August 8, 2011

Obama’s New CAFE Standards Will Cost Us All More Money

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Obama administration has been touting new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to be imposed on America’s automobile manufacturers saying that it will save all Americans money at the pumps. Unfortunately, there are all sorts of hidden costs of which the administration isn’t noting, costs that will drive up the price of driving in multiple ways for all of us.

The new standards are supposed to raise the miles per gallon requirements from the 2016 mandate of 35.5 mpg to 56 mpg by the year 2025. The administration claims that this would be a big savings and would serve to help get Americans off a reliance on foreign oil.

Curiously, as Obama touts his new CAFE standards as a way to get us off foreign oil, there is no talk at all of increasing domestic oil production which would help do the same thing. But I digress.

Still, even if raising the mpg standards is a good idea, at this time automotive technology can’t reach that goal. Because of that, the car companies will have to spend billions in research and development to reach the new requirements. This will cause an added cost that isn’t being considered.

This new wave of R&D and the subsequent finished products based on that research is estimated to add up to $6,000 to the cost of every new car by 2025. Sadly, this would price low-end car buyers right out of the new car market.

Additionally, the rising prices of new cars would necessarily be followed by higher prices for used cars. This would also price those low-end buyers out of the used market.

But, let’s say that the new mpg requirements will, indeed, save Americans money because they will be buying fewer gallons of gasoline per year. Even were that true these savings will have other “unintended” consequences.

The first thing that one has to realize is, if Americans are buying fewer gallons of gas, the intake of gasoline taxes would necessarily correspondingly fall with the fewer gallons bought. Naturally, the states would not want to follow that by spending less on the roads and transportation projects that those taxes are earmarked to fund.

Naturally, the first idea that the federal government and the states would resort to might be a hike in gas taxes. This would hit every driver on every gallon of gas somewhat mitigating the fewer gallons bought. And with the extra costs of the new cars this would wipe out any savings driver’s might find with their fewer gallons bought.

The idea of raising gas taxes has been a hard sell for quite a while, of course. AOL’s AutoBlog addressed this subject last year with an interview with Michigan Democrat John Dingell.

Gas taxes are the single most unpopular tax an elected official can foist upon a voter according to elected officials. A couple of years ago, I had lunch with Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who has held the Southeast Michigan seat since Eisenhower was President. Seriously. He agreed that it was a smart and sound policy, but one that “kills you with the voters.”

Even if lawmakers balk at raising gas taxes, there are plenty of other ways that they could dip their hands deeper into your pockets.

One idea that has been floated by various lefty groups is to build more toll roads around urban centers. This, they clam, will help reduce “road congestion.” In other words, they want you to stay out of your cars, they want as much as possible to limit your freedom of movement.

But toll roads have other politically attractive components. New toll roads means building new tollbooths. It also means new state jobs, new union jobs, and more money and government control over your life. It also means enlarging the constituency for Democrats. Very attractive ideas, indeed.

Another idea that the Obama administration has floated is an annual vehicle mileage tax. A yearly mileage tax hits suburban and rural citizens hard because they drive so much more to get to work than city dwellers do. The low to middle-income folks outside of the big cities would find costs to get to work soar under this idea.

These are just a few ideas being floated by lawmakers to put a further burden on America’s drivers, new CAFÉ standards or no.

With our luck, with the Obama Administration’s new CAFE standards we’ll be hit by all these things in varying degrees costing us all more money in the long run. Like with most every scheme of “savings” the administration floats, they’re gonna cost ya.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:37 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Energy, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, News, Oil drilling/resources, Politics As Usual, Recession/Depression, Taxes, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Obameconomy: Companies Flee U.S. For Greener Pastures

As we watch the world markets plunge due to the US downgrade, and await the opening of the US markets, we await Mr. Obama to finally make some sort of public statement about the downgrade. Something. Anything. Though, some sort of positive motivational speech would be nice. Remember when people whined about President Bush always pushing a positive spin? Works quite a bit better than doom, gloom, and blamestorming. The NY Times is saying that the second coming US (official) recession could be worse than the first. And companies have had enough of the Democrat lengthened recession

La Times: Many major U.S. companies are making big plans to expand overseas even as some of them announce new layoffs at home, and there’s a chilling reason why: They’re beginning to give up on the American consumer as a source of future growth.

Can you blame them? Consumers have pulled back on their purchasing, even while the government expands their own spending. Consumers are concerned about the economy of the USA, and their own personal finances, so they tend to not spend willy nilly. But, is it the consumers at fault, or the insane and anti-capitalistic policies of government?

For years, U.S. companies went off shore to get cheaper labor and lower manufacturing costs for products to be sold to Americans. Now, as the nation’s economy stalls and personal incomes stagnate, they see consumers in Asia and Latin America as offering brighter prospects for future sales and profits.

Obviously, the Liberal answer is that those big meanie companies should be forced to pay their workers more. I challenge these same liberals to pony up and pay their own workers more, even if it is simply giving the babysitter an extra $10 a shift. Not so easy when it’s your own money on the line, is it.

The nation’s tax laws reinforce the pattern. American companies have piled up mountains of profits overseas, but they must pay very high taxes if they bring the money home. So instead of investing back home, they are more apt to put the money into overseas expansion, adding jobs there.

That shifting focus is one reason new job growth here has slowed to a trickle in recent months. And without more jobs to propel incomes and consumer spending, the U.S. economy is looking increasingly vulnerable to a prolonged period of sluggishness, if not outright recession.

It’s a simple equation: stop passing needless and burdensome regulations on the job creators. Eliminate those same that have already been passed. Streamline the tax code, especially for businesses, and reduce the tax rates for companies that bring money (and jobs) back to the USA. Reduce government mandates that businesses must do X. Give companies a reason to do business in the United States. The attempt to install socialistic economic models has shown that they are doomed to fail, as they always do.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:55 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Communism, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Liberal Media/Bias, New York Times, News, Recession/Depression, Socialism, Taxes, Unemployment, corporatism, liberalism, pork spending

Trackback URL:

Trace Gas Necessary For Life Will Slow The Earth’s Rotation

Hysteria time, via the HuffPuff

Temperatures are rising and doing so at increasingly faster rates.

That would be a shock to UN IPCC chairman Pachauri. And lots of others, such Kevin Trenbarth, who can’t account for the lack of warming. And Phil “no statistically significant warming since 1995” Jones.

We are literally slowing down the rotation of the globe and doing so at an increasingly faster rate.*

*Think ice skater, whose spinning speed increases as she pulls her arms closer and slows down as she extends her arms. The same happens to the planet: As polar ice melts, water distributes to the equator, expanding the planet’s bulge and slowing its rotation — by fractions of a second, but amazingly it is already measurable. And we know it’s happening at an increasing rate.

Link, please? I understand the science behind this, and the way the equatorial bulge works, but, I was unable to find any study, or even a proper link, that would show that the Earth is slowing down due to melting ice caps caused by man induced global warming. Not to mention that this has basically been happening for billions of years due to the changing climate and shifting continental plates.

All are clearly linked to global warming, yet none of them are quite strong enough to spur us into action. What will it take to make that happen?

How about you alarmists practicing what you preach? That would be a start.

Hurricanes don’t. Katrina was catastrophic but apparently not dramatic enough (and, of course, no single hurricane can be linked to global warming anyway, although it’s clear that their intensity goes up on a warming planet). Record droughts, floods and other catastrophes don’t seem to convince the unconvinceable either, largely for the same reasons.

Actually, storms tend to be worse during cooler periods, as you expose cool, dry air to warm, moist air. Funny how the hurricanes have died out in our world where the “Temperatures are rising and doing so at increasingly faster rates.” We are well over a 1,000 days since the last hurricane made landfall on the USA (Ike, 2008), and 2,113 days since the last major (category 3) hurricane, being Wilma on October 24, 2005.

But, don’t worry, the alarmists aren’t hysterical or anything. They would never say the polar bears will die off overnight.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:24 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, News

Trackback URL:

August 7, 2011

Washington Post Writes About “GOP-Anti Tax Orthodoxy” As If It’s A Bad Thing

Of course, amongst the whole range of Democrat voters…liberals/progressives/socialists/anarchists…..refusing to raise taxes on That Guy (not themselves) is a bad thing

The Republican Party once had a home for the thinking of Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss. But that party is long gone.

The three U.S. senators banded together a few months ago in support of higher tax revenue as a means of balancing the federal budget. Even with drastic spending cuts, they concluded, Washington could not vanquish its soaring $14.3 trillion debt without additional income.

Of course it couldn’t, because Washington will not make those cuts (Reagan is still waiting for the $3 in cuts for ever $1 in tax increases from his deal to work with Democrats) until the bottom completely falls out. And, come on, seriously, what do you think would happen if Washington was given tax increases? That’s right, they’d spend them. We saw this same thing with the increased revenue from the “Bush tax cuts for the rich”: Congress and Bush just ramped up the spending with all the extra tax revenues.

Such reasoning was common in the GOP circa 1963, when Republicans denounced tax cuts proposed by President John F. Kennedy as a road to red ink and rampant inflation. But today’s GOP adheres to a “no new taxes” orthodoxy that has proved far more powerful than the desire to balance the budget. As House Speaker John A. Boehner has said: Raising taxes is “unacceptable and a non-starter.”

Today’s GOP has changed over the past almost 50 years. So have the Democrats. Shockingly, people change. I’d be more impressed with the Dem position on taxation if all the Dem voters said “tax ME” and actually sent more money to the federal and state revenue departments.

This orthodoxy is now woven so deeply into the party’s identity that all but 13 of 288 GOP lawmakers in Congress have signed a formal pledge not to raise taxes. The strategist who invented the pledge, Grover G. Norquist, compares it to a brand, like Coca-Cola, built on “quality control” so that Republican voters know they will get “the same thing every time.”

Loyalty to the brand is so strong that no Republican has voted for a major federal tax increase since 1991, Norquist says. It is so widespread that more than a dozen governors and hundreds of state legislators now count themselves as adherents. And it is so well defended that its followers are constantly patrolling at both the state and federal levels for new forms of trespass.

The article writer, Lori Montgomery, writes that like it’s a bad thing. However, the GOP is not strictly against tax increases: we are against stupid tax increases. Raising the tax rates on those who produce the jobs is….stupid! Just like passing laws that create burdensome and costly regulations is a Bad Idea. Democrats think that, somehow, doing both will spur economic growth, rather than stifle it. Companies, small to large, have to make a profit. Of course, Democrats always think that That Company (not theirs) shouldn’t make a profit, because profits for That Company (not theirs) are evil.

Major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 also contributed to the decline in revenue — and helped drive up budget deficits. Today, the spiraling debt ranks well ahead of too-high taxes on the list of economic concerns. And the GOP’s hard line on the issue stands, alongside Democratic resistance to cutting federal retirement benefits, as the biggest obstacle to a bipartisan agreement to tackle that problem.

We’re provided with the standard Democrat talking point that tax revenues fell, which they did not. And, an important part, those tax cuts, which were for all income levels, increased tax revenues to the States, through higher spending which increases sales tax revenues, property taxes through purchase of homes and vehicles, and income taxes through more people working. You do have to love how the GOP has a “hard line”, but, Dems only have “resistance” when it comes to reining in the out of control entitlements, among which Obamacare will add tremendously.

You want more revenue, Democrats? Get people back to work in the private sector. Government jobs simply shift money taken from the private sector from government to government employee and back to the government. No new revenues are created.

Oh, and be a dear and pony up some extra cash for the IRS. Walk the talk, liberals!

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:26 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Bush/GW, Congress, Debate, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, GOP, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Liberal World, News, Political chameleons, Politics As Usual, Republicans, Senate, Socialism, State Government, Taxes, corporatism, government media, liberalism

Trackback URL:

August 6, 2011

Unions: On the Outside Looking In At Political Power?

-By Warner Todd Huston

Since Obama began his run for the White House he has been Big Labor’s best friend. And they loved him for it, too. As Obama ran and as soon as he got into office the unions had stars in their eyes. They thought that with a bought and paid for president in their hip pocket, every long dreamed of union wish was about to be fulfilled.

You can’t really blame them, of course. Obama did nothing but work to let them believe he’d do everything they wanted once safely in the White House. They gave him millions of dollars and he gave them rosy promises. But they are starting to feel duped.

To be sure Obama has done more for Big Labor than any other president in American history. He’s stocked his entire regulatory edifice with union hacks, he’s issued executive orders to force federal contractors to pay union dues, wages, pensions and to work under union rules even when said companies aren’t unionized, and he’s used his powers to regulate to attack companies that dare to cross swords with Big Labor.

That seems like quite a lot of chips being cashed in, doesn’t it? It sure seems like Big Labor is riding high in the era of Obama, right?

While from the outside we can look at all the favors that Obama has doled out to Big Labor and imagine that unions have been given so very much, one has only to read what Big Labor itself has said about the Obama administration and you’ll find that all is not honey and roses in the land of Big Labor.

Take for instance the recent piece written by union author Randy Shaw. After scolding Big Labor for not putting any effort into fighting Obama’s signing of the debt deal, union writer Shaw lamented that the unions are so sold to the Democrat Party that they wont activate their members when the Democrats are pursuing policies bad for unions.

Shaw correctly notes that Big Labor has “lost” the big agenda that it went into the age of Obama expecting to see to fruition, namely the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Lamented Shaw, “EFCA died in 2009, immigration reform is off the political radar screen, and passage of job-killing free-trade deals candidate Obama once criticized will soon be the President’s next priority.”

Shaw also grumbles about Obama’s promotion of cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and his support of extending the Bush tax cuts, all issues that Big Labor generally opposed.

Because of these major failures, Shaw pointedly notes that if Big Labor began to note that the Democrats were failing them, it would begin a far reaching debate on whether labor should continue to support the Democrat Party.

So, why are labor’s most powerful leaders desperate to quash any dissent against the Democrats?

Labor stays loyal to Obama and Senate Democrats out of fear that what happened in Wisconsin could occur nationally if unions stay on the electoral sidelines and Republicans seize control of all three branches of government. Further, the Obama White House gives union leaders like Andy Stern and Richard Trumka “access,” which these officials confuse with actual power (to this end, Obama met with leaders of the AFL-CIO Executive Board on August 2 to reassure them that he is “the workers’ president.” The union leaders did not attack Obama’s anti-worker stances at the meeting).

Somewhat like a battered wife, unions come back again and again to the Democrats, smiling and asking for more.

This policy of sticking with Democrats no matter what is a “failed” strategy, Shaw says. Shaw urges Big Labor to abandon the Democrats-or-die policy and advises labor to campaign on issues and concentrate on organizing and growing their mightily depleted ranks.

Shaw is not alone in his feeling that Big Labor has lost its way. Long-time socialist and black activist Bill Fletcher has also been heard to slam the labor movement’s failings. During the height of the Service Employees International Union’s internal strife in California, Fletcher was unsparing in his criticism of SEIU leadership.

Shaw and Fletcher aren’t the only voices of complaint though. Despite his claim that Big Labor has refused to criticize Obama and the Democrats, some labor complaints have indeed reached the Old Media and some labor unions have acted on their displeasure.

In 2010 in North Carolina, for instance, the SEIU tried to start its own political party because it was upset at the failure of the Democrats to toe the union line. Also in 2010 The New York Times noted that labor was having major problems getting members out to rally for Democrats.

Not long ago, Bloomberg reported that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that his ardor for Obama’s re-election was fading. Trumka was also reported as pleading for unions to support Democrats in the late 2010 midterm elections knowing all along that it was a tough sell. And Trumka hasn’t been the only top labor leader decrying the failures under Obama and the Democrats.

So, despite all that Obama has done for labor, there are quite a lot of unhappy workers over on the far left. Quite a lot, indeed. Of course, it all tends to show another thing, too. It tends to show how voracious, how insatiable, and how ungrateful Big Labor really is.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 2:42 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under AFL-CIO, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Campaign contributions, Card Check, Communist Front groups, Debt ceiling, Democrats, Elections, Employee Free Choice Act/EFCA, Government corruption, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, News, Political prostitution, President, Racism, Republicans, SEIU, Socialism, Taxes, Union Mafias/Thugs, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, lobbyists, political bribes, political opportunism, public employee unions

Trackback URL:

Want Proof of How Democrats Would Shut You Up, Tea Partiers?

-By Warner Todd Huston

On MSNBC, John Kerry told us that Tea Party ideas are not “real” ideas, not “factual,” and thinks that the media should stop reporting on anything that smacks of ideas or news coming from Tea Partiers. If this isn’t proof of how Democrats and leftists would use the power of government to quash free political speech, what is?

Not long ago, several Democrats tried to once again raise the ugly head of the defunct Fairness Doctrine that was killed during the Reagan administration in order to limit the free political speech of conservatives. In those dark days when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, several Republicans talked about forever outlawing the anti-free speech rule. Democrats at the time spoke up in favor of the Fairness Doctrine and countered that they wanted to bring it back.

Fortunately, the Fairness Doctrine has not come back. But this un-American policy idea has been talked about by leftists every few years since it was torpedoed by Reagan in 1987. They would love to bring it back. And despite what they claim, the left would use a new Fairness Doctrine to squelch the free political speech of those on the right.

Want proof? Then let’s look at what Democrat Senator John Kerry said on MSNBC this week.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

You see? You Tea Partiers are not “legitimate.” You are not “real,” not “serious.” Why, your ideas are so “absurd” that he thinks the Old Media should stop reporting on any politician or activist that spouts those “absurd notions.”

The media, Kerry said, “has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance.” This means he thinks any ideas that don’t toe the far left, liberal Democrat ideological line should be excluded from reportage, eliminated from the public debate.

Now, imagine what he’d do if he had the power of a renewed Fairness Doctrine under his control? Imagine if he had the power of law behind his claims.

If John Kerry and his comrades on the far left had their way, they’d use the force of law to shut you up, Tea Partiers. The left would not use the Fairness Doctrine for anything “fair.” They’d use it as but another Alien and Sedition Act to shut down the access to the public square now enjoyed by conservative ideas.

Talk radio, cable TV, newspapers, magazines, the Internet all would be targeted for Kremlin-like control of their contents by Washington D.C. if the left had its way.

In fact, speaking of the Internet, there is a new stealth Fairness Doctrine in the works. It’s called Net Neutrality, just another way for the left to impose state control of the news.
____________
“The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.”
–Samuel Johnson

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer. He has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and before that he wrote articles on U.S. history for several small American magazines. His political columns are featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com, and BigJournalism.com, as well as RightWingNews.com, RightPundits.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, AmericanDaily.com, among many, many others. Mr. Huston is also endlessly amused that one of his articles formed the basis of an article in Germany’s Der Spiegel Magazine in 2008.

For a full bio, please CLICK HERE.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:18 pm | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under "Hate" speech, 1st Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-free speech, Authoritarianism, Democrats, Despotism, Elections, FCC, Gov.Censorship, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Internet, Liberal Media/Bias, MSM Censorship, Nanny State, News, Politics As Usual, Revisionism, Senate, Tea Parties, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, elitism, government media, liberalism, transparency/accountability

Trackback URL:

Believe In States’ Rights? You’re A Racist

No, really, says the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Barbara Arnwine, and Janice L. Mathis: States’ Rights Redux: Voting Rights Act + 46

States’ rights is code for discrimination.

Isn’t it great how they can read the minds of everyone who believes in the Constitutional provision which provided States with power against the potential tyranny from the federal government?

A century and a half ago, some states asserted the right to leave the union. We fought the nation’s bloodiest conflict, then admitted the traitors back into the country on generous terms. Though our Confederate brothers and sisters died defending the enslavement of African-Americans, we did this in the name of peace and forgiveness.

Oh, you mean those Democrats who did that?

Fast forward, to the 1960’s, all Americans were free from legalized slavery — but blacks were still routinely denied the ballot. Some states blocked access to the ballot with the same ferocity, and on the same grounds, that they stood in schoolhouse doors with ax handles — states’ rights. Denial of the ballot was based on the right of states to control all election procedures.

I agree, those Democrats were bad people for doing that. Funny, though, how Democrats, who always say that they are the smartest people in the room and can see shades of gray, take a black and white position (no pun intended) on this subject, and fail to see that using the 10th Amendment incorrectly doesn’t diminish the whole thing.

But radical conservatives, frightened by the country’s demographics and the potential long-term voter realignment, and also emboldened by a federal judiciary that puts “federalism” limits on Congress’ enforcement powers, are now raising the terrible visages of voter suppression and states’ rights once again.

You know why? Because some may require *gasp* ID to prove identity when voting. So, obviously, those states that are passing/pushing laws which require people to prove who they are when performing one of their most sacred duties is intentionally raaaaacist, as evil conservatives attempt to disenfranchise minorities. Well, we are trying to disenfranchise dead people, who may be minorities. And dogs and cats, who may be owned by a minority. And Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Jesus II, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong, Doodad Pro, and Good Will, among others, will be disenfranchised.

But, any of you who believe in ALL the Amendments are raaaaacists. Period.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:25 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Bald-face lies, Bigotry, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Fraud/misrepresentation, History, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Liberal World, News, Political prostitution, Politics As Usual, Propaganda, Racism, Revisionism, State Government, State Sovereignty, States Rights, U.S. Constitution, Viewpoint discrimination, Voter/Election Fraud, liberalism, progressivism, race baiting

Trackback URL:

Guess Whose Fault The US Downgrades Is

Surprisingly, not Bush’s. But, that is sure to come soon. Instead, George Soros funded Matthew Yglesias goes with

Boehner’s Folly Leads To S&P Downgrade of US Debt

Yes, Boehner is the Villain!

I’m no expert,

we could probably stop after Matthew’s first three words

but I don’t think S&P downgrading its rating of US debt will, as such, have any really big practical implications other than becoming the next political football. If you look at S&P’s definition of the AA rating, after all, it says: “An obligation rated ‘AA’ differs from the highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is very strong.” Scared yet? Me neither.

So. No big deal

Once upon a time earlier in the Obama administration, I asked a senior official how he thought this would ever get resolved. A deal, everyone agreed, had to be bipartisan. But to be bipartisan, it would have to include tax increases. But Republicans wouldn’t vote for tax increases….

“This” being the massive spending and entitlements. And, we once again learn that “bipartisanship” means “Republicans giving Democrats what they want.” Anyhow, here we go

The person who looks bad here, in my view, is John Boehner. President Obama wanted to do a “grand bargain.” The Gang of Six Senators wanted to do a “grand bargain.” And it looked for a moment like Speaker Boehner was going to be part of a grand bargain. But ultimately he decided that he didn’t want to sign a deal that would fracture his caucus, so the grand bargain talks fell apart. And yet the little bargain that did eventually pass the House ultimately couldn’t pass with Republican votes alone. So what did Boehner really achieve? If he was ultimately destined to strike a deal with the White House that needed Democratic votes to pass the House, why not go for the grand bargain? According to Boehner “When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy.” How happy is he now?

See? All John Boehner’s fault. Not the Senate Democrats for refusing to pass a budget for approaching 1000 days. Not Obama and the Democrats fault for shirking their Constitutionally mandated duties to protect the economy of the USA. Not their fault for spending like….is it fair to say “like drunken sailors”? I mean, sailors spend their own money, and when they’re out, head back to base/the ship. Dems just keep spending other people’s money. It’s not the fault of mostly the Democrats for continuing to create entitlement programs, as well as add to existing ones. As S&P put it (via Hot Air)

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements,….

Nope, sorry, S&P, it’s Boehner’s fault. Which means the Republican’s fault. Which, of course, means the TEA Parties fault. Who are conservatives. Who voted for Bush. Twice. So, Bush’s fault. Just beating the Moonbats to the punch.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 6:41 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Bald-face lies, Barack Obama, Congress, Debt ceiling, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, John Boehner, Journalistic Prostitution, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, Liberal World, News, Political prostitution, Politics As Usual, President, Propaganda, Senate, Socialism, Taxes, Unhinged, Welfare, government media, liberalism, pork spending, social parasites

Trackback URL:

August 5, 2011

Mexico Files Brief Against Alabama Illegal Alien Law

Mexico, along with 16 other countries, has decided to meddle into US affairs

In an effort to ensure their citizens are treated fairly in Alabama, 16 nations, including Mexico, filed briefs against the state’s controversial new immigration law that has already drawn fire from the U.S. Department of Justice.

So, Mexico and the other 16 nations are admitting that their citizens are present in Alabama in violation of Unites States law? Which means that we should listen to Mexico and find all their citizens and send them on back.

Edward Still, a Birmingham attorney who filed the brief, told The Montgomery Advertiser that the nations “want to have one immigration law and not 50.”

“Mexico has an interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that their ethnicity is not used as basis for state-sanctioned acts of bias and discrimination,” the brief said, according to the paper.

And Alabama has an interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that illegals are not around, taking Alabama citizens’ jobs, stealing their identities, stealing their property, assaulting them, raping them, killing them.

The Justice Department argues that the states are overstepping their authority by wading into something that is a strictly federal responsibility: immigration enforcement.

Which, in an of itself, is an idiotic argument: should state, local, and county police ignore lawbreakers if they are only breaking federal laws? But, then, the Politicized Obama DoJ doesn’t want to argue that they hate the law because these could be future Democrat voters if they could just ram through some amnesty programs.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 9:02 am | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 10th Amendment, Amnesty/Immigration reform, Anti-Americanism, Attorney malpractice/ethics, Border Control/Homeland Security, Constitution, DHS, DoJ, Fed Immigration Law, Foreign Policy, Foreign Relations, Fox News, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Illegal Aliens/Immigration, Multiculturalism/PC, Nanny State, National Security, News, Representative Government, Social Engineering, Socialism, State Government, State Sovereignty, States Rights, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Sovereignty, race baiting, social parasites

Trackback URL:

Is The Stock Market Plunge Obama’s Fault?

It’s an interesting question, in which Roger L. Simon wonders whether Obama should resign, and puts it this way

The worldwide market plunge since the signing of the U.S. debt agreement tells us one thing above all: Almost no one on the planet has confidence in the leadership of Barack Obama.

A CEO with such a disastrous first three years as our president has had probably would already have been called upon to resign or been pushed out by his company’s board of directors — more than likely for some time.

On one hand, Simon is entirely correct: any private sector CEO would be given the heave ho, forced to walk the plank. Even Obama himself said in February 2009 he should be gone

“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

But, is the 500+ drop his fault? His policies have certainly not helped. But, as Broken Clock Ezra Klein points out

A dramatic gap has opened between the economy as Washington sees it — and wants to intervene in it — and the economy that actually exists. Whatever weak recovery we might have hoped for is being hindered by global commodity prices, consumer deleveraging, fears of flagging demand in emerging markets, earthquakes in Asia, and much more. Globally, it’s been an almost uninterrupted run of crises and bad luck. Meanwhile, Washington just spent two months arguing over whether it would pay its bills or spark an unnecessary financial crisis.

Yes, he is mostly right, like a broken clock is twice a day: the Great Plunge of 2011 was caused primarily by overseas issues, on fears of further economic issues in Europe. Even Germany is having problems again. Certainly, the world wide recession, which hit hard in 2008, has never really recovered. Except in China, which cannot force other countries to fix their damned economies and make wise decisions.

So, Obama’s fault? No. The recession of 2007 wasn’t Bush’s fault. Recessions will happen, and even the NY Times points out that this was a world wide recession (that article also says a double dip is coming). But, the continued sluggish US economy can be laid at both of their feet, along with the Democrat congress: all these worthless stimulus plans and government regulation, government meddling, has, at best, barely helped. At worst, it made the situation worse, extending the pain, instead of letting things drop to where they should be, then working to rebuild. It’s like a sports team: sometimes things are just bad, and, instead of bringing in a few free agent signings to prop up the team, you just crash it, and rebuild. Take the Detroit Lions (please): can it get any lower than 0-16? But, sports wonks are liking what they see out of the Lions, and they are a team on the rise.

A bad sports team also tends to rid itself of the front office management personnel, the general manager, the coach and coaching staff, and replace them with people who have new ideas, especially if they can get someone with a long track record of proven success…….hmm, maybe Obama should go.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:50 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Debt ceiling, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, News, Politics As Usual, Recession/Depression, Senate, Socialism, liberalism, pork spending, progressivism

Trackback URL:

August 4, 2011

Before Pipeline Explosion Calif. Utility Spent Millions on Political Campaigning

-By Warner Todd Huston

Back in September of 2010, a gas pipeline running underneath the city of San Bruno, California ruptured. The resulting explosion killed eight people. A recently finished investigation has revealed safety and engineering failures at many levels but, sadly, even the state agency charged with investigating seems to be hoping that the failures are hushed up. Why? Politics, of course.

Dennis Wyatt of the Manteca Bulletin read the new report issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the government agency charged with investigating the failures that led to the disaster, and he finds that the CPUC report “comes off more of a lapdog” than it does a watchdog of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

The failed pipeline was built in 1956 and ran under the intersection of Glenview Drive and Earl Avenue in a residential section of the city. The section that failed (Line 132) exploded killing eight people and destroying 38 homes. 70 more homes were damaged by the explosion, 18 were left uninhabitable.

But even though the pipeline was laid in 1956, the investigation found that the welds and engineering of the project did not even meet the safety and other standards of the 50’s nor was the pipeline properly assessed for safety today. Other failures were discovered, as well.

The government found that dealing with PG&E was difficult because of the obstinate “culture” of the energy producer, PG&E had a deficient system of records keeping, PG&E was admirably focused on the safety of its employees but was not as interested in the safety of the public, training of third party vendors was lacking or nonexistent, and post earthquake inspections went unperformed. There were many, many other systemic failures, as well.

Wyatt reports that PG&E did not fund many safety programs that it should have. Yet, the energy provider spent at least $46 million on Prop 16 in a “failed attempt to get voters to amend the California constitution to provide PG&E with a guaranteed monopoly.”

This $46 million is on top of the many millions in fines that PG&E had already paid for other safety violations going back several years.

What ever is going on between PG&E and CPUC, it certainly seems that the citizens of California are the last ones being considered.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:31 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Energy, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, News, Politics As Usual, State Government, corporatism, transparency/accountability

Trackback URL:

Bad News: Democrats Will Focus On Jobs Again

And we all know what happens when they actually focus on jobs: things get much worse. Then they get distracted by a shiny abortion or something, and things slowly get worse

The debt ceiling crisis barely was averted Tuesday when President Barack Obama and other top Democrats were ready to change the subject.

Obama offered little praise for the $2.1 trillion deficit package during a press conference at the Rose Garden, instead vowing to fight for “new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth” in the coming months — an agenda he has tried to resurrect at least a half-dozen times in the past two years.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are backing up Obama, hoping to take up various proposals dropped from the debt ceiling compromise or sidetracked by the winding debate, such as approving trade deals, extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, and allocating funding for new highway infrastructure and a clean energy program.

Blah blah blah, same old stupid ideas that have already been shown to fail. They had two years of full control to push their idiocy which has prolonged and deepened this recession: now they need to get out of the way and let the adults try it. Of course, they will never allow the GOP to try their ideas. And Democrats really have no new ideas. Here’s the Washington Post’s Suzy Kimm, posting an AP story at Ezra Klein’s spot

But there are other ideas out there. A canvass of economists and policy analysts returned five suggestions that have, at times, enjoyed bipartisan support, and that could potentially make a real difference:

And those super wonderful ideas?

Infrastructure Bank: They want to “build stuff to put people to work.” Apparently, in Liberal World, everyone is a (unionized) blue collar worker
Surface Transportation Funding: Didn’t we already try fixing potholes and painting bridges with the Stimulus?
New Job Tax Credit: They’ve tried to bribe companies to hire with the Stimulus, too. How’d that work out?
Free Trade Deals: This is simply thrown in there as a sop to Obama’s talking point on this subject. No one can really explain how this will help, just that it will.
Aid to State and Local Governments: So, the federal government is supposed to continue prop up the state and local governments with money they don’t have to do…what, exactly? Again, we tried this with the stimulus, and now the states are in even worse shape.

Liberals really have no new, or worthwhile, ideas. Someone gives a speech and says “we need jobs.” A prairie dog pops its head up and chirps “high speed rail.” Another says “paint bridges.” Another says “spend money.” Amazingly, none of the political wonks ever think to ask successful liberals like Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, or Peter Lewis (Progressive Insurance) how to create jobs.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 9:12 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under AP, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Debt ceiling, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, EPA, Economy, Energy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, Liberal World, News, Politico, Politics As Usual, Senate, State Government, Taxes, Unemployment, Union Mafias/Thugs, liberalism

Trackback URL:

The Hill Pronounces Bachmann Winner In Migraine Flap

Well, what they said was she won round 1. If the Dems, any of her GOP primary opponents, or any insider Republican fools, attempt to try this route again, I think they will find themselves losing many, many female supporters

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has been at the center of a storm since provocative questions about her migraines emerged two weeks ago. Now that the dust has settled, the question is … well, whether the dust actually has settled, or whether the dirt will emerge farther down the election trail.

It’s only been a few weeks since the original story about the migraines appeared, and the early verdict from political observers is that Bachmann didn’t just tread water, but might have come out stronger.

Former George W. Bush strategist and No Labels co-founder Mark McKinnon said Bachmann moved “quickly and effectively to knock down the story.”

Professor and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics Larry Sabato agrees: “From across the spectrum, I heard the issue was a nonstarter. Love her or loathe her, what do migraines have to do with anything?”

Exactly: what do they have to do with anything? But, she’s Michele Bachmann, a TEA Party and conservative favorite, and is unafraid to attack Obama’s policies.

That’s what many women asked. Migraines, which disproportionately affect females, reminded some of the ugliest stereotype in politics — that a woman can’t handle the stress of being president.

Kirsten Powers, a Fox News analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast, noted: “The way the migraines were talked about portrayed her as an unstable, pill-popping, hysterical female who can’t be trusted.”

In reality, Powers claimed, that’s exactly the opposite of the “energetic, incredibly stable and very clear-headed” woman Bachmann really is. The allegations, she argued, have only made the lawmaker sympathetic and thus strengthened her.

Most interesting was how many Liberal women, along with Conservative women, came to the defense of Bachmann over the silly migraine story, which never would have been tried against a man.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:06 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Democrats, Elections, Fox News, Michele Bachmann, News, Politics As Usual, Republican, Republicans, Sexism, Stupidity, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Was Breivik inevitable?

Leftists are very keen to identify the “root cause” of various social ills. And the root cause identified in most cases is “poverty”. They even sang that song for some time after the events of 9/11/2001. It was allegedly Muslim poverty that caused those events. It took several months of people reminding the Left that Osama bin Laden was actually a billionaire before the Left abandoned that song. About a third of them went on after that to say that George Bush did it anyway — and the remainder said that GWB was at least to blame in some way.

And we remember recently the Arizona massacre by Jared Loughner. That was allegedly caused by hate speech from Right-wing radio hosts, despite the fact that Loughner was a reader of such “conservative” works as the Communist Manifesto and was clearly mad (psychotic). After many people reminded the Left that plenty of furious hate speech emanated from them also, that one petered out too.

And now of course most of the Left is convinced that conservatives are to blame for Breivik’s massacre. The fact that no conservative mentioned by Breivik actually recommended anything like what Breivik did is no problem, apparently. Conservatives created a “climate” (surely one of the Left’s favorite words) conducive to Breivik’s deeds.

That the “climate” seems to have influenced nobody but Breivik would however be seen as problematical by rational beings. Hundreds of millions of people read the sort of writers that Breivik quotes but no others of them go on murderous rampages. If conservative speech were a drug and I was submitting it to the FDA for approval, the FDA would wave it through — on the grounds that a drug safely taken by millions with only one bad reaction had to be evaluated for safety by reference to the hundreds of millions of cases rather than the one isolated exception.

So it is clear that even if the frenzied claims of root causes made by Leftists are totally addled, they do set a precedent for others to look at root causes too — but hopefully in a more rational manner. And if Leftists say that conservatism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds, why should I not make the case that Leftism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

So I contend that the root cause of Breivik’s onslaught is not to be found in Breivik’s head (though the proximate cause lies there) but rather in the long-term policies of the antisemitic and Muslim-loving Norwegian Left.

And those policies have been destructive indeed. Norway now has Muslim ghettoes where the police rarely go and crimes such as rape have become a Muslim specialty — with ANY crime by Muslims being rarely prosecuted and punished. The Norwegian Left has inflicted grave harm on Norwegian society. And adding insult to injury, you will usually be abused as a racist if you even mention any of that harm (but calling for Israel to be bombed is perfectly respectable, of course). An excerpt from just one report of what the Norwegian Left has wrought, by way of example:

I live in Oslo, Norway. We have lots of problems with muslim immigrants. Official crime statistics over a three year period shows 49 of 49 assault rapes in Oslo was made by a person from a “non-western background” which is basically government code for muslim immigrants. Just yesterday Aftenposten; on of Norway’s most respected newspapers, interviewed the police chief in Oslo where she advised Norwegian women not to walk the streets alone at night, the police have basically given up combating the problem with crime.

The muslims in Norway are just as hatefull as in Sweden, which has the same problem but in a much worse degree. From a young age they openly call Norwegian women for whores, their own sisters are locked inside the home to protect them from the Norwegian society. The young muslim men often date Norwegian girls, but do not marry them because they are perceived as whores; they are ok to have sex with but too filthy to marry, basically.

Muslims in Norway also are not very interested in their kids learning to read or write in Norwegian, making them losers in the educational system from an early age. This is also true for second and third generation immigrants. Across my streets lives the only muslim family in my neighborhood, all the kids (they have like 5 of them with one 1/2 to 2 years between them) talk Arabic and never Norwegian.

While Norwegian kids are more quiet and reserved the muslim kids seem to be more violent, usually carrying sticks and shouting all the time where Norwegian kids are more silent and withdrawn. When growing up in Oslo I experienced the same violent behaviour with my muslim peers, personally I believe that their whole culture is more based around the “power of the strong”, where if you are strong you are perceived to have more power; which the muslims look up to as something good.

My impression from dealing with immigrants is that they feel Norway owes them something, even though it is *them* who don’t fit in. Many muslims don’t like Norwegians or Norwegian rule, but they rarely move back to a muslim country and change citizenship.

The worst thing is when that the socialists, who are the major political force in Norway, hear these arguments they immediately call you racist or Islamophobe. They also have concealed crime statistics for years by refusing to publish crime numbers based on origins. Once when they did it was found that 10% of the population, the immigrants, stood for 90% of the crime and more specifically 100% of assault rapes in Oslo! I personally am against any religion or ideology that spreads separation and hate, be it Islam or Christian fundamentalism.

So am I blaming the victim? Am I blaming the Leftist elite whom Breivik targeted? I certainly am. If someone initiates an assault and gets hurt in the reaction, then they are certainly to blame for the hurt they suffer. And the Norwegian Left has inflicted great harm on ordinary Norwegians. And even before Breivik, Norwegians had begun to wake up to that. Despite their long domination of Norwegian politics, the Labour party lost the last election and had to form a Red/Green coalition with two other parties to stay in government.

And this disillusionment with the pro-Muslim policies of the Norwegian Left has led — as we are repeatedly told by Norwegian experts themselves (a recent example here) — to views such as Breivik’s becoming widespread among Norwegians. So Breivik was quite normal in his beliefs and different only in doing something about them.

In those circumstances it seems clear to me that if Breivik had not struck then somebody else would eventually have done so. There was a head of steam building up in Norway that would eventually have burst out somewhere. The Viking genes can’t entirely have died out there.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 6:56 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under "Hate" speech, Government corruption, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Illegal Aliens/Immigration, Islam, Israel, Multiculturalism/PC, News, Political Correctness, Racism, Social Engineering, Socialism, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theory, liberalism, paternalism, race baiting, social parasites

Trackback URL:

August 3, 2011

Freedom of Speech Wins: Baltimore Politician Drops Lawsuit Against Blogger

-By Warner Todd Huston

Examiner blogger Adam Meister was doing what bloggers do, namely posting the info that “journalists” refuse to write about. In this case, back in March, Meister found that a Baltimore Councilwoman was living in a different district than she claimed she was living in. As a result, the politician tried to sue the blogger for his posts.

City Councilwoman Belinda Conaway filed a lawsuit demanding an idiotic $21 million in damages for Meister’s expose of her true primary residence. But this week Conaway abruptly dropped her suit against the blogger.

Through public records, blogger Meister discovered that Conaway lives in Randallstown and not Baltimore, the city she was elected to represent. Conaway has, though, claimed she lives in an extended-family household in Baltimore.

Meister disputed Councilwoman Conaway’s claim and he posted tax information where Conaway claimed for tax purposes that Randallstown, not Baltimore, was her primary residence.

After the suit was filed Meister called for it to be dismissed based on the information he had uncovered. At the hearing for dismissal Conaway’s attorney, Thomas J. Maronick, admitted that Conaway did sign the paper stating that her primary residence was Randallstown and then said that he was dropping the lawsuit.

Meister notes that there are plenty of sources to find out the facts through public records. Councilwoman Conaway was simply not telling the truth about her residency.

Meister said he obtained a paper copy of the deed and posted an image of it online. But other property records were available straight from government websites. Baltimore County property tax records are online and indicate that Conaway and her husband received a county homestead tax credit for the property last year that amounted to $708.71.

Naturally, Councilwoman Conaway refused to comment to the Baltimore Sun after the case was dropped.

This is a great example of citizen journalism and the impact it can have. Mr. Meister deserves a lot of credit for exposing Councilwoman Conaway for the dissembler she truly is.

This incident also shows the arrogance of many of our elected officials. She knew she was not telling the truth, but she likely figured that her bluff, threats, and misuse of the legal system with the lawsuit would have been enough to stifle Meister’s blogging. Conaway also likely thought that she would be successful in throwing the race card against Meister, a white man.

One thing this shows is an errant politician arrogantly attempting to use the threat of law to stifle free speech. Meister had to hire an attorney to defend himself against her frivolous lawsuit and this is a cost that many bloggers simply could not afford. Many another blogger would have just disappeared and/or stopped writing the truth for fear of the sort of deep financial debt incurred by extensive lawsuits.

As Meister told the Sun, “I’m a pretty frugal guy. A penny spent on defending myself against something so bogus is too much.”

As bloggers and Internet journalism continues, powermad pols are scrambling for ways to quash their free speech. This time the attempt failed. Kudos to Mr. Meister for his bravery under fire.