the retirement age.
Reduce Colas
Institute market based health care reform to reduce costs by increasing patient participation in their care, including Medicare.
Now...that may or may not "balance" the budget (probably would) but it would not, as is happening now, take the deficit into hyper drive, due to the L/P/S drive to take over the American economy.
Your side is a joke. Like we did not see this coming from a mile away.
First it was, if we could just return to the Clinton era tax rates. Now, we need an excise tax on the wealthy to pay for health care. And best of all, now we need big tax increases to pay for the "supply side deficits" which until 2007 were a small part of GDP (and would have been absent if the L/P/S had let there be cuts in the proposed increases of programs-let me guess, you have conveniently forgotten your party's demagogue), without ever considering, "hey lets first quit digging a bigger hole".
Socialism, government control of industry, taking the productivity of the people to pay for governments control. Why are you "scared" of the word? It is what the "o" is doing. Its true.
You also seem to be throwing in the towel on controlling the growth of government and its spending (or in your case appauding), which is in contrast to the purpose of the Tea Party Movement.
Through out history, idiots have deemed an "overreaction" to objections about loss of freedoms. But history has given us lots of Hitler's and other tyrants of the same ilk.
Our government is controlling a larger share of the economy, spending money of future generations, creating a ever growing workforce to support itself, attacking industry after industry and you are not worried? Fool.
Can you say Condescending?
When we repeatedly state how to manage the budget and then you state we don't and make comments like this...well then aren't we feeling pretty.
How to balance the budget, which by the way, college grads most of us, "understand". By structural, you mean...we promised too much.
First stop digging a hole.
Stop funding the rest of the stimulus which has been a big, huge waste of money.
Don't implement health care "reform" which is going to really bust the bank.
Implement tax cuts to stimulate the economy, lower the unemployment rate, and raise revenue by growing the economy.
Raise the retirement age.
Reduce Colas
Institute market based health care reform to reduce costs by increasing patient participation in their care, including Medicare.
Now...that may or may not "balance" the budget (probably would) but it would not, as is happening now, take the deficit into hyper drive, due to the L/P/S drive to take over the American economy.
Your side is a joke. Like we did not see this coming from a mile away.
First it was, if we could just return to the Clinton era tax rates. Now, we need an excise tax on the wealthy to pay for health care. And best of all, now we need big tax increases to pay for the "supply side deficits" which until 2007 were a small part of GDP (and would have been absent if the L/P/S had let there be cuts in the proposed increases of programs-let me guess, you have conveniently forgotten your party's demagogue), without ever considering, "hey lets first quit digging a bigger hole".
Socialism, government control of industry, taking the productivity of the people to pay for governments control. Why are you "scared" of the word? It is what the "o" is doing. Its true.
You also seem to be throwing in the towel on controlling the growth of government and its spending (or in your case appauding), which is in contrast to the purpose of the Tea Party Movement.
Through out history, idiots have deemed an "overreaction" to objections about loss of freedoms. But history has given us lots of Hitler's and other tyrants of the same ilk.
Our government is controlling a larger share of the economy, spending money of future generations, creating a ever growing workforce to support itself, attacking industry after industry and you are not worried? Fool.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)