Blogs

First Read asks: "Would Reagan have passed today’s conservative litmus test?" and goes on to cover the tired lefty Reagan-as-moderate list: raised taxes, increased deficit, picked G.W. Bush as running mate etc.

This is just another lame lefty attempt to try and paint the modern GOP as crazy wingers. The idea that Reagan was some sort of Charlie Christ-moderate is absurd. Watch Reagan's 1964 A Time for Choosing again and follow below for some highlighted quotes that could come out of any Tea Party rally today:

From A Time for Choosing:

No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations.

For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize.

They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Republicans are playing a dangerous game in the health care debate.  They have declared that their strategy is to stand united to use procedural gimics to block the will of the (in their view) misguided majority in Congress and America.  Should this fail, which looks possible if not likely, everyone will know that Republicans at their strongest cannot stop the train of history, at least not until 2010.  That train carries not only health care reform, but cap and trade, gays in the military, judicial appointments, etc. This is serious.

The safer strategy is to trade one or two Republican votes in the Senate for real influence on the outcome.  Democrats are willing to compromise big -- witness the Stupak amendment.  Democrats would trade the public option for Olympia Snowe's vote. 

This means that "new ideas" Republicans should think what they should ask for, things like cutting insurance regulations, preserving choice and competition, and fixing the malpractice mess.  Simply capping malpractice awards is not the answer -- it goes against bedrock principles of accountability.

Simple best practices checklists could eliminate most malpractice awards.  This is how airlines reduced pilot error to nearly zero.  Engineers have professional standards boards.  Republicans should not oppose national best practices committees.  The "standing between you and your doctor" is phoney.  But we could insist that following best practices is protection against lawsuits.

Now that the dust has settled, I thought it might be useful to look at the off-year election and consider what alternative strategies might have yielded.  One thing I've learned about politics is never to buy determinism; there are always a variety of possible outcomes.

Well, here's a few scenarios:

a) Terry McAulliffe was the Democratic nominee for Virginia Governor

It's what everyone expected. Would he have done better than Deeds; or was his weak primary showing evidence he'd have been roadkill in the general election?

b) Jon Corzine stands down on October 1;  NJ Dems do the "Torricelli switch" to Rep. Frank Pallone or Newark Mayor Cory Booker

In retrospect, my belief that Corzine was burnt toast proved correct. It's hard to fault his campaign for his loss, the voters simply wanted him gone. But what if after using Corzine's cash to bloody up Christie the NJ Dems threw a "relief pitcher" into the race? Different outcome? Or would NJ voters reacted poorly to this strategy being used twice? 

c) Deeds runs as an anti-Obama "New Democrat" ala Mark Warner; focuses on downstate VA

or

d) Deeds runs as a outspoken Obamabot and focuses on NOVA

The consensus is Deeds did neither well and got crushed. Would choosing one or the other have made any difference?

e) No one outside NY State comes to the aid of Doug Hoffman

The Club for Growth, Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck are credited or blamed for what happened in NY 23. Given what happened in the local state senate race in 2004, I think the NY Conservative Party was capable under its own power to ensure Scozzafava's defeat? Agree? Disagree?

And what would the national impact of a "quiet" Owens victory have been?

Throw some other possible scenarios out there. Let's reverse engineer these races if we can.

On November 10th, the Rainy Day Patriots (the group organized in conjunction with Birmingham Tea Parties) and Campaign for Liberty hosted a gubernatorial debate in Springville, Alabama. All of the announced candidates were invited, four committed to the event, and three actually showed. The debate was moderated by local talk show host Matt Murphy and a representative from each of the sponsoring organizations.

During the debate, Robert Bentley, Tim James and Bill Johnson all presented themselves as fiscal conservatives. However, one of these candidates decisively won the straw poll following the debate. Here is how the votes broke down:

• Johnson 6%
• Byrne     4%
• Bentley 12%
• James  72%

While the cast of players has significantly changed, I still stand by my earlier statement that Tim James is the guy to watch because he IS a fiscal conservative and not just another Republican trying to sound like one in order to pick up votes from Tea Party folks, libertarians, fiscally conservative independents, Reagan Democrats and Ron Paul supporters.

In my opinion, the key reason James dominated the straw poll results is because he mentioned the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics in his opening statement, which I clipped for your viewing pleasure. The entire debate is available on video here.

Quarterly Business Filings by Year (1994-2009)

Source: American Bankruptcy Institute So much for the wonderful news from the White House and their recognized news sources.

Could someone offer a cogent explanation for this stuff that does not include the words "fraud"or "scam" ?

If a private investor put this dreck in the mail they'd be facing a host of federal statutory violations.

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There’s one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There’s no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government’s recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there

But there's more

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don't exist.

In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created — on Congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created — in non-existent districts.

In Connecticut's 42nd District (which also does not exist), the website claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

We should have caught on quicker when we saw listings for jobs created in Bloom County, Gotham City, San Andreas, Sunnydale, and Sodor.

UPDATE: A reader reports, "I have heard the congressmen representing Lake Woebegone, MN and Margaritaville, FL are livid those communities did not get their fair share of stimulus funding."

I can speak from personal knowledge that Connecticut has never had more than six congressional districts. If it now has 42, I may want to announce my candidacy for the open seat. 

Jeez, and I thought Vice President Biden was on top of all this and "no one messes with Joe"

So when we are told that we must give full faith and credit to any economic number generated by the Obama Administration that appears inconsistent with observed reality, please ask him where Arizona's 86th Congressional District is.

Something I've noticed: when many leftists make a claim, they tend to use as a source (when they cite a source at all) some leftwing blog entry or opinion piece.  Do you all realize that it's not terribly convincing to cite someone's opinion as a reference for anything?  I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't even realize that a website like, say, Center for American Progress, or Huffington Post, is biased to the left.  Do you just simply accept their claims uncritically?  Don't you realize that if you read only the Huffington Post website, you will get a biased view of events, which is not the same as reality?

Frankly it's irritating when I ask for a citation and I get some random guy's blog page.  That's not a citation, that is just some guy's opinion.  A proper citation is to an authoritative source, preferably in the primary literature.  If you claim that there are 78 billion trillion uninsured Americans and I challenge your claim, I really don't care that you are able to tell me that John Podesta also agrees with you.  I'd like some actual statistics please.

More than a few people have accurately observed that politics invariably turns into a a protection racket.  Note: None have made the point more enjoyably than the brilliant Mary Katharine Ham in this video.

In the Washington Examiner, Dr. Paul Hsieh (of Geekpress) points out that, even if they only intend to give people lower costs and more access, government tends to make offers that you can't refuse.  We already see this happening in health care, and more intervention will only exacerbate it - especially as the budget crunch becomes more a more immediate problem.

Suppose the mafia came to your town and forced everyone to purchase all their meals at mob-approved restaurants. The mafia would also select the menu items. [...]

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily determine what constitutes an "acceptable" plan. Hence, this creates a magnet for special interests seeking to include their pet benefits on the required insurance menu.

Massachusetts residents must purchase numerous benefits that they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, drug abuse therapy and chiropractor services. If you'd rather purchase low-cost catastrophic-only insurance without those options, tough luck. Mandatory insurance thus violates the individual's right to spend his own money for his benefit according to his best judgment. [...]

Like the mafia, Congress wants to make you an offer you can't refuse. At least the mafia doesn't pretend that it's acting for your own good.

There is no doubt that our current health care system is deeply flawed, and I accept that health care presents a genuinely wicked problem for both markets and democracies.  However, the more complex the attempted "solution", the more room there is for errors, unintended consequences, protectionism and rent-seeking. We have already seen the administration try to buy off doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals with legislative favors and protection. That's not an unusual error. That is how legislation works.

Current legislation may be a problem, but the biggest problems lay over the horizon where deficits and debt will force compromises and mandates driven more by public choice theory than public interest.

The greedy have a problem with the free market. When people are free to say no to spending their money the greedy are forced to give equal value for equal value. Trading is done without force.

Interventionism, which is a step towards socialism but does not place complete control of services or assets in the hands of the Government, Is by its nature more attractive to greed.

Take for example Cap N Trade; here we have a system which requires trade in carbon credits for an energy company to continue to provide a service. Nothing could be more alluring to people who idolize wealth; and people are lining up to exploit the need requirement that some will be forced in to trade.

Look at the national teachers union; Another example of trade by force; teachers are required to be members and fund the lobbying efforts of whatever the union wants to spend their membership funds on.

Examples of trade in the bible are done without force. “Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between me and you? Bury your dead – Genesis 23:15”

Source:

I’ve been looking for something else to write about. Some change from the distressing, embarrassing and depressing norm in the news in this country these days. I’d like to do something light and optimistic.

Sorry folks, just haven’t come across any Sugar Plum Fairies lately…unless you want to count Obama’s economic program…it’s for sure a fantasy, albeit a very dangerous one. I’d like, as well, to refer to him as Mr. President or President Obama, but somehow he just doesn’t match up with the honorific. He may be somebody’s  president but he’s not mine. Not by virtue of his actions towards the the military of this great country for which he shows great disregard and disdain.

Look at his face when he speaks of our military, or the WARS they have to fight on our behalf, or the mission they have been given. He lies, he lies all the time. His face and his body-language speak worlds about him… his disdain and dismissal of the American people despite his mealy-mouthed platitudes and empty promises. His megalomaniacal schemes, so tied to his massive self-aggrandizement. The perfect profile for a tyrant-in-waiting. The guy acts like a skinny Hugo Chavez.

Not satisfied to wreck everything he touches domestically, he’s off to Asia to grovel at the feet of more foreign leaders. BOWING before this Emperor and Empress of Japan. They are nice dignified people…but not deserving of genuflection from the ‘leader’ of the greatest country on earth. This is the second time His Irrelevance has done this you will recall. A head of state does not bow to a head of state…doesn’t this clown have a protocol chief? Or maybe the protocol chief is as feckless as he is. I have a private theory about why Barry consistently has to denigrate this country and abase himself in front of foreigners, who despise us more after he’s done than if he’d just stayed the hell home.

In a nutshell, (and no I’m not referring to Nancy-with-the-stapled-eyelids-Pelosi) it’s because he’s an EMPTY SUIT…literally, there’s no there, there. He doesn’t respect himself and so has no respect for others. He was kicked from pillar to post as a kid. What moral grounding he did get was from all the wrong places. He’s bitter and warped, he hates this country. He despises our Judeo-Christian principles. He is an admirer of a philosophy which seeks to destroy us and he seeks to ingratiate himself with others of that belief system, to have us believe that it is an ‘outreach’ to a peaceful religious philosophy when all evidence points to the contrary. He can’t understand why Americans aren’t rushing to embrace him, his warped and out of control Marxist Democratic party and his oppressive, destructive and repressive policies.

I am VERY impressed with the people of this greatest country on earth. The huge move towards Patriotism and Constitutional law that is sweeping this land from coast to coast is heartening and exciting. It is so much more than a political revival. It is America reasserting the values that our founders built into the foundations of this Republic. It’s Americans asserting America.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009