When the courts have told a government agency "you can't do that", and when a majority of Congress has asked that agency not to do "that", and when the American people don't want the agency to do "that", and the agency does "that" anyway, do we have a problem?
The "that" in question is the so-called "net neutrality" regulations being pursued by the FCC. In addition to flouting the courts, Congress and the American people, the FCC is angling to fix that which isn't broken. The FCC is in desperate need of being slapped down. Will anyone do it?
Net Neutrality is Theft
December 30, 2010
December 29, 2010
Villains Hall of Fame
In the Villains Hall of Fame, several notables come to mind...Beelzebub, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, Napoleon, Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Al Gore.
We have a new inductee to the Hall. The 111th Congress.
According to Terence Jeffrey at CNS, the 111th added more to the national debt than the first 100 Congresses combined, $3.22 trillion. That's $10,429.64 for every man, woman and child in the country. Total national debt is now $44,886.57 per person. Jeffrey gets his figures from the U.S. Treasury.
Happy New Year!
We have a new inductee to the Hall. The 111th Congress.
According to Terence Jeffrey at CNS, the 111th added more to the national debt than the first 100 Congresses combined, $3.22 trillion. That's $10,429.64 for every man, woman and child in the country. Total national debt is now $44,886.57 per person. Jeffrey gets his figures from the U.S. Treasury.
Happy New Year!
December 16, 2010
Kill Lame Ducks
Would someone please drive a stake through the heart of the 111th Congress and kill this evil creature?
In November, voters sent what should have been a loud and clear message to the current Congress...Stop it! Go away! We don't like you anymore!
Proving that this Congress couldn't care less what the country wants, it is giving the finger to voters. Rather than deal only with items that are absolutely essential (funding government or dealing with tax rates) or absolutely meaningless (name a bridge for somebody) during a lame duck session, this group of bloodsucking leeches is intent on ramming through as much of its agenda as possible in the next couple of weeks. Voters be damned. And country be damned.
A recent poll found that approval of Congress is at an all-time low--13%. I am astounded that it is that high.
In November, voters sent what should have been a loud and clear message to the current Congress...Stop it! Go away! We don't like you anymore!
Proving that this Congress couldn't care less what the country wants, it is giving the finger to voters. Rather than deal only with items that are absolutely essential (funding government or dealing with tax rates) or absolutely meaningless (name a bridge for somebody) during a lame duck session, this group of bloodsucking leeches is intent on ramming through as much of its agenda as possible in the next couple of weeks. Voters be damned. And country be damned.
A recent poll found that approval of Congress is at an all-time low--13%. I am astounded that it is that high.
December 12, 2010
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
I wonder if Mitch Daniels is the kind of Republican that even those who don't care for the GOP could get behind should he decide to run in 2012...
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
December 10, 2010
December 9, 2010
U.S. Energy Independence
For years I have come across reports on the vast reserves of oil and natural gas available to us, should we decide to get it. Now comes the United Nations with a report that predicts North America could be an exporter of reasonably cheap energy in the next decade or so.
Energy independence is apparently within our grasp. The problem, for some, is that independence, at least in the foreseeable future, will not come from wind, solar or biomass. Will environmentalists, warming fundamentalists and democrats be successful in their efforts to prevent energy independence? Will they succeed in preventing free markets from determining how our energy needs are met? Our future hangs on the answer to those questions.
U.S. on verge of energy independence without green fuels
Energy independence is apparently within our grasp. The problem, for some, is that independence, at least in the foreseeable future, will not come from wind, solar or biomass. Will environmentalists, warming fundamentalists and democrats be successful in their efforts to prevent energy independence? Will they succeed in preventing free markets from determining how our energy needs are met? Our future hangs on the answer to those questions.
U.S. on verge of energy independence without green fuels
December 5, 2010
The Rich Can Afford Tax Increases; Can We?
I read an article today which posed an interesting question regarding the current debate on tax increases: The rich can afford it; can we?
Think about it. Let's say I make $1 million a year. If the democrats have their way, my tax bill will go up next year. Or will it? I may very well go to my tax accountant and explore some tax avoidance strategies. If I'm an employer, I might decide that I can no longer hire the extra few employees I had planned to bring on. If I'm an investor, I might decide to move investments from one place to another to reduce my tax liability. But whatever I do, I will be able to afford the tax increase. I might forego the new Porsche or the Picasso, but I will still live well. No need to worry about me.
But what about the guy I might have hired who as a result of the tax increase won't get a job? What about the start up company I might have invested in that won't get off the ground? I can afford a tax increase. Can they?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both pontificate about how the wealthy should pay more in taxes, while they shield much of their income by setting up foundations. Nancy Pelosi and her philosophical soulmates preach that the rich should pay more, but I would bet my life that they all employ tax accountants to avoid paying taxes. Their hypocrisy sickens me. Their stupidity astounds me.
Some years ago, the Congress in its wisdom decided to stick it to the rich by enacting a luxury tax. Yachts, for example, were hit with an extra sales tax. From the progressive point of view, this was a great way to make the rich pay their fair share. One problem. The rich, as it turned out, could hold on to the yacht they already had. Or decide not to buy a yacht. Didn't hurt the rich at all. But companies that make yachts, and service yachts, and repair yachts, and the employees of those companies, all got clobbered.
No doubt about it. The rich can afford tax increases. Can we?
Think about it. Let's say I make $1 million a year. If the democrats have their way, my tax bill will go up next year. Or will it? I may very well go to my tax accountant and explore some tax avoidance strategies. If I'm an employer, I might decide that I can no longer hire the extra few employees I had planned to bring on. If I'm an investor, I might decide to move investments from one place to another to reduce my tax liability. But whatever I do, I will be able to afford the tax increase. I might forego the new Porsche or the Picasso, but I will still live well. No need to worry about me.
But what about the guy I might have hired who as a result of the tax increase won't get a job? What about the start up company I might have invested in that won't get off the ground? I can afford a tax increase. Can they?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both pontificate about how the wealthy should pay more in taxes, while they shield much of their income by setting up foundations. Nancy Pelosi and her philosophical soulmates preach that the rich should pay more, but I would bet my life that they all employ tax accountants to avoid paying taxes. Their hypocrisy sickens me. Their stupidity astounds me.
Some years ago, the Congress in its wisdom decided to stick it to the rich by enacting a luxury tax. Yachts, for example, were hit with an extra sales tax. From the progressive point of view, this was a great way to make the rich pay their fair share. One problem. The rich, as it turned out, could hold on to the yacht they already had. Or decide not to buy a yacht. Didn't hurt the rich at all. But companies that make yachts, and service yachts, and repair yachts, and the employees of those companies, all got clobbered.
No doubt about it. The rich can afford tax increases. Can we?
December 2, 2010
Farmer Fraud
The numbers below are estimates based on different sources, but I believe they are reasonably accurate.
In 1997, 400 black farmers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Pigford v Glickman), alleging they had been discriminated against in obtaining loans from USDA during the period from 1983-1997. In 1999, USDA settled the case, agreeing to pay each plaintiff $50,000. By then it had grown to a class action suit, and it was agreed that any black farmer who had so much as filed a complaint during the time frame would automatically be paid $50,000. They would not have to prove discrimination.. According to several sources, a total of something over 13,000 black farmers received this settlement. Beyond these, some 70,000 claims were denied because they were filed too late.
Now comes Pigford II, a new settlement announced last February by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, allowing those claimants who didn't get money the first time around to collect. Various estimates I've seen of new claimants range from 80,000-90,000. Combining the lower estimate with those who have already been paid, we will now have over 90,000 black farmers who end up with a nice check from the government.
So what, I hear some say. The government discriminated, it should pay. But there's a problem. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1983 (the beginning of the time frame) there were only 19,000 black farmers/farm managers. It is unlikely that the number of black farmers increased in any year since then, given that ownership of farms by both blacks and whites have been declining for decades as big farms gobble up small ones. Even if one assumes that the number of black farmers increased by 10% per year, in order for these claims to be legitimate it would be necessary for every black farmer during the time period to have suffered discrimination at the hands of the USDA, and then some.
This stinks.
In 1997, 400 black farmers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Pigford v Glickman), alleging they had been discriminated against in obtaining loans from USDA during the period from 1983-1997. In 1999, USDA settled the case, agreeing to pay each plaintiff $50,000. By then it had grown to a class action suit, and it was agreed that any black farmer who had so much as filed a complaint during the time frame would automatically be paid $50,000. They would not have to prove discrimination.. According to several sources, a total of something over 13,000 black farmers received this settlement. Beyond these, some 70,000 claims were denied because they were filed too late.
Now comes Pigford II, a new settlement announced last February by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, allowing those claimants who didn't get money the first time around to collect. Various estimates I've seen of new claimants range from 80,000-90,000. Combining the lower estimate with those who have already been paid, we will now have over 90,000 black farmers who end up with a nice check from the government.
So what, I hear some say. The government discriminated, it should pay. But there's a problem. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1983 (the beginning of the time frame) there were only 19,000 black farmers/farm managers. It is unlikely that the number of black farmers increased in any year since then, given that ownership of farms by both blacks and whites have been declining for decades as big farms gobble up small ones. Even if one assumes that the number of black farmers increased by 10% per year, in order for these claims to be legitimate it would be necessary for every black farmer during the time period to have suffered discrimination at the hands of the USDA, and then some.
This stinks.
November 22, 2010
Mission Impossible for the Fed?
Below is a very interesting article from George Will in the Washington Post. He argues that the dual mandate given to the Fed in 1977 should be ended.
In another article by GMU economist Don Boudreaux, he claims that from 1790-1913, the dollar lost approx. 8% of its value. From 1913 (when the Fed was created to maintain price stability) to the present, the dollar has lost 95%. Apparently, the Fed has not done a very good job.
The Fed's Dual Mission Impossible
In another article by GMU economist Don Boudreaux, he claims that from 1790-1913, the dollar lost approx. 8% of its value. From 1913 (when the Fed was created to maintain price stability) to the present, the dollar has lost 95%. Apparently, the Fed has not done a very good job.
The Fed's Dual Mission Impossible
November 21, 2010
Climate Change Policy = Wealth Redistribution
I have long believed that the environmental movement in general, and the global warming crowd in particular, are essentially fronts for the socialist goal of wealth redistribution. Now comes further evidence that my instincts are correct.
IPCC Expert Admits U.N. Goal is Wealth Redistribution
IPCC Expert Admits U.N. Goal is Wealth Redistribution
November 18, 2010
TSA Job Opening
I have applied for a position with the TSA:
Pat-Down Specialist -- Cheerleader & Lingerie Model Division.
Wish me luck.
Pat-Down Specialist -- Cheerleader & Lingerie Model Division.
Wish me luck.
November 17, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I had forgotten that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) is not the law of the land, and never was. Section 654, Title 10 of the US Code specifically prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military, openly or otherwise. DADT was simply a Clinton-issued policy directing DOD on how to implement the 1993 Act.
The current debate over repealing DADT obviously stems from widespread confusion over the facts. The common perception is that gays are allowed to serve in the military as long as they keep their mouths shut. But they are not. Repealing DADT, in and of itself, still leaves Section 654, Title 10, in tact. I.e., gays should be careful what they wish for; they may get it.
Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuality in the Military
The current debate over repealing DADT obviously stems from widespread confusion over the facts. The common perception is that gays are allowed to serve in the military as long as they keep their mouths shut. But they are not. Repealing DADT, in and of itself, still leaves Section 654, Title 10, in tact. I.e., gays should be careful what they wish for; they may get it.
Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuality in the Military
November 15, 2010
Bad Week
Despite Obama's claim that "progress" was made at the G20 Summit in South Korea, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he got hammered. Badly.
First, world economic leaders are appalled at the move by the Fed to pump $600 billion (or 900, I'm hearing both numbers) into the economy. Adjectives used by world leaders to describe Obama include "hypocritical" and "clueless". Obama's attempts to defend the move fell on deaf ears. They aren't buying what Obama is selling (and they shouldn't).
Second, he failed to seal a Free Trade Agreement with South Korea. This FTA was a done deal at the end of the Bush administration, but Obama rejected it, at least partially because the unions didn't like it. No surprise there. Unions hate free trade. It has collected dust for almost two years. Then Obama submits a different FTA to the South Koreans, and the deal is off. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has already praised Obama for insisting on a more fair and balanced deal, as Trumka defines it. Rule of thumb: if Trumka likes something, it's bad for America.
Basically, Obama was soundly rejected on a very public world stage this week. It would seem that for many world leaders, the Obama bloom is off the rose.
No word yet on whether these world leaders are racists, or whether they just didn't understand Obama's communications.
First, world economic leaders are appalled at the move by the Fed to pump $600 billion (or 900, I'm hearing both numbers) into the economy. Adjectives used by world leaders to describe Obama include "hypocritical" and "clueless". Obama's attempts to defend the move fell on deaf ears. They aren't buying what Obama is selling (and they shouldn't).
Second, he failed to seal a Free Trade Agreement with South Korea. This FTA was a done deal at the end of the Bush administration, but Obama rejected it, at least partially because the unions didn't like it. No surprise there. Unions hate free trade. It has collected dust for almost two years. Then Obama submits a different FTA to the South Koreans, and the deal is off. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has already praised Obama for insisting on a more fair and balanced deal, as Trumka defines it. Rule of thumb: if Trumka likes something, it's bad for America.
Basically, Obama was soundly rejected on a very public world stage this week. It would seem that for many world leaders, the Obama bloom is off the rose.
No word yet on whether these world leaders are racists, or whether they just didn't understand Obama's communications.
November 14, 2010
Mencken's Hobgoblins
Interesting item in the Wall Street Journal...
When the health care debate was raging, we were led to believe that the insurance industry's victims were so numerous and pervasive that it was a crisis demanding a government solution. We were led to believe that a major element of this crisis was the denial of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
With the passage of Obamacare, the department of Health and Human Services was given the ability to design its own plans to insure those with pre-existing conditions. States were given the option of designing their own such plans, and 27 chose to do so. In July, HHS estimated that these plans would be insuring 375,000 people by now. As of Nov. 1, combined federal-state enrollment, according to HHS, is 8,011.
Now, government estimates on just about everything are famous for being wrong, but an estimate that is off by approximately 97% in just a few months has to be some kind of record. One has to wonder if the pre-existing condition crisis was as dire as Obama's rhetoric suggested. And one has to wonder if it was sufficient justification for the government to take over about one sixth of the economy. Perhaps a more modest fix should have been considered.
When the health care debate was raging, we were led to believe that the insurance industry's victims were so numerous and pervasive that it was a crisis demanding a government solution. We were led to believe that a major element of this crisis was the denial of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
With the passage of Obamacare, the department of Health and Human Services was given the ability to design its own plans to insure those with pre-existing conditions. States were given the option of designing their own such plans, and 27 chose to do so. In July, HHS estimated that these plans would be insuring 375,000 people by now. As of Nov. 1, combined federal-state enrollment, according to HHS, is 8,011.
Now, government estimates on just about everything are famous for being wrong, but an estimate that is off by approximately 97% in just a few months has to be some kind of record. One has to wonder if the pre-existing condition crisis was as dire as Obama's rhetoric suggested. And one has to wonder if it was sufficient justification for the government to take over about one sixth of the economy. Perhaps a more modest fix should have been considered.
November 6, 2010
November 5, 2010
MoveOn, Obama
Does this sound like a guy who is thinking about finding common ground with Republicans?
Obama pep talk to MoveOn
Obama pep talk to MoveOn
November 4, 2010
Hot Bottom
Reading about the election results, I saw an item on Barney Frank in which the guy who ran the male prostitution ring from Frank's home had acquired the nickname "Hot Bottom". Curious, I found an article from 1989 in the Washington Post. Sure enough...
"Although Frank and Gobie differ in some details of their relationship, they agree on the story line. They met on April Fool's Day 1985. The representative answered a classified ad in the Washington Blade, the local gay weekly. "Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time."
Ironically, Frank did to the housing market what Hot Bottom did to him.
"Although Frank and Gobie differ in some details of their relationship, they agree on the story line. They met on April Fool's Day 1985. The representative answered a classified ad in the Washington Blade, the local gay weekly. "Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time."
Ironically, Frank did to the housing market what Hot Bottom did to him.
October 22, 2010
O'Reilly, Williams, & Muslims
Regarding the Bill O'Reilly/View flap over Muslims and the firing of Juan Williams from NPR over his comments about Muslims:
I am trying to figure out what is so awful about what they said. O'Reilly said that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That is factually accurate, yet progressives are astonished and offended by the remark. He also said that there is a Muslim "problem" in the world. He's right. There is. Williams said that when he gets on a plane and sees people in Muslim garb it makes him nervous. Williams, though I disagree with him on many issues, is no bigot. And I'm willing to admit that if I get on a plane and see some obvious Muslims, I will entertain thoughts about whether that plane is in trouble. Given the fact that virtually all terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims, it seems to me that one would have to be obtuse to the point of being brain dead to not have the thought pass through one's mind.
But apparently giving voice to such a rational thought is a firing offense at NPR. And stating the obvious about who attacked us on 9/11 is sufficient for ladies on the View to storm off in a huff. I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's comment years ago that when he hears someone behind him on the street and he looks back, he is relieved to see the person is white. That was Jackson's rational assessment of the odds of being mugged by a black vs. a white. Evidently such rational assessments are no longer tolerated.
It seems that for progressives Muslims are simply the latest group to be protected against anything that they deem to be "hate speech". Yet another example of how progressives are so much more enlightened. Might we one day have to refer to jihad as the "j-word"?
Maybe I'm just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, but I don't get why certain folks cannot abide opinions that have a basis in empirical experience.
I am trying to figure out what is so awful about what they said. O'Reilly said that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That is factually accurate, yet progressives are astonished and offended by the remark. He also said that there is a Muslim "problem" in the world. He's right. There is. Williams said that when he gets on a plane and sees people in Muslim garb it makes him nervous. Williams, though I disagree with him on many issues, is no bigot. And I'm willing to admit that if I get on a plane and see some obvious Muslims, I will entertain thoughts about whether that plane is in trouble. Given the fact that virtually all terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims, it seems to me that one would have to be obtuse to the point of being brain dead to not have the thought pass through one's mind.
But apparently giving voice to such a rational thought is a firing offense at NPR. And stating the obvious about who attacked us on 9/11 is sufficient for ladies on the View to storm off in a huff. I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's comment years ago that when he hears someone behind him on the street and he looks back, he is relieved to see the person is white. That was Jackson's rational assessment of the odds of being mugged by a black vs. a white. Evidently such rational assessments are no longer tolerated.
It seems that for progressives Muslims are simply the latest group to be protected against anything that they deem to be "hate speech". Yet another example of how progressives are so much more enlightened. Might we one day have to refer to jihad as the "j-word"?
Maybe I'm just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, but I don't get why certain folks cannot abide opinions that have a basis in empirical experience.
Simple and Good Advice
WSJ Monday Oct. 18 2010
Mr. Chambers is chairman and chief executive officer of Cisco Systems. Ms. Catz is president of Oracle Corporation.
During last year's "Jobs Summit," President Obama said he was open to any good idea to get the economy moving again. Today he should be especially so, since Washington's many monetary and fiscal policy decisions have not been able to spur the robust growth or job expansion that we all would like. And yet there is a simple idea—the trillion-dollar elephant in the room—that has apparently been dismissed for no good reason.
One trillion dollars is roughly the amount of earnings that American companies have in their foreign operations—and that they could repatriate to the United States. That money, in turn, could be invested in U.S. jobs, capital assets, research and development, and more.
But for U.S companies such repatriation of earnings carries a significant penalty: a federal tax of up to 35%. This means that U.S. companies can, without significant consequence, use their foreign earnings to invest in any country in the world—except here.
The U.S. government's treatment of repatriated foreign earnings stands in marked contrast to the tax practices of almost every major developed economy, including Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Australia and Canada, to name a few. Companies headquartered in any of these countries can repatriate foreign earnings to their home countries at a tax rate of 0%-2%. That's because those countries realize that choking off foreign capital from their economies is decidedly against their national interests.
Many commentators have pointed to the large cash balances sitting on U.S. corporate books as evidence that the economy is still stalled because companies aren't spending. That analysis misses the point. Large cash balances remain on U.S. corporate books because U.S. companies can't spend their foreign-held cash in the U.S. without incurring a prohibitive tax liability.
Especially with corporate bond rates falling below 4%, it's hard to imagine any responsible corporation repatriating foreign earnings at a combined federal and state tax rate approaching 40%.
By permitting companies to repatriate foreign earnings at a low tax rate—say, 5%—Congress and the president could create a privately funded stimulus of up to a trillion dollars. They could also raise up to $50 billion in federal tax revenue. That's money the economy would not otherwise receive.
The amount of corporate cash that would come flooding into the country could be larger than the entire federal stimulus package, and it could be used for creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment, and other uses. It could also provide needed stability for the equity markets because companies would expand their activity in mergers and acquisitions, and would pay dividends or buy back stock. And when markets go up, confidence increases and businesses and consumers begin to spend.
The $50 billion boost in federal tax revenue, meanwhile, could be used to help put America back to work. For example, Congress could use it to give employers—large or small—a refundable tax credit for hiring previously unemployed workers (including recent graduates). The tax credit could equal up to 50% of a worker's first-year and second-year wages, capped at $12,500 per year (or $25,000 total per new hire).
Such a program could help put more than two million Americans back to work at no cost to the government or American taxpayers. How's that for a good idea?
October 21, 2010
Obama is Smarter Than You
The editorial below from today's Washington Times is an excellent take on Obama's attitude toward those who oppose him.
Editorial: Obama is smarter than you
President Obama was elected by a country that doesn't deserve to be ruled by someone as enlightened as he is - or so he thinks. Last weekend, as it became increasingly evident that the president's party is headed for historic losses in the midterm elections, Mr. Obama offered his explanation for the electorate's thanklessness. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," he told attendees at a Democratic fundraiser. "And the country's scared, and they have good reason to be."
This is Barack at his most self-absorbed. On his side are facts, science and argument; his opponents, by implication, appeal to myth, irrationality and demagoguery. His brain trust brings moral clarity and intellectual certainty; his opponents are backward-looking knuckle-draggers. This is the only way he can explain the ingratitude of the American people toward his benevolent regime.
It's not a new tone for this president. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama sniffed at those sad unfortunates who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." During April 15 tax protests, a smug Mr. Obama said he was "amused" at the rallies, snickering, "You would think they would be saying 'thank you.'" To the philosopher king who occupies the White House, those who oppose his wise rule are selfish, insolent dolts.
Mr. Obama's strange pseudo-biological assertion that people are "hardwired not to always think clearly" when they are scared isn't true. Fear can be a rational response to an imminent threat, and for some people a crisis brings clarity. The "fight or flight" instinct kicks in, and what puzzles Mr. Obama are the vast numbers of Americans who have chosen the former.
This is the first time Mr. Obama has had to cope with reasoned and principled opposition to his fashionably leftist ideas. Barack Obama has lived in a bubble of acclaim where he was always the kid being praised for how bright he was. He was elevated through a formal education process in which his race, glibness and charisma were more than adequate substitutes for hard work. His professional life as a "community organizer" and machine politician in heavily Democratic areas required nothing more than appealing to those who already agreed with him. His entry to the White House came in the wake of an unpopular presidency and in the midst of an economic crisis, and he floated into office on waves of hope and change rhetoric promising miracles that perhaps even he believed he could deliver.
It makes twisted sense that Mr. Obama has no idea why the electorate has rejected his sincere efforts on their behalf. Because he and his party's policies cannot be blamed, he seeks succor in the notion that the voters opposing him are simply red-state redneck rubes. As Vice President Joe Biden recently bellyached, they would tell the doubting public how good they have it, but it's "just too hard to explain."
We can at least agree with the president that the country has good reason to be scared. The last 22 months have seen a riot of government expansion into every aspect of American life. The housing crisis has not abated and by some measures has grown worse. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Government debt is at record levels and will remain there for the foreseeable future. The economy is sputtering, the stimulus failed to stimulate, job losses are deeper and will last longer than any economic downturn since World War II. Mr. Obama blames this continuing mess on the Bush administration, on factors out of his control, or on anyone but himself. Facts, science and argument disagree.
Editorial: Obama is smarter than you
President Obama was elected by a country that doesn't deserve to be ruled by someone as enlightened as he is - or so he thinks. Last weekend, as it became increasingly evident that the president's party is headed for historic losses in the midterm elections, Mr. Obama offered his explanation for the electorate's thanklessness. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," he told attendees at a Democratic fundraiser. "And the country's scared, and they have good reason to be."
This is Barack at his most self-absorbed. On his side are facts, science and argument; his opponents, by implication, appeal to myth, irrationality and demagoguery. His brain trust brings moral clarity and intellectual certainty; his opponents are backward-looking knuckle-draggers. This is the only way he can explain the ingratitude of the American people toward his benevolent regime.
It's not a new tone for this president. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama sniffed at those sad unfortunates who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." During April 15 tax protests, a smug Mr. Obama said he was "amused" at the rallies, snickering, "You would think they would be saying 'thank you.'" To the philosopher king who occupies the White House, those who oppose his wise rule are selfish, insolent dolts.
Mr. Obama's strange pseudo-biological assertion that people are "hardwired not to always think clearly" when they are scared isn't true. Fear can be a rational response to an imminent threat, and for some people a crisis brings clarity. The "fight or flight" instinct kicks in, and what puzzles Mr. Obama are the vast numbers of Americans who have chosen the former.
This is the first time Mr. Obama has had to cope with reasoned and principled opposition to his fashionably leftist ideas. Barack Obama has lived in a bubble of acclaim where he was always the kid being praised for how bright he was. He was elevated through a formal education process in which his race, glibness and charisma were more than adequate substitutes for hard work. His professional life as a "community organizer" and machine politician in heavily Democratic areas required nothing more than appealing to those who already agreed with him. His entry to the White House came in the wake of an unpopular presidency and in the midst of an economic crisis, and he floated into office on waves of hope and change rhetoric promising miracles that perhaps even he believed he could deliver.
It makes twisted sense that Mr. Obama has no idea why the electorate has rejected his sincere efforts on their behalf. Because he and his party's policies cannot be blamed, he seeks succor in the notion that the voters opposing him are simply red-state redneck rubes. As Vice President Joe Biden recently bellyached, they would tell the doubting public how good they have it, but it's "just too hard to explain."
We can at least agree with the president that the country has good reason to be scared. The last 22 months have seen a riot of government expansion into every aspect of American life. The housing crisis has not abated and by some measures has grown worse. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Government debt is at record levels and will remain there for the foreseeable future. The economy is sputtering, the stimulus failed to stimulate, job losses are deeper and will last longer than any economic downturn since World War II. Mr. Obama blames this continuing mess on the Bush administration, on factors out of his control, or on anyone but himself. Facts, science and argument disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)