A measure in the Senate to strip the US oil industry of some of the tax advantages it enjoys (some particular to their industry, others available to all businesses) was defeated in the Senate yesterday, even after the President took to the Rose Garden to publicly beat up on those bad, bad oil companies. There are a number of interesting political angles to this story.
First, the President knew he'd lose this one, but the loss--in his view--constitutes a victory. Let's fact it. Gasoline prices are his Achilles heel right now, and with Israel and Iran sizing each other up and the summer driving (read: demand) season coming, the prospect for lowering prices does not appear great. Were the Congress to call Mr. Obama's bluff and strip the breaks he sought, there would be immediate upward pressure on gasoline prices and the President would share in the blame. But he knew they wouldn't do that--he knew Republicans would reflexively vote against it, and he knew there were several vulnerable Democrats in oil states who would also vote against it. So he gets to play to his socialist, anti-business base by demonizing oil companies, without actually having to suffer the political pain of even higher prices. Two-point takedown for Obama.
Next, what was interesting to me was what would have been done with the $24B (over 10 years) generated by eliminating these tax breaks. Half would have gone to--you guessed it--subsidies and tax breaks for the "green energy" mafia. The other half would have gone to "deficit reduction". I might have been more favorably disposed to the legislation if ALL of it were targeted at deficit reduction, but the goodies in the bill for Mr. Obama's supporters in the already over-subsidized and incredibly unprofitable "green energy" industry make this look like straight up payback.
Finally, I really think energy is going to be an issue that Mitt Romney can own in this election. The President talks about an "all of the above" strategy, but his actions undercut that. Romney needs to talk about the prospect of real, tangible energy security based on reasonable growth in renewables, nuclear energy, gas, coal and oil--to include fracking and oil sands. He must make a straightforward case that the one of the very few industries with the capacity to bring us out of economic turmoil--while simultaneously increasing our energy security--is our domestic, carbon-based energy industry. That's where the jobs are, that's where the growth is, that's where energy security will come from.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Democrats Abandoning Teachers Unions
Feast your eyes on this, friends. It seems that urban Democratic Mayors across the country have finally reached the breaking point. The self-licking ice cream cone that is the cycle of election and contract negotiation between Democratic public officials and public unions (chief among them, teachers unions), has finally gotten so bad that Mayors in LA, Cleveland and Chicago--just to name a few--have determined that taking on the unions is required to both improve the school systems and gain solvency. This folks, is the very definition of schadenfreude.
Teachers unions are like the Congress. We like our guy, but we denigrate the institution. Next to my parents, and a few Captains I've served under, no individuals have been as influential in my life as teachers have been. Unlike many, I have a hard time remembering even one influential professor in college; yet I can summon up a number of memories of really influential teachers on the way up. Chuck Donachy in fifth grade... Art Sharon as a senior in high school--regaling us with stories of his time in the Air Force and showing "Apocalypse Now" in the class after we'd read "Heart of Darkness"; Jim Forrest, whose obvious love of the Civil War unlocked the same in me....John Jenks who knew exactly how to motivate me in Chemistry ("Struggle McGrath. Struggle").
These guys made me who I am (some may now regret it) and I am indebted to them It is possible to love your teachers and to want the very best for them and their families, without also being in the tank for automatic raises, free healthcare for life, and overly generous pensions. When the economy hits the private sector hard, there is no logic to walling off public servants from the pain. For those of you who wish to come at me now for these views whilst I suck up a fat pension from Uncle Sugar--I would ask you to do a little research to find my very well-publicized views on military entitlement reform.
The overly cozy relationship between public sector unions and locally elected officials, the one that ultimately removes any sense of an adversarial relationship in contract negotiations (I mean adversarial in the strict legal sense) is bankrupting our localities, and Democratic Mayors are only now getting in the game. Scott Walker is on his ass in Wisconsin over many of the same issues, though as a Republican, he is savaged by the media/union cabal while Rahm Emmanuel and his ilk generally are portrayed as "courageous".
The system is out of balance. From top to bottom.
Teachers unions are like the Congress. We like our guy, but we denigrate the institution. Next to my parents, and a few Captains I've served under, no individuals have been as influential in my life as teachers have been. Unlike many, I have a hard time remembering even one influential professor in college; yet I can summon up a number of memories of really influential teachers on the way up. Chuck Donachy in fifth grade... Art Sharon as a senior in high school--regaling us with stories of his time in the Air Force and showing "Apocalypse Now" in the class after we'd read "Heart of Darkness"; Jim Forrest, whose obvious love of the Civil War unlocked the same in me....John Jenks who knew exactly how to motivate me in Chemistry ("Struggle McGrath. Struggle").
These guys made me who I am (some may now regret it) and I am indebted to them It is possible to love your teachers and to want the very best for them and their families, without also being in the tank for automatic raises, free healthcare for life, and overly generous pensions. When the economy hits the private sector hard, there is no logic to walling off public servants from the pain. For those of you who wish to come at me now for these views whilst I suck up a fat pension from Uncle Sugar--I would ask you to do a little research to find my very well-publicized views on military entitlement reform.
The overly cozy relationship between public sector unions and locally elected officials, the one that ultimately removes any sense of an adversarial relationship in contract negotiations (I mean adversarial in the strict legal sense) is bankrupting our localities, and Democratic Mayors are only now getting in the game. Scott Walker is on his ass in Wisconsin over many of the same issues, though as a Republican, he is savaged by the media/union cabal while Rahm Emmanuel and his ilk generally are portrayed as "courageous".
The system is out of balance. From top to bottom.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Could This Old Dog Be Getting It Wrong?
I don't know how old you are but I've been around a while. I was a college student when Jimmy Carter was President (proud alumnus of the Tickbite Institute of Technology or T.I.T for short), and I continue to be amazed at the parallels between our current President and Mr. Carter. Both were elected on a wave of mass psychosis that reminded me more of a religious movement that a political campaign. Both have insular, self-serving, vainglorious personalties with not a small amount of priggishness thrown in; a deadly combination especially in dealing with other politicians. Both are leftist ideologues seemingly oblivious to the pain caused by their hair-brained policies. And both have such a distorted and confused view of the world and how it actually works that they are genuinely surprised when their policies fail. My thinking throughout Obama's presidency was that he would be a one-termer. As populations age the younger generation must learn the lessons previously learned by the old. My generation had Jimmy Carter, 30 years later this generation has Obama. Lesson learned so now we move on.
But not so fast my friend. It's a different country from 1980. Leftists have controlled our education system, our media, our foundations/institutions and our government bureaucracies for these many years. We have millions upon millions of immigrants both legal and illegal who tend to support the redistributionist leftist position. The American spirit of hard work and self reliance has been attacked, denigrated and maligned and replaced with the entitlement mentality among so many, well I just don't know anymore. The balance may have tipped and it may be too late.
I hope not. But our problems run deeper than any election. If we conservatives, we libertarians, we believers in the Constitution don't start turning the tide on the more systemic and foundational problems we have, then just controlling the executive branch of government is no more than a bump in the road towards statism.
A Pill for Men?
Have You Made Your Romney for President Donation Today?
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Democratic Profile in Courage
In the House yesterday, President Obama's budget was brought up for a vote, and it was defeated 414-0. That's right. Not one vote in support. Not from the Democrats. Not from the Republicans. How could this possibly be? Here's one explanation:
"The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs."
So, let's get this straight. The one element of the Democrat power structure in Washington that appears to currently be doing its job (the Executive Branch) puts forward a budget that is then unanimously unsupported by his very own party because they fear its provisions could be used against them in upcoming elections? This as the Democrats in the Senate are in the process of skipping their third straight year of producing a budget of their own?
"The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs."
So, let's get this straight. The one element of the Democrat power structure in Washington that appears to currently be doing its job (the Executive Branch) puts forward a budget that is then unanimously unsupported by his very own party because they fear its provisions could be used against them in upcoming elections? This as the Democrats in the Senate are in the process of skipping their third straight year of producing a budget of their own?
E.J. Dionne Meltdown Over Healthcare
Usually, I find myself regretting the time devoted to reading an E.J. Dionne column. Today though, I am glad I did. I start my day flush with the knowledge that poor E.J. is in a righteous snit. His column this morning is about as close to a public surrender on the issue of healthcare that we're going to get until the Supremes come back with their decision (which friends, I still urge caution over).
It seems that once again, the only kind of judicial activism that Dionne and liberals seem to denounce is activism in support of the Constitution. Dionne reserves particular bile for the dialogue of the conservative justices, miming Justice Breyer's whine that it sounded as if they were discussing the merits of the bill. No friends, they weren't. They were trying to make sense of 2700 pages of legislative morass which none in the legislative branch took the time to read and which no one could comprehensively comprehend. What the Democrats in Congress DID understand was that if they inserted a severability clause--something done ROUTINELY in modern legislation--they could have avoided the whole discussion of whether or not to strike down the entire bill. But they chose not to. They chose to try and tie the hands of the court, they tried to raise the stakes so high that the court would have no choice but to assent to the overall Contitutionality of the bill. This was a gamble, and it is one they may lose.
In addition to his characteristic hyperventilation, Dionne engages in the fine art of "cherry-picking without context". He writes "One of the most astonishing arguments came from Roberts, who spoke with alarm that people would be required to purchase coverage for issues they might never confront. He specifically cited “pediatric services” and “maternity services.”Well, yes, men pay to cover maternity services while women pay for treating prostate problems. It’s called health insurance. Would it be better to segregate the insurance market along gender lines?" What he doesn't say is that the line of questioning underway at the time was one in which the government asserted that those choosing not to purchase insurance (the young and healthy, in this case) were "already in the market", and that there was "no doubt that they would someday require healthcare". What Roberts was doing was further defining the extent to which they weren't "in the market". That those who were opting out of the "commerce" to which the government is straining to prove it has the right to compel them, were opting out of "care" that they would never need. And for Dionne's rhetorical purposes this may make a great "gotchya", for the purposes of a line of logic and reasoning, its value was manifest.
Dionne closes by calling upon that great neutral arbiter of the Supreme Court Dahlia Lithwick (note: Canadian citizen) by quoting: “This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms,” Lithwick wrote. “It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another . . . the freedom to ignore the injured” and to “walk away from those in peril.” No it isn't. Not even close. Liberals would love to have us believe that this is simply a conservative ploy to keep from helping our fellow man. It is about process, it is about order, it is about power--who has it, where does it reside, and how is it properly exercised. Had the Congress simply said, "here is a new tax that we will impose upon the citizenry to pay for care for the uninsured", no one would have argued against their right to do so. We would have argued against the wisdom of such a move, but the Constitutionality of it would never have been in question. Rather than doing so, they sought a way forward that was dubiously Constitutional from the start, one which Candidate Obama (and former Constitutional "scholar" Obama) had serious reservations about in 2008. And now they are paying for it.
It seems that once again, the only kind of judicial activism that Dionne and liberals seem to denounce is activism in support of the Constitution. Dionne reserves particular bile for the dialogue of the conservative justices, miming Justice Breyer's whine that it sounded as if they were discussing the merits of the bill. No friends, they weren't. They were trying to make sense of 2700 pages of legislative morass which none in the legislative branch took the time to read and which no one could comprehensively comprehend. What the Democrats in Congress DID understand was that if they inserted a severability clause--something done ROUTINELY in modern legislation--they could have avoided the whole discussion of whether or not to strike down the entire bill. But they chose not to. They chose to try and tie the hands of the court, they tried to raise the stakes so high that the court would have no choice but to assent to the overall Contitutionality of the bill. This was a gamble, and it is one they may lose.
In addition to his characteristic hyperventilation, Dionne engages in the fine art of "cherry-picking without context". He writes "One of the most astonishing arguments came from Roberts, who spoke with alarm that people would be required to purchase coverage for issues they might never confront. He specifically cited “pediatric services” and “maternity services.”Well, yes, men pay to cover maternity services while women pay for treating prostate problems. It’s called health insurance. Would it be better to segregate the insurance market along gender lines?" What he doesn't say is that the line of questioning underway at the time was one in which the government asserted that those choosing not to purchase insurance (the young and healthy, in this case) were "already in the market", and that there was "no doubt that they would someday require healthcare". What Roberts was doing was further defining the extent to which they weren't "in the market". That those who were opting out of the "commerce" to which the government is straining to prove it has the right to compel them, were opting out of "care" that they would never need. And for Dionne's rhetorical purposes this may make a great "gotchya", for the purposes of a line of logic and reasoning, its value was manifest.
Dionne closes by calling upon that great neutral arbiter of the Supreme Court Dahlia Lithwick (note: Canadian citizen) by quoting: “This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms,” Lithwick wrote. “It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another . . . the freedom to ignore the injured” and to “walk away from those in peril.” No it isn't. Not even close. Liberals would love to have us believe that this is simply a conservative ploy to keep from helping our fellow man. It is about process, it is about order, it is about power--who has it, where does it reside, and how is it properly exercised. Had the Congress simply said, "here is a new tax that we will impose upon the citizenry to pay for care for the uninsured", no one would have argued against their right to do so. We would have argued against the wisdom of such a move, but the Constitutionality of it would never have been in question. Rather than doing so, they sought a way forward that was dubiously Constitutional from the start, one which Candidate Obama (and former Constitutional "scholar" Obama) had serious reservations about in 2008. And now they are paying for it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare At Supreme Court--Good for Romney
None of us should put too much into oral arguments before the Supreme Court. There are a ton of briefs backing up the positions unevenly advocated for over the past few days, and the decision could still go in any direction.
That said, no one--and I mean no one--benefits more politically than Mitt Romney if the Supreme Court rules against the Government, even if it does so narrowly, for instance by only invalidating the individual mandate (and leaving the rest of the law on the books).
Here's why:
1. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum is right. Mitt Romney does have a problem when it comes to the Administration's linkage of Obamacare and Romneycare. If the Supremes rule against Obamacare--something Governor Romney has vowed to work against/repeal if elected--then the "big issue" that the Democrats would have had against Romney largely goes away. From there, its all about jobs and the economy.
2. To the extent that it is raised by the Democrats (which it will be, in a big way, to "energize the base"), Governor Romney will be able to answer "yes, but the difference between us is that my approach was Constitutional, and yours wasn't. Mine represented the will of a state, properly legislated, while yours constituted an incredible over-reach of federal power. That's why yours doesn't exist anymore."
Let's all keep our fingers crossed, because no matter who the GOP nominee is, a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare is a really good thing.
That said, no one--and I mean no one--benefits more politically than Mitt Romney if the Supreme Court rules against the Government, even if it does so narrowly, for instance by only invalidating the individual mandate (and leaving the rest of the law on the books).
Here's why:
1. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum is right. Mitt Romney does have a problem when it comes to the Administration's linkage of Obamacare and Romneycare. If the Supremes rule against Obamacare--something Governor Romney has vowed to work against/repeal if elected--then the "big issue" that the Democrats would have had against Romney largely goes away. From there, its all about jobs and the economy.
2. To the extent that it is raised by the Democrats (which it will be, in a big way, to "energize the base"), Governor Romney will be able to answer "yes, but the difference between us is that my approach was Constitutional, and yours wasn't. Mine represented the will of a state, properly legislated, while yours constituted an incredible over-reach of federal power. That's why yours doesn't exist anymore."
Let's all keep our fingers crossed, because no matter who the GOP nominee is, a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare is a really good thing.
Renovation Update
The pool is done. The Kitten outdid herself with this design. Should be swim-able in a bit over a week.
And Then There Were Three....
The Mandate Goes to the Supremes
Yesterday's oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate is worth listening to in its entirety. I realize I'm going to piss my father off for all time, but the investment of the two hours required to take this all in is something that anyone interested in the healthcare debate really ought to make. Irrespective of one's ideological bent (and concomitant favorites among the Justices), it is hard to come away not admiring the probing questions of the Justices--on both sides of the issue.
The news spin is that the government did not carry the day, that the Solicitor General did not acquit himself well, but that the lawyer for the States (contesting the Administration's view on the individual mandate) did. Oral argument is however, only one part of what the Justices use to make their decisions. That said, the Administration had better pray that their written briefs work out better than oral argument did.
To restate my view on the mandate: I do not believe that it is Constitutional. But if it is, and if we as a society continue to desire that 1) people will not be financially ruined by catastrophic medical problems and that 2) people with pre-existing conditions will not be left out of the insurance market, I don't see how we can retain a private insurance market without one.
The news spin is that the government did not carry the day, that the Solicitor General did not acquit himself well, but that the lawyer for the States (contesting the Administration's view on the individual mandate) did. Oral argument is however, only one part of what the Justices use to make their decisions. That said, the Administration had better pray that their written briefs work out better than oral argument did.
To restate my view on the mandate: I do not believe that it is Constitutional. But if it is, and if we as a society continue to desire that 1) people will not be financially ruined by catastrophic medical problems and that 2) people with pre-existing conditions will not be left out of the insurance market, I don't see how we can retain a private insurance market without one.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Obama's "Etch-a-Sketch" Moment: In His Own Words
Our "friends" the Russians don't like our missile defense systems; no, not one bit. They are especially upset at the systems we seek to place in Europe. Believing that these systems are "aimed" at them (an interesting trick for a defensive weapon), the Russians have been making noise for years about them.
So at the end of a 90 minute meeting with Soviet Russian President Medvedev, where I imagine the President believed the microphones were no longer hot, we get the following exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
In canceling the Bush plan for a "third site" ground based missile defense system in Europe for the protection of the US and its allies, many believed the Obama Administration not only decreased the security of our nation but also made a tactical blunder by not getting anything out of the Russians for the decision (such as support for ending Iran's nuclear program). Additionally, this conversation with President Medvedev adds to the perception that Mr. Obama's emphasis is re-election, with national security a lesser-included offense.
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
In canceling the Bush plan for a "third site" ground based missile defense system in Europe for the protection of the US and its allies, many believed the Obama Administration not only decreased the security of our nation but also made a tactical blunder by not getting anything out of the Russians for the decision (such as support for ending Iran's nuclear program). Additionally, this conversation with President Medvedev adds to the perception that Mr. Obama's emphasis is re-election, with national security a lesser-included offense.
CW March Madness Challenge Standings
| Rank | Team Name | Score | Correct | Best Score | Best Correct | Champion |
| 1 | Sean McGrath | 87 | 41 | 103 | 42 | Michigan St. (155) |
| 2 | Jeff Stewart | 84 | 40 | 148 | 43 | Kentucky (157) |
| 3 | Paul Lyons | 66 | 37 | 114 | 39 | Kentucky (141) |
| 4 | Bryan McGrath | 65 | 36 | 81 | 37 | North Carolina (158) |
| 5 | Kevin Mooney | 64 | 34 | 64 | 34 | North Carolina (145) |
| 6 | bill bayer | 54 | 33 | 102 | 35 | Kentucky (138) |
| 7 | Jonathan Mosier | 53 | 33 | 101 | 35 | Kentucky (165) |
| 8 | Greg Dail | 48 | 31 | 48 | 31 | Indiana (176) |
| Report Updated as of: 3/26/12 6:01 AM EST |
Heading into the Final Four, it is Sean and Jeff in a runaway. Both correctly picked 3 of the Final Four teams--one more weekend of basketball to determine the Champion. Noted basketball aficionado Greg Dail, bringing up the rear.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Santorum Wins Louisiana
Saturday, March 24, 2012
5-4-3-2-1 Here Come the "Jokes"
Vice President Cheney received a heart transplant today and is recovering in a Northern VA hospital. I wish this good man well.
I also wish to be the first to alert the world to the onslaught of civility we are about to witness from our intellectual, illuminated, refined and, above all, hate-free friends from the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
