About Me

Name: Bill Crawford
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Supreme Hubris

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the riches of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -Sonia Sotomayor
 
What can I say? If Sam Alito had said something like that- even into an open cell phone at a family barbeque, he would not be on the Supreme Court today. Judge Sotomayor, however, will joining Alito this October. Is there any clearer evidence of a double standard in our society today?
 
This is not to say that she does not belong there. While I categorically disagree with her approach to law and especially the interpretation of our Constitution, the path to the Supreme Court for her has been greased by the decisions made by the voters in the last two national election cycles, and this is as it should be. She is Obama's nomination, and he has the votes to bring her.
 
That doesn't mean that the great culture war and it's aspect of competing views on the law should go away. I have a view of jurisprudence that can be labeled as "originalist" and if my compatriots don't speak their piece this summer, democcracy is not served well.
 
As far as alienating Hispanics, how much more damage can be done? If they want to hide her behind her racial roots, I'm too stupid to shy away from throwing ideological darts anyway. From a political perspective, rolling over for the likes of her will not serve to pick up any votes in 2010- that has to be done CD by CD on the campaign trail.
 
This is another reason why I didn't cry over the loss of Arlen Specter. He would be intimidated by this. I am a color blind conservative. In ten years, the Repblican party will be dominated from top to bottom by color blinds, and we will try our level best to show this racial warfare to be the crass stupidity it is. When enough people point out that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are clowns, the racial divide will begin to close.
 
Not until then.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hey...Want A Government Car?

If I have to buy a car in the next few years, you can bet your sweet patooty it will be a Ford. The Big Three here are all treading water because of their baggage, not because they build lousy cars.
 
I am driving a fifteen year old Taurus L. It was a damned good car when it was new, and it is a good car now. I can't wait to see what happens when the White House gets through combing through the wreckage of GM and Chrysler and they finally get done deciding what is "fair". As with the results of the reorganization of GM, I'll bet the bulk of what is "fair" ends up in the lap of the UAW. Imagine a manufacturing company where "it's not what you know, it's who you know" carries the day.
 
So the government wants to build cars for us? Why the hell would you want to buy them? Because they mean well? I'm thinking about the EPA and their laudable goals to lower pollution a decade ago by adding MTSB to the gasoline in the cold months. It creates delays in delivery because there are different mixtures for every region of the country? But it's for a good cause. It raises the price per gallon and lowers mileage? Sorry. It turns out to be a carcinogen? My bad.
 
THAT'S the corporate management you want to take out a four year loan to support?
 
Here's another one for you: the companies have to average 35 MPG in a decade? Reality check: it ain't worth pouring money into the vehicles to make that happen unless your gasoline goes back to over $4.00 a gallon. So it is in the government's best interests for your fuel prices to skyrocket again. This is why Obama commented on the high prices last year by saying that the rise was not bad in iteself, just that it "happened too fast".
 
THIS is the "change we can believe in"? You must be out of your mind. This is a ticket to an enduring recession. FDR and his New Dealers took whatever recovery that was starting in 1934 and created a recession that lasted until WWII. Check the numbers on unemployment and GDP growth in the 1930's- it's all there, folks.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brave New World

Act II has begun. The evil Bush people have left the stage, and the new standup routine, Obama, Hillary and the "reboot" team have taken over. Obama has announced that we are not going to torture anymore, we are closing Guantanamo and we are open to talking to any Muslim who wants to reach out to us.
 
How is it possible then, that a cadre of Muslim fanatics would want to buy enough C-4 to blow up a couple of synagogues in New York City? Haven't they read the new script?
 
Or is it possible that the radical Muslim problem with us is deeper than that ,and Obama's antics don't mean a damned thing to them?
 
Here's another one for the reboot wizards: this cell is reputed to be American, turned to their Muslim beliefs in the American prison system. Those of you in the State Department looking to go to Plan B and bring the terrorists in Cuba into our Maximum Security sysytem, are you planning to keep them isolated from the population to keep THAT from happening again?
 
That issue is preceded, of course, by the reality that as soon as these thugs land on American soil, there will be lawyers lined up to file writs of Habeus Corpus in their behalf. The time it will take for that to happen will be measured in seconds.
 
There is no end to the unpatriotic stupidity that some Americans are capable of here. The ACLU types are so predictable that it is like taking candy from a baby to make these prognostications.
 
Oh, I'm sorry- did I use "ACLU" and "unpatriotic" in the same paragraph? That was a mistake. It should be the same sentence, to be fair. The ACLU is an unpatriotic oganization. Yes, that's better.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cheney vs. Obama

We had the dueling banjo thing going today- Obama and Cheney talking simultaneously. For those of you who think this was a Cheney machination, Dick's speech had been scheduled for a while. Obama chose to talk at the same time, for whatever reason he thought  was necessary.
 
Obama laid out what he thought was a fair and meticulous path to his version of national security. Typically, he painted his picture of fairness and accuracy by omitting what was inconvenient.
 
For starters, he justified the release of the CIA interrogation method and their attendant security issues by announcing that he had "banned" any future use of any such methods. But if you read his Guantanamo memo, it allows the intelligence community and the White House to re-carve any exceptions it wants, if the circumstances are dire enough. In other words, as with McCain's condemnation of this stuff last year, Obama realizes that handcuffing himself may turn into a homeland nightmare. But for the sake of moralizing, he leaves this out.
 
He also continues to paint a picture of the world that equates world cooperation with us in this war on our moral posture. He is as wrong as he can be on this. The world cooperates with us (or doesn't) because of fear. Many countries cooperated wiith the Soviets rather than us during the Cold War because they feared the Soviets more than the Americans. The Europeans don't cooperate with us in the War on Terror because their biggest fear is the large Muslim populations among them in their own countries. All of our efforts to clean up Guantanamo will not change this.
 
And whatever Muslim extremists we manage to capture and neutralize will not begin to cooperate with us if we stick to the Army Field Manual, because they know they will have nothing to fear from their interrogators..
 
Dick Cheney understood this, and so did Bush. The only difference between the two is that Bush seems to be comfortable in letting history be his judge, and Cheney is more perturbed ay letting Obama rewrite the history of the last eight years without spekaing up himself.
 
There is the rub. Obama is not content changing course, which, as a duly elected President, he has an absolute right to attempt. He insists on showing, by comparison, that his road is the only high road around and all those who disagree are some sort of moral reprobates.
 
If you dissect Cheney's words, he allows for diagreement. You may not agree with what we did, he says, but here is why we did it. He also points out how they got approval for everything they did, and he dares anybody to challenge them legally. Which, curiously, many on the Left have threatened but none have tried to actually do.
 
Which is why mpeachment was bandied about at so many cocktal parties in the Beltway, but nobody ever signed on to co-sponsor John Conyer's H.R. 635, 636 and 637, which sat in Committee and died. If the Bush administration actually dd what they were accused of, this libertarian would have gone along with them in impeachment in a heartbeat.
 
My advice for Obama: stop running for President, and act like one. You don't need to continue makinjg comparisons to the past administration to be Presidential. You got 55% of the vote, big guy. Run with it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California At It Again

Let me see if I've got this straight: the largest state in the country has the largest share of trouble. 12% unemployment, a $47B state deficit, the higest foreclosure rate in the country, the biggest fall in housing prices over the last five years, the highest personal tax rates in America and already paying for college for many illegal immigrants.
 
Why on earth would anybody hold public office in a place like that and offer a public referendum on raising taxes? What kind of answer do you think you would get? But they did.
 
SIx of them. Five of them went down in flames. The only one that passed was a provision that public officials would not be allowed to vote themselves a raise during a recession.
 
The public and corporate sponsors of these outspent the opponents ten to one. It speaks volumes that it's biggest cheerleader, the Guvernator, was in Washington DC begging for money on the day of the vote. He had enough sense to stay out of town.
 
Look carefully, Mr. President: this is your state. You carried it easily last year. Does this tell you anything about raising taxes on snack foods and soda to pay for your health care?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baby Boomers- The Drug Trip

I am part of the younger end of the Baby Boom. I missed out on the Haight & Ashbury revolution and the Summer of Love (1967, when I was in Elementary School). None of my friends who did drugs (and there were many) did so to "expand their consciousness", or "reach a higher plane".
 
As a result, there is no raging debate in the younger end when their children ask them about smoking marijuana. Only a 60 year old would think something like, "Should I tell them about the first doobie I smoked when I saw the Dead in New Haven, or just about the short term memory loss?" My comtemporaries viewed it as little more than a habit. A fun and expensive habit, as was cocaine, but nothing more. I don't even have that problem with my own kids, being that I never had time for anything more than beer.
 
I like to drag out the tale of Pink Floyd. An interesting group, even when they were up and coming rockers from London. They were led by a wacko named Syd Barrett, who gave them their unique sound and their first hit singles. He graduated to LSD, and used so much of it that he was no longer viable on the concert stage. They broke off from him, and tried writing their own singles, which they were not anywhere up to as much as Syd was on his best behavior.
 
So they regrouped, and decided to record a thematic album, which was not somthing fully realized by anybody at the time. And in 1971, they recorded Dark Side Of The Moon. We all know where that went.
 
Four years later, they were recording Wish You Were Here and Syd showed up, so fat and out of it that they were shocked. The title of the new album was a paen to Syd, who they only went away from because he gave them no other choice. They were always grateful for what he started, but now he was a walking vegetable.
 
Therin layeth the lesson: the legions of recreational drug users always laugh at the reruns of "Reefer Madness", but the victims of overdose kept piling up. The ones that survived and still do the reunion tours are relatively clean now, and they find a batch of studio people and the like to replace their Keith Moons.
 
And it's still presented by the Boomers as all good fun. Yeah, it's for "medicinal purposes". And Junior is off the Honor Roll now, but he's still going to graduate, so what's the big deal? 
 
I pass. My kids 'won't have any time' for it, either. The Methadone clinics of the world are filled with people that could have been something special, if their parents only kept them in the game when they still needed the guidance.
 
Then again, I could be living in California, where this mentality has practically taken over the State. Parts of this country are just so dog nuts that it boggles the mind.  
 
That was where the comedians missed the point on "Just Say No" from twenty years ago. Of course someone on a gram a day habit wasn't going to be able to "just say no" and walk away. It was their parents who were suposed to say "no" for them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi Backs The Bus Onto Herself

The Esteemed Congresswoman from California stepped into a pile deeper than she can talk her way out of. In the effort to regain a footing worthy of all the moral posturing she has done over the last four years, she ended up accusing the representatives of the CIA of lying to Congress- which is a federal crime, folks.
 
And the pals that stood with her all this time, declaring Bush and Cheney as the equivalent of the East German Securidat are now all of a sudden not free to throw rocks from outside the lines, but are in positions of power and actually responsible for silly things like.....national security. Hence the unambiguous denial of wrongdoing by the likes of Leon Panetta. Not a finger lifted from the White House, even though candidate Obama was with her on this stupidity on the campaign trail.
 
This will not be an overnight thing, but she will not be Speaker for long, if that Party has any wits about them. The House Speaker is a sensitive position- it comes with the power. The Republicans backed Stenni Hoyer into a corner to fish or cut bait in defending her on the House floor last week, and his response was to act as if he didn't even know her.
 
You can be out of power and say stupid things without consequence, save being another five minute vignette on The Daily Show. When you hold the reins, words mean things all of a sudden. Obama falls down on this sometimes, but knows enough to make corrections. Biden still hasn't learned to shut his mouth, but he seems to be regarded as some sort of lawn ornament at this point. Pelosi is in no danger of losing her seat in San Francisco, but she will soon only wield the gavel as a guest of Speaker Hoyer.
 
This should be funny. Hell, maybe it will be in twenty years. Right now, it is so stupid and dangerous, it is tragic. Are they really THAT stupid on the West Coast?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care From Hell

This issue is about as complicated as they come, so bear with me, folks. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. Not because you may not understand it- it's that this subject can easily turn into a three hour C-Span discussion.
 
Obama Care is coming, and soon. The bipartisan party is holding Democrat only meetings on this every other day, behind closed doors. Talk to Henry Waxman about that one.
 
Already we are learning that the extra $650 billion from the "stimulus" package for health care is going to have to be augmented by a Senate proposal to tax non-diet soft drinks, juices and snack foods. This is stuff that only the rich consume, because Barrack was clear last year that the middle class would not see their taxes go up, "not one thin dime".
 
Obama is planning to insure the uninsured by expanding the federal entitlement pools, mostly through Medicare Part B, and then penalizing companies that don't provide the same level of insurance-to coerce them to dump their employees into the same pool. This is old news, and the details are in Tom Daschle's wonderful book, in case anybody is interested.
 
Then the real joke begins: Obama claims he is going to cut costs in the process. This will not happen, for a whole host of reasons.
 
Here are some realities that will prevent this from happening:
 
One: We have made a decision as a society that life is medically precious, and we will use the insured to subsidize a homeless man who gets dumped in the ER and needs $150,000 in services. This would not happen in ANY of the great single payer health care countries around the planet.
 
Two: If you don't solve the problem of the illegal immigrants among us, or even the millions who are woking here on valid visa's and have no intention of becoming citizens- if you dump them in the pool of newly insured and make us all pay for well care services for them and thier families, there will be hell to pay in both parties.
 
Three: We must come to terms with the McCain campaign notion that we should eliminate employer based health care and make insurance personal and portable. This will take the third party inflation factor farther out of the mix and will be the last line in controlling costs in any way. It will also force providers to compete more often and with millions of individuals instead of hundreds of companies.
 
Four: We need to face the fact that Doctors and Nurses are a finite resource and take three to twelve years to train out of High School. If we expand the patient pool immiediately, and the provider pool doesn't follow, how long do you think it will be before government rationing is called for?
 
Five: We have to face the fact that smokers do not pose the long term costs for the system they are reputed to. Smokers tend to develop problems and die relatively soon afterward. In the meantime, they fork over tons of tax money to fund all sorts of things. Obese people, on the other hand, get symptoms and cost money from childhood and go for decades. The numbers on Diabetes alone would boggle your mind. Here's a hint on that one: passing one of the most regressive taxes you can think of on soda and potato chips is NOT going to get them better.
 
Six: there will be no cost savngs at all until we engage in tort reform. Extra testing for lawsuit aversion ('Defensive Medicine') is a direct result of litigation-driven malpractice insurance costs. Ob/Gyn insurance routinely runs six figures a year, for gosh sakes. Who do you think pays for that? Do the Doctors starve their kids, or raise their fees?
 
I don't pretend to have the answers for this. It's a complicated issue. All I am saying is that the present system here is better than many are making it out to be, and if you overhaul it the way Obama is soon going to propose, all hell will break loose.
 
Fortunately, it will be politically unpalatable, and Maureen Dowd will be singing her laments later this year about it. If she gets a heart attack in the process, I'd like to see if she would rather be treated in Ottowa.
 
You can guess where my betting money is on that one.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ghost Of Cheney Reappears

The time honored tradition of fading into the background and allowing your successors to work in the White House was broken long ago. Jimmy Carter poked his fingers through the dam in the early 1980's. Bill Clinton, who never did learn how to shut up, busted the dam wide open, starting with his second farewell speech in Washington D.C.- which took place the same time as the first of Bush's inaugural balls were starting.
 
So what brought Cheney out? What started the torments anew at the editorial boards of most of our urban newspapers?
 
I'll tell you why. Obama's people decided to make political hay out of a national security issue. Let's declassify the interrogation memos from 9/11- releasing to the world exactly what our techniques were, in case Al Queda wants to train themselves for us in the future. Let's hold back the results, though. We'll just send out the parts that make the old guys look bad.
 
So the ex-VP called them on it. In for a penny, in for a pound. You've already dumped the most sensitive part into the mainstream, so finish the job. Release the rest, he said. Show them what we got out of it. And surely if there was nothing to that, that would have been part of the original dump- you can bet your Rahm Emmanuel on that.
 
Look folks, I understand there are a certain percentage of you that think this war was inappropriate from the start. And another percentage that  thinks that it has gone into some sort of remission. I am part of the smaller group that realizes that not only is this war not over, it has yet to see it's worst days.
 
So fight it we must. I will not bear my children any other future. I'll be happy to fight it for your children for you, too- even if I get nothing but derision and ingratitude from the likes of you.
 
We still are surrounded by two large oceans, and it allows many of us to maintain some sort of ignorance about how most of the rest of the planet was shaved by a drunken barber. I can understand that.
 
You'll excuse me if I don't go along. If you wish to define Dick Cheney as void of conviction and pose him as some sort of rabid lunatic, there is nothing I can do about that, either.
 
But if Republicans get back into power and you ask them (again) to "reach across the aisle" and their only reaction is to urinate on your pants leg, let's just say that you asked for it.
 
This must be the "postpartisan unity" that Obama promised so fervently. Yeah, I see it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Deer In The Headlights

I had a bad dream today. I was driving home from work, and I had to slow down for a deer in the road. I ended up braking to a crawl, honking my horn, flashing the brights and finally waving frantically to get the damned thing to move off to the side. It just sat there, not knowing what the hell to do, looking scared as hell.
 
...Then I woke up and I was watching Nancy Pelosi at the microphone, stammering and stuttering her way through her lying a** version number seventeen of her experiences on the House Intelligence Committee. It was so pathetic, I almost felt sympathy for her. This, however, is a grave she dug for herself.
 
Mind you, if she were a pro at lying on television, like the President (and his Democrat predecessor), she would be able to sprinkle salt on the stage and soft shoe her way through the questioning. But she ain't. Truth be told, if her party had any idea they would be taking the House majority in 2006, they never would have elected her Minority Leader- Stenni Hoyer would be doing that now. But they dug that grave for themselves.
 
After all the moralistic posturing she has done in the last few years, she deserves every bit of this. She felt the heat from the 9/11 attacks like the rest of us, and she signed off on the reaction. Now she is taking the offensive (she doesn't have a choice), and is going past the powers that be "misleading" her. Now she says they "lied" to her.
 
Well, there you go, Madam Speaker. Your chips are on the table. I call. Let's see your hand.
 
The Speaker is a schmuck. Live with it. She represents San Francisco, and that town is full of schmucks, so she won;t lose her seat. Democrats: do we really need her to be third in line for the Presidency?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ACLU vs. Obama

This President shows us all again what happens when you combine the killer instincts of a true politician with a moral relativism: the ability to turn on a dime, even if it deranges your core supporters.
 
He won accolades in the NY Times for his decision not to continue to appeal the release of photos from Abu Graib. )The ACLU has had a Freedom Of Information Act application on these for years, and it is winding it's way towards the Supreme Court. ) Then he announced this week that he would appeal them anew, for "national security" reasons.
 
Curiously, he speaks publicly about this as if he were a bystander to the process. The truth to that is, the Pentagon has been against this forever, and Holder's Justice Department is all for it. It is not thiers to decide. I guess the buck only stops "here" when it is convenient.
 
So now the icon of the ACLU may well end up named in a separate lawsuit against them. Naaah... if this were Bush, it already would have happened. It is still in their best interests not to make this guy look bad. It also has been noted by these groups that if you get on his bad side, he will cut you off. Ain;t that right, Reverend Wrght?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Conservative Reaction Is Coming

Conservatives have a distinct advantage over their detractors here: they can see both sides of things.
 
If you live in New York or California, and you happen to be one of those who think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is as easy for you to dig up your viewpoint in the media as it is for me to find it. All you have to do is turn on the television. Or read any of the major news weeklies. Or pick up a local newspaper.
 
Since I am a conservative, I can do this any time. When I start reaching for the air sickness bag, I know full well where to go to find a more conservative viewpoint, in any format I choose. I also am far more likely to encouter other conservatives in person.  Obama-ites would have to dig for this stuff, and they often have no desire to.
 
There is a ground swell building in middle America. The last Presidential election was not a Reagan landslide, folks. I'm not the only one out there who feels like they are living through the first six chapters of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The leadership in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling their oats, are thinking (rightly) that this is the time to strike, and they are going way too far and fast to hold the swing voters for the duration.
 
The area I live in in North Carolina has been dominated by structural Democrats for eons. They have never seen a surge in Republican activism as is happening here right now, not even after Bill Clinton was elected. This is happening in many places. The party is struggling to organize the participation to make it do something, but if it keeps up, the money and the structure will follow.
 
This is the unholy surprise for the people on the coasts: there is virtually no reporting of this going in in your media. It is all happening under the radar. The only instance of it getting out that I've seen was the Tax Day rallies, and they were often used as some sort of comic relief in the mainstream media.
 
My sympathies to those who really need to get out more. Your lack of perspective will kill you politically. If you wait until October of 2010 to wake up to what is happening, you will have not one, but two miserable national election cycles.
 
I understand the Republican leadership of yore is where they are because they are still woking out the machanics of governing. When they ran out of easily enacted ideas in the '90's, they fell back into maintaining a coalition and using their power to stay a majority. Their followers thought they were capable of more.
 
But its not that they lacked followers. Karl Rove's voter targeting in 2002-04 did not pull the voters out of thin air, a la ACORN. These people are out there. The numbers are there. They are begging to be organized.
 
And they are angry as hell. You under estimate them at your peril.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Sorry State Of California

Where do I start? Emigration? (Yes, I said emigration). Taxes? Government? Education? The laundry list is so long, it boggles the mind.
 
There was a great migration westward after World War II that quickly made them pass New York as the most populous State.  A decade later, they were a colossus. They prided themselves in the 1960's and '70's on being the leading edge of politics and law.
 
When the Defense workers left town for other things at the end of the Cold War, they left a political coalition consisting of Simi Valley computer types, urban professionals... and a rapidly growing cordon of immigrants.
 
I've gone on at length what this has done to Long Island in New York. Just imagine it on a much larger scale. You now have a dual whirlpool of flakeboards- the LA basin and the Sacramento/ San Francisco Bay Area competing to see who can drive the poor state farther into the ground.
 
Regarding taxation, it is far and away the worst place to be a taxpayer or a business. Nobody else is close. You pay more for gas there because the EPA rules are dedicated for them. You pay more for cars there because they have their own pollution rules.
 
For many years, the population still grew because of the weather and the burgeoning economy. Now, if they weren't importing more immigrants than anybody else, they would be losing population.
 
A bit of history: in the early 1930's, New York City was the pre-eminent city in the country. When FDR took office, the New Dealers regarded Fiorello LaGuardia and his city as the laboratory for their government experimentation.
 
They did so much "experimentation" that the middle class flew out of there into the newly forming suburbs as fast as they could ten years later, leaving the witches brew that comprises NYC now: large pockets of immobile underclass and the smaller pockets of uber rich that support them.
 
On a larger scale, this is what is happening in California now. There is a middle class stream moving to Nevada, Arizona or north up the coast, to escape the lunacy that comes out of the political class there. That leaves the hordes of Che Guevara rich who seem to like the lunacy.
 
The top 1% of earners there now pay almost half the income tax. The unemployment rate there is almost 12% now- the fourth highest in the country.
 
The political class is happy to give driving privileges and college educations to illegal immigrants, in return for whatever votes they can muster from the Hispanics to keep them in office.
 
These people run a veritable zoo, and then lecture the rest of us about our backward ways. New York and Long Island at least is small enough to wall off, if necessary. Building one around California would be a project.
 
Now they are reaping the penalties of the housing boom more than any other state, and their answer is to raise whatever "fees" they can muster (because Proposition 13 still places a limitation on "tax" increases).
 
The only difference between Governor Wilson and Schwarzenegger is that Wilson was happy to lead the State Legislature off a cliff.
 
If we took Michigan and California out of the national mix, we would be numerically on the road to recovery already. I don't know if I have the patience for political reform there. New York taught me that it may never come, as long as other taxpayers can help fund their mistakes. But what happens when the charity from flyover country dries up?
 
Trust me, that is coming soon. The internet has killed the old Tip O'Neill axiom about "all politics are local". Not any more. Not when the mistakes are available on the Drudge Report the next day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Doesn't Want A Recovery

I've had my suspicions about this for a while now. Obama made it painfully clear this week when he came out for closing foriegn corporate tax shelters.
 
Barrack is a smart guy. He must know that we live in a global economy, as Clinton did when he signed onto NAFTA and announced to America that he would sign onto economic growth first, to fund his political agenda.
 
Obama must know that American corporations use these tax shelters to stay competitive with countries who do not live with our insanely high corporate tax rate. If he gets up and talks about this in terms of raising federal revenue, it can only mean that raising federal revenue is a higher priority to him than economic growth.
 
The only other logical possibility is that he is among the hordes of economic ignorami on the political left who view corporations as some sort of bottomless money pit that can be mined at will, as if they are constantly veering between profit and obscene profit, and can be milked politically without consequence.
 
If he is about growth of government first and is paying lip service to recovery in the name of that, what is the middle class to make of all this? There is a clear direction he seems to want to go into, and you won't learn about it in the press.
 
He wants us to be Europe. He wants the government to be the primary employer. He wants the hand of government all over the private sector. He says not, but his actions bely his words. He contends that he does this because he has no choice. Ask the banks that wanted to give the TARP money back. He had a choice there.
 
He hasn't faced down the primary contradiction of Socialism: the State must step in and leaven the world of corporatism because Man is inherently evil, but it is then overseen by men in government- who are less evil how?
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Adieu, Jack Kemp

Jack passed away last weekend, after battling cancer the same way he battled life. Jack was an eternal force of nature in the conservative movement.
 
Jack was a well read man. There is no way to overstate that. He was a voracious consumer of ideas. He was the primary individual responsible for introducing Arthur Laffer and supply side economics into American policy. He did this as a Congressman from New York, one of the young Republican lions who had Reagan's ear in the 1970's.
 
Jack had his down side- his Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981 (which we all still live under today) would not have passed without Reagan's political acumen. When Jack was the HUD Secretary in the Bush 41 administration, Chief of Staff Sununu and many others in the Cabinet used to make fun of him and his frank enthusiasm for ideas.
 
He was my hope for saving the hapless and hopeless Dole Presidential campaign in 1996. He walked on stage for the VP debate and Al Gore opened by congratulating him for being a conservative who was open to minorities and poor people. Instead of taking him to task for grossly mischaracterizing conservatism, as I would have done, Kemp let the insult to all of us stand with a simple "thank you". His enthusiasm often came at the expense of political wherwithal.
 
Nonetheless, his ideas were powerful, and his influence over policy as a Congressman circa 1981 was probably something not seen since the days of Daniel Webster. He was another example of how, while timing is everything in political history, sticking to your ideals can occasionally pay off in a big way.
 
The political insiders in the beltway used to roll their eyes at him the way the Parliament would roll their eyes at Winston Churchill in the early 1930's. Jack never gave a moment to prove himself sophisticated to the political class- he was too busy with his ideas.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive