Details of the Backroom Boehner-Reid-Obama Debt Deal

Via Prof. Jacobson, here's Boehner's executive summary.

Now for some details...

Grain of salt alert: this is coming from E Klein via twitter, but I think there may be some truth here…

Boehner’s powerpoint misstates the deal to his members. 1) The baseline is not specified in the bill, and does not prevent taxes.

2) Boehner suggests that deficit reduction or [Balanced Budget Amendment] has to pass for Prez to get second debt increase. Not so. McConnell mechanism.

Now, I don’t know if this was just written hastily or Speaker’s office is trying to mislead House GOP. But it’s wrong.

Stay tuned for additional updates as they become available.

Update I (via john.frank):

PIMCO chief: Deal won't prevent downgrading of US AAA credit rating

Update II:

White House "Fact" Sheet on the Backroom Debt Deal

Update III:

Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

So 40-50% of the budget (Medicare + Medicaid + etc.) would be protected from any cuts, while Defense (20% of the budget) would be subject to half of the $1.5 trillion in cuts?

Update IV (via Ace):

NBC News...

Andrea Mitchell: There has always been anger and animus in among leaders and among the followers - the rank and file, the caucus. But these new members really are willing to tear the place down. And they not only don't care whether or not are re-elected - they don't want pork (laughs). There are no inducements to get them to follow the speaker or the other leaders. So they don't want the traditional methods of buying loyalty here and that was a reform that now has changed the dynamic.

Brian Williams: Alright, Andrea Mitchell from our Washington newsroom. Wish there was better news to report to folks especially about our era in Government.

I could spend hours fisking this conversation - but let's focus on the last two paragraphs. Tea Party Congressmen refuse to take pork - Brian and Andrea are dismayed. I Don't Have To Say Anything Else.

This is one of the reasons I don't watch TV "news."

Update V:

Adding $7 trillion to the debt over the next decade = Drastic teabagger budget cuts

Update VI:

Wall Street Journal: Those stupid filthy hobbits are winning! Except that the deal will practially force Republicans to raise taxes:

This trigger is intended to be an incentive for committee Members of both parties to agree on more cuts, but defense cuts of this magnitude would do far more harm to national security than they would to domestic accounts that have been fattened by stimulus. This is the worst part of the deal, and Mr. Obama's political goal will be to press Republicans to choose between tax increases and destructive defense cuts. The GOP will have to fight back and make the choice between domestic cuts and harm to our troops fighting multiple wars.

This fight is far from over.

Update VII:

PJM: Just because something is touted as a victory doesn’t mean that it is.

Update VIII:

Allen West Blasts "Incredible, Unconscionable" Defense Cuts in Reid Bill

Equal Division of Misery

Behold the future of American health care!

An official report from an independent panel that advises the British National Health Service (NHS), revealed that the NHS delays operations 'as it waits for patients to die or go private,' and that the NHS also forces private hospitals to delay surgeries so that patients at private facilitiescan suffer just as much:

An independent watchdog accused the National Health Service of forcing waiting times for surgery even when unnecessary in order to reduce the number of publicly-funded procedures in an attempt to save money. In fact, as the Telegraph reports, the NHS forced private hospitals to delay surgeries, too, in a “levelling down” of health care service to keep the NHS from looking bad:

Health service trusts are “imposing pain and inconvenience” by making patients wait longer than necessary, in some cases as long as four months, the study found.

Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment” claims the report, by an independent watchdog that advises the NHS. …

Under government targets, patients should be treated within 18 weeks of referral by a GP. But even when surgeons could see them far sooner, the study found that some trusts made hospitals wait as long as 15 weeks before operating. The tactic forced private hospitals, which were more likely to be able to treat patients quickly, to operate as slowly as overcrowded NHS units in an “unfortunate levelling down”.

Remember, the Obama administration openly aspires to pattern the American health care system after the British NHS:

Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by President Barack Obama to run Medicare and Medicaid, praised the government-owned British National Health Service (NHS) for not letting their health care system 'play out in the darkness of private enterprise.'

Berwick is also quite fond of the British health care rationing organization, NICE.

Q: NICE is a bogeyman here in the United States.

A: I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.

I can think of no better real-world illustration of Winston Churchill's famous quote:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, While the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery"

Talking Points-R-Us on Fox News Sunday

By Proof

One of these people inspires others to do something with their cash.
The other is Gene Sperling.

Find the focus grouped word and talking point from Gene Sperling, Director of the president's National Economic Council, on Fox News Sunday this AM:

we can't have a cloud of uncertainty either hanging over our heads now, or just a plan that would kick that down the road to Christmas and have us going through all of this again in such a short time.

we as a country need to not only lift our debt limit and take away the specter of default, the heavy cloud of uncertainty

But those are things outside of our control, Bret. What is inside our control is to not add the cloud of uncertainty...

(More on this one later!)

And you saw a lot of economic forecasters say that if you could take that cloud of uncertainty off our economy

if we can take the specter of our nation's first default --
take that cloud of uncertainty off our economy

If you said "cloud of uncertainty", give yourselves an "A". If you picked "specter of default", give yourself a "B+". If you caught both...go to the head of the class!

Now, let's take a look at all the things "we have no control over":

We have had headwinds that have hurt this economy -- higher oil prices, supply chain disruptions from historic earthquake in Japan.

We have no control over higher oil prices? How about the government's strangling of domestic oil production? How many oil platforms have moved out of the Gulf of Mexico since this administration took office? Name one thing this administration has done, apart from woefully inadequate, "pie in the sky" green energy, this president has done to make this country more energy independent or to promote the domestic exploration and production of oil, which is currently the fuel for the engine of this economy?

Candidate Obama virtually assured us that he would shut down domestic coal production through costly environmental regulations. I do wonder how he would propose to charge all these electric vehicles, coming home and plugging into their chargers right at the peak of electric demand without any new hydroelectric, coal, gas fired or nuclear plants to make up the difference in demand? Obama wants the car you're living out of to be a hybrid.

And many in the solar and electric car industries Obama likes to promote (and shovel government money to) have gone bankrupt as soon as the spigot of government money is cut off. When you say we have "no control" over oil prices, which part of "drill, baby, drill" doesn't this administration understand?


Cross posted at Proof Positive

Of RINOs and Hobbits

For their demands for meaningful spending cuts under the weight of crushing debt, Tea Party activists have been showered with insults from an array of Republicans. Tea partiers have been called "worse than foolish," "unfair," "obtuse," "vain," and perhaps most puzzling, "hobbits."

Even conservative Thad McCotter says the "Time has come for the Tea Party to grow up."

I see all of this a bit differently.

Some Republicans are unprincipled, opportunistic RINOs ― and, yes, a few Tea Partiers are a bit naive and impatient.

But elder Republican statesmen who fancy themselves more sophisticated than the average Tea Partier would do well to demonstrate their level-headed maturity by educating and encouraging the Tea Party.

Republicans who instead endeavor to deride and demoralize the Tea Party are cowards and snobs.

In only two minutes and nine seconds, Mark Levin explains and analyses this story as well as anyone.

Hat tip.

UPDATE I:

"Off base," "dangerous..."

UPDATE II:

JCG: Who are these dangerous tea party folk, and what do they want?

Today, We Are All Zimbabweans

Via the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, a punk whose knowledge of history goes back at least 100 years, here's one of the bright ideas enjoying considerable buzz in the ultra progressive blogosphere ― magical platinum coins.

Obama could always just solve the crisis with a pair of magical platinum coins. Sure, that sounds preposterous, but Yale’s Jack Balkin argues that this is actually a perfectly legal strategy. Here’s the logic: Under law, there’s a limit to how much paper money the United States can circulate at any one time, and there are rules that limit how many gold, silver and copper coins the Treasury can mint. But the Treasury is explicitly allowed to mint however many platinum coins it wants and can assign them whatever value it pleases.

So the Mint makes a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve moves this money into Treasury’s accounts. And just like that, Treasury suddenly has an extra $2 trillion to pay off its obligations in the near term without issuing new debt.

This Zimbabwe-esque crack political thinking is hardly a tongue-in-cheek proposal. One of Matt Yglesias' favorite ivy league fascists promoted it at CNN, so it must be reasonable ― and it might be inevitable, or something:

It actually seems to me that there’s a colorable argument that President Obama is legally obliged to order Secretary Geithner to order the mint to start creating large denomination platinum coins. The debt ceiling is legally binding. We can’t borrow any more money. But at the same time, the Social Security Act is still valid.

Someone tell John McCain that his friends in the left-wing media are getting a little nutty. We all know how much he hates "foolish," "bizarro," sophomoric ideas.

Proper Goverance and Compromise... Two Concepts Modern Liberals Refuse to Understand

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

"But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1789

What, please tell is irrational, irresponsible, reactionary, a lie, self serving, or devoid of reasoned and therefore sensible thought in the above statement?

Maybe it's just us {real} conservatives that scratch our heads and wonder what it is this generation {actually going back to Woodrow Wilson's generation}of lawmakers fail to understand with respect to fiscally sound economic practices.

While recognizing the Tea Party is ideologically driven in the pursuit of achieving the purity of Jefferson's vision I challenge anyone to refute the wisdom in his words.

In this age compromise is as crucial to resolving problems and achieving consensus among rationally thinking lawmakers as it was in 1789.

What is bothering me, and I assume other rational conservatives as well, is the Tea Party's failure to understand the concept Kenny Rogers expressed in one of his hit songs, 'know when to hold em and know when to fold em.'

Refusing to recognize when it is time to compromise and thus achieve the lion's share of ones objectives is not good judgement. Rather it is the the wisdom of fools.

There is a time to hold em and there is a time to fold em. The effective negotiator knows when it is time to do both. Just as in business so it is is in government. Compromise is a necessity. Unless you hold all the cards, including the trump card.

Somehow reason shows the republican Tea Party caucus has neither. An so....

Falling back on history, as I usually find myself doing, consider this...

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300

Perhaps the words of Thomas Jefferson, a brilliant thinker of the age of classical liberalism ought be considered. Both by our elected officials and the general populace as well.

Just sayin...

Via: Memeorandum

One Man's Debt Ceiling is Another Man's Floor

By Proof

Do you remember not that long ago, that one of the race baiting, lesser lights of Congress was bleating that the only reason Republicans were resisting Obama in raising the debt ceiling was because he was black?

The fact is, the debt ceiling has been raised three times already since Obama became president. Where was the drama then, Mama? Sorry! Don't mean to let facts spoil a perfectly good narrative!

And all the current shills for the President, and Obama himself are telling us a "six month deal" is "no good". And "Why put the country through this crisis again in six months?"

The three debt ceiling raises to date in "Obamaville":

February 2010 - $14.294 trillion
December 2009 - $12.394 trillion
February 2009 - $12.104 trillion

Gosh! February '09 to December '09 was just ten months. And December '09 to February '10 was just three months! Mirabile dictu! How can this be??? Obama and the Democrats in Congress wouldn't put this country's credit rating in peril for a lousy three months, would they? Would they??

The answer is yes, they would. Because the debt ceiling crisis is a phony one. The matter of an ever increasing public indebtedness is the real crisis, which neither Obama nor more than a few in Congress are willing to even admit, much less discuss like adults.

Maybe the fact that the debt ceiling was only raised seven times in Bush's eight years, and already it's been raised three times, going on four, in Obama's two and a half years has something to do with it?
Or maybe it's the multi-trillion dollar, out of control spending with no end in sight that is causing people to resist giving the President another trillion dollar blank check?

Cross posted at Proof Positive

You screwed with the wrong guy, Mr Hewitt..

(Cross posted at The War Planner. Sorry if this offends but I believe in polite discourse when the parties warrant it.) As I have stated here, I am not a big fan of Hugh Hewitt. But I do not dislike Mr Hewitt either. His commentary is decent and interesting at times and his show has a number of guests worth listening to. Hell, I even put my money where my mouth is and subscribe to Mr Hewitt's premium content venue so I can listen to those guests I believe have something to say. (Again, I ain't gonna plug him by presenting a link. If you are interested, Google it for yourself.)

Who I am a big fan of is Pat Caddell, Doug Shoen, and others on the left who see fit to point out the follies and fallacies of those on their side of the political spectrum. (And, no, it is not only schadenfreude.)

It was with great dismay, therefore, when I saw Hewitt try to shout down Caddell as he was about to make a point:

I believe Mr Caddell to be a soft-spoken, measured person whose statements are worth listening to. He makes his points politely and in measured tones. That Mr Caddell was driven to this level of exasperation is indicative of how insensitive Hewitt can sometimes be.

But Hewitt writes of his encounter with Caddell in his Town Hall column (emphasis added):

Then Caddell launched into one of his rants about everyone being irresponsible, which is just absurd cant, and when Caddell resorted to the old trick of demanding the right to talk in ever louder volume, I kept saying no. Bullies on panels are like bullies everywhere -- give them an inch and they will rant for an hour. Caddell's schtick is old and tired but the crisis is real and immediate. The president and his Democratic allies have been radically irresponsible. Speaker Boehner is trying to lead but without any other serious leader in play save perhaps Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl. When Caddell or anyone lumps in Kyl with Harry Reid, or Jim Jordan and Rand Paul with Bernie Sanders, and John Campbell with Barney Frank and Chuck Rangell, a gentleman rises to the defense of his friends. Caddell objected to be interrupted in his slander, and raged even to the point of grabbing my arm, an amusing breach of cable decorum.

Another excitable ideologue eager to impose some nonsensical theory on the simple problem of a president committed to a radical restructuring of the American economy no matter the chaos it requires.

I chose to juxtapose Hewitt's words above with the actual video of the Hannity panel so you could judge for yourselves. I am not so sure that Pat was attempting to do all that lumping as Hewitt describes. I am sure that he was attempting to express an opinion and was the one who was being shouted down by Hewitt.

Of course, Hannity's Great American Panel is not a model of decorum when it comes to discourse and sometimes lively discussions and interruptions make for piquant viewing. But, it is the hallmark of this segment of the show that people get stepped upon, shouted over, and bullied -- most often by the host. Frankly, I was desperately interested in what Pat Caddell had to say, at that juncture, Mr Hewitt.

To be sure, Hewitt interviews well, asking penetrating questions and eliciting responses that add to the political perspective. I often find myself thinking, "Gee, I am glad he asked that or brought up that point; I never thought of it that way." But these little epiphanies are more often than not offset by Hewitt's dismissiveness, condescension, and veiled arrogance. I always get that feeling that he thinks lesser of those of us who did not work in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, are not "Con Law" professors (an unfortunate term, I believe) or lawyers, and do not succumb to paroxysms of ecstasy at the sight of an Ohio State Buckeye, Cleveland Indian, or Lou Groza.

His attempts at wit and satire are frequently leaden. His merciless ridicule of his producer, "Generalissimo" Duane, and the rest of his staff is tiresome and borders on disrespect. (I wrote in a previous post on my blog that I find the weekly show that Duane does with Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air far more entertaining that most of Hewitt's efforts. Duane has a very good understanding of the political calculus.)

(It also doesn't help that his show on KRLA here in Los Angeles has an onerous commercial load -- so much so, in fact, that I opted to subscribe to the paid content sans commercials.)

I will continue to listen to Hewitt; I will probably continue to pay for his material. But if we are to restore civility to the political discourse in this country, we need to treat the likes of Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen with grace, kindness, and respect.

Sometimes, Hugh, that just plain means STFU.

-30-

Climate of vitriol: Politico columnist calls Tea Party "full blown terrorists"

By: Wes Messamore

Are you kidding me? Full blown terrorists? These people are saying that Washington is out of money (it is), needs to spend less (it does), and will only make things worse by printing up more dollars to pay for its insane amount of spending (it will)... and because of this, an opinion columnist at The Politico wants to say that the Tea Party's leaders are "full blown terrorists??"

Remember when Markos Moulitsas tweeted "Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin," after the tragic shooting spree in Arizona that wounded Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords? Remember how the media blamed that lunatic's massacre on Republicans and conservatives for creating a climate of hatred and vitriol? Remember all the calls for us to temper our rhetoric?

What the hell happened to all of that?? I'll tell ya what, if anybody ever shoots a Republican congressman now, it's William Yeomans' fault.

Hat tip: Memeorandum

--
Wes Messamore also blogs at his own libertarian website.

Norwegian Lefties: Our Bigotry is Better

In a piece entitiled "A Blogosphere of Bigots," Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen take to the pages of the New York Times to blame "the international right-wing blogosphere" for last week's massacre in Norway.

Understandably, Gaarder and Eriksen hope this black cloud has a silver lining. If, as expected, Norway's left-wing receives "many sympathy votes, the right could be adversely affected." The nightmare in Norway would not be for naught!

In the meantime, Gaarder and Eriksen fret about the "caustic antigovernment rhetoric" that virtually gunned down a congresswoman in Tucson, and the "virulently anti-Islamic" blogs in America that oppose the mosque on ground zero. Moreover, they fear a "global Islamophobic blogosphere" that threatens to engulf the whole world in wanton violence.

As international right wing crusaders rampage, Gaarder and Eriksen believe that Norway's right wing "has swapped anti-Semitism for Islamophobia."

Jostein Gaarder should know a thing or two about Norwegian anti-Semitism:

In August 2006, Jostein Gaarder published an op-ed in one of the major daily newspapers in Norway, Aftenposten. This was written in response to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and condemned certain aspects of Israeli politics and Judaism. Gaarder also argued against recognizing the state of Israel in its current form. The article described Judaism as "an archaic national and warlike religion", contrasting it with the Christian idea that "[T]he Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness". The op-ed resulted in the Jostein Gaarder controversy. Gaarder disputed allegations of anti-Semitism, and sought to clarify that he didn't mean to offend anyone. He claimed that the piece was written in a state of moral outrage over the death toll in Lebanon.

Apparently, Israeli "baby killers" push Gaardner beyond the limits of his capacity for tolerance:

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as a justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the god of flora, fauna and the galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it silly stone tablets, burning bushes and a license to kill.

Shame on the New York Times for giving their bigoted friends in Norway a platform for their hate.

Update: Linked at Legal Insurrection. Thanks!

Here's a key excerpt from Jacobson's post on the topic:

A point I made the other day is that speaking out against the violence of the Islamists and Islamic radicals is not the same thing as calling for violence against Muslims or Islamophobic. These authors blur that distinction, and thereby leave themselves no moral ground on which to stand because they then necessarily stand by the side of those whose conduct they otherwise would condemn if committed in the name of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion.

It this very tendency which leads to situations such as in Malmö, Sweden where leftist politicians find themselves incapable of standing up to anti-Semitic violence committed by Islamists because of a shared hatred of Israel.

Emphasis added

OMG Chart of the Day: Bold GOP Cuts ... UPDATE: Debt plan fails

By RightKlik

Wow, look at that chart! The cuts are so deep, they're chipping away at bones now. This pleasesmy deviant teabagger soul greatly.

Old people will be eating from garbage disposal units and toddlers will be sold into slavery to work in the coal mines.

Compassionate multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi is at a loss for words ― almost:

What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

Resistance is futile, Nancy. The unwashed tea party fat cat billionaires will smash you like the little mosquito that you are. When we're done with you, you'll be flying back home in coach.

Just look at that chart, Nancy. Look at that chart.

UPDATE: Looks like a dud...

FLASH: GOP's debt plan fails to get enough votes, leaders pull it...

Hat tip Cato via Malkin.

When RINOs Fail

By RightKlik

There he goes again:

Mr. McCain mocked Tea Party-allied Republicans in the House for believing — wrongly, he said — that President Obama and Democrats will get the blame for a default if Republicans refuse to increase the nation’s debt ceiling.

By that flawed logic, “Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth,” he said, quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial.

“This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into G.O.P. nominees,” he jeered, referring to two losing Tea Party candidates for the Senate in 2010.

Why is it that when RINOs fail, it's never their fault? Remember the "crack political thinking" that swept McCain into the White House?

Oh wait, I almost forgot! When the economy tanked, McCain panicked ― he suspended his campaign ― and then he went on to lose the White House.

More to the point, "blame" is not the key issue in this debt limit fight. (Although there will be plenty of blame to go around if Republicans in congress ultimately fail to prevent Democrats from spending us into bankruptcy and taxing us into abject poverty.)

Tea Party Republicans and Tea Party activists delivered a massive victory for the Republican Party in November. Those "Hobbits" were determined to clean up the tsunami of debt that has flooded this country.

As we hurtle toward Obama's fourth phony deadline for raising the debt limit, Tea Party Republicans in Congress are keeping their campaign promises by using the leverage of their debt limit vote to force Democrats to take some responsibility.

Shame on RINO ogre John McCain for joining the radical left in bashing the Tea Party with condescending, hateful and incendiary rhetoric.

Hat tip to The Other McCain for covering this story. I'm sorry your cousin is such an obnoxious troll, Robert.

Discussion: Memeorandum

UPDATE:

A friendly reminder from Ed...

McCain’s thinking is pretty clear here — the One cannot be defeated, and so one must join forces with it. Had McCain actually read the books that he references, he’d have seen how well that worked out.

By the way, just in case in you don’t recall … the hobbits win in Lord of the Rings. They got a lot of ridicule from the elite and the powerful along the way, but they end up saving the West from ruinous destruction.

Things to Keep In Mind As The Debt Ceiling Fight Comes to A Conclusion by August 2

By Frank Hill, Telemachus

We have had many humdingers of national debates over our 222 years as the Great American Republic: slavery; the Cross of Gold; the First and Second National Bank; states’ rights; women’s suffrage; civil rights, The New Deal; The Great Society; Vietnam and the Reagan Revolution.

Historians are going to have a hard time fitting ‘The Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011’ into that rarified air in the Pantheon of our great national debates just because it sounds so darned ‘boring’ and ‘obtuse’.

But it belongs there simply because it starkly identifies the two ideological camps that have been inherent in virtually all of our national debates since 1787 beginning in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

In the one corner, wearing the Superman capes, we have the ‘Big Government Statists’, inheritors of the mantle towards concentrated power in our federal government in Washington initiated by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are staunch defenders in more government and more taxes to pay for it all, primarily from the rich and the corporations.

And in the other corner, wearing the red, white and blue striped shorts, we have the ‘Smaller Government Free Marketeers’, descendants of the decentralized visions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the bulk of the freshman GOP House Members representing the Tea Party make up the vocal leadership of this team.

And both sides think they are ’10,000% right’ and ‘on a mission from God’ as Elwood Blues (Dan Ackroyd) would say.

Isn’t it just a bit more than coincidental that the NFL players and owners had been threatening a lockout and end to the NFL season simultaneous to this great national political test of wills along the similar themes of ‘concentrated power’ (owners); ‘distribution of wealth (to the players) and increased costs (to the fans through tickets and ad revenues)

Here are some things to keep in mind as this debate heads towards its 'inexorable conclusion' on August 2:

1. We would not even need a ‘debt ceiling’ if Congress had done its job for the past 30 years and balanced our national budget every single year. No need for debt; no need to borrow; ergo, ‘NO Debt Ceiling Debate…EVER AGAIN!’
2. The US will not technically ‘default’ on its bonds as long as it keeps paying interest on the bonds already outstanding which we can and will do as the Priority #1 item in the federal way of doing things.
3. The US has a ‘massive overspending’ problem, not a ‘massive undertaxation’ problem and has had one for 27 of the past 30 years. Federal spending was 3% of GDP before FDR took office and 10% before WWII. It is now 25% of GDP and growing.
4. The ‘rich’ are already paying more than their ‘fair share’ since the top 1% of all taxpayers pay 42% of all income taxes as it is today. The top 20% pay close to 75% of all income taxes. The lower 50% of all taxpayers pay 0% of all federal income taxes. Shouldn’t everyone have to pay at least $1 per year in income taxes if we are going to talk about true ‘fairness’ where everyone has a stake in the national budget debate?
5. The Bush Tax Cuts are due to expire on December 31, 2012 whereby all of the tax cuts, including the dreaded AMT and estate taxes, go back up to what they were in 2001. Whether that is an ‘expiration’ or not, millions of taxpayers will be paying much higher taxes and tax rates in effective January 1, 2013 if President Obama wins a second term in November, 2012 absent any grand compromise emanating from this debt ceiling debate.
6. On top of that, massive taxes on corporations and small businesses are already beginning to take root as a result of the massively underfunded Obama Health Care legislation passed just last year. The tax hikes are front-loaded and sure to take effect in the near-term; the proposed savings are backloaded (sound familiar by now?) and most likely never to be implemented since no Congress can bind a future Congress to any legislation it passed 10 years earlier.
7. The ‘only’ pledge that really matters is the oath that each and every elected official makes when he or she takes office and ‘swears’ to uphold the Constitution and ‘protect and defend’ the United States of America ‘so help me God!’

Notice how the oath in the Constitution doesn’t ‘swear’ allegiance to a guy named ‘Grover Norquist’ or the AARP.

God. And God Alone.

We have been making as much of an impassioned plea as we possibly can make for the past 2 years here in Telemachus for: 1) adults to enter the public arena and run for political office to save us from ourselves; and 2) enact trillions of dollars of spending reforms and reductions to save us from this debt trainwreck everyone has seen coming down the track for the past 30 years.

If anyone has proposed or supported more fundamental spending reductions than we have on these pages, all backed up with official CBO scoring and resource citations, we would like to see them.

We respect the foundational principles of the US Constitution that clearly state that the Congress is the sole repository of authority to propose tax hikes or cuts, and spending increases and decreases, not a single person acting like a king or a Caesar or a czar in the Oval Office whether he is named, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama.

We can also count. The Democrats control a clear majority of 53 votes in the US Senate. The GOP controls of a clear majority 242 seats in the US House. Both sides have equal say in crafting a bill that goes to the President to sign or veto.

Neither side is going to get 100% of what they want, no matter how much they huff and puff and want to blooooowwwww down the house of the other side like the Big Bad Wolf.

So far, based on the tiny details that have seeped out from the negotiations into the press by each side’s professional spinmeisters, we think the savings offered by the President and the Democrats are too backend-loaded and non-specific to be taken seriously. This may be the only chance fiscal conservatives will have for the first term of President Obama to plant a stake in the ground to rollback these enormous spending increases and bring some sanity back to the federal budget which is why the House has rejected them so far.

The limitations in the tax deductions and exemptions are not ‘tax hikes’ per se but have the same effect as raising taxes paid by specific groups of people who have already benefitted from special loopholes and carveouts gained for them by clever and talented lobbyists and organizations in Washington, DC.

We have no problem with eliminating many to most special tax breaks…there are literally thousands of them in the byzantine current federal tax code which only further argues for a complete overhaul of the system and replacement by a consumption tax.

Our principle is this: if the tax break is not generally available to each and every taxpayer, it probably should not be allowed. What is so fair about offering a special ethanol tax credit to a producer of corn in Iowa, for example, when a middle-income taxpayer in North Carolina who is renting a home, has no children and pays his own medical insurance gets almost zero tax deductions to use himself?

The tax code should be blind to the individual needs of each and every citizen. The tax code is there to do one thing and one thing only: Raise sufficient funds to pay for the essential government services we need to protect and defend our nation; promote commerce and provide for the general welfare as it says in the Constitution.

Will there be enough time to craft a Grand Compromise by August 2? Probably not. You didn't see the Republicans take the lead on entitlement reform when they held complete control of the government from 2001-2006 simply because everyone knows that a Democrat in the White House has to take the lead on the tricky issue of entitlement reform and raising the retirement age for both Social Security and Medicare (which we think should go to 70 like by tonight at midnight. That would save close to $5.3 trillion in new debt incurred over the next decade, give or take a few hundred billion dollars either way)

It is a shame because these chances only come along about once every decade it seems where both sides have to sheath their swords and park their shibboleths at the door of the Capitol and go in there and act like statesmen for our nation’s sake and not their own particular political future or party’s sake.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

John Kerry Supporter Stripped of Silver Star

By Proof

Depravity knows no party lines.

Back in December of 2008, I wrote about Wade Sanders, a John Kerry supporter, who had plead guilty to possession of child pornography.

Seems this guy is doing hard time and has recently had his Silver Star revoked.

John F. Kerry almost became president running on the basis of his alleged heroism in Vietnam. Thanks to the efforts of a group of truth-tellers, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, the serious holes in the fantasy narrative propounded by the Kerry campaign came to the attention of enough Americans that John Kerry was not the first faux-Irish President of the United States.

One of Kerry's enablers in propounding his imaginary heroism was a man named Wade Sanders, who himself held a Silver Star, and who introduced Kerry to the Democratic Convention. Scott Swett, who was central to the unraveling of the Kerry storyline, tells us that the Kerry enabler has been exposed for what he is. His Winter Soldier site has the details:

John Kerry was introduced at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by Wade Sanders, a retired Navy Captain and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy who served as a Swift Boat officer in Vietnam. Like Kerry, Sanders was the recipient of a Silver Star for gallantry in action. During the 2004 campaign, Sanders functioned as Kerry lead attack dog against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, repeatedly denouncing the veterans on the air as liars and comparing them to Nazi propagandists.

Wade Sanders is now in Federal prison, serving a 37-month sentence for possessing child pornography. Now the Navy Times reports that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has revoked Sanders' Silver Star. The highly unusual decision appears unrelated to Sanders' felony conviction. A Navy spokesman cited "subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself."

-Thomas Lifson

I will breathlessly await his defense, both from those who approve of child pornography and or those so out of touch with reality that they still think that depravity is the exclusive purview of one political party. You know who you are.

Update : The Navy Times story is now online.

H/T This Ain't Hell
Cross posted at Proof Positive

Jug Ears Whiffs..

(With apologies to Proof, here is my "me-too" take on the gaseous outpouring from your television screens last night at approximately 1800 PDT. This was also cross-posted at The War Planner. Pay me a visit sometime and say hello.)

His mission last night was to basically re-inject himself back into the public ken after Boehner ejected him last Friday night and proceeded to deal with less capricious and more serious-minded Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

(Boy howdy, you know you are wading into the deep end of the kim chee pool when you resort to characterizing Reid like that!)

Anyway, in an attempt to capture lightening in a bottle, a firefly, or perhaps just a urine sample, Obama sought to channel his Inner Reagan by speaking to the people hoping his duclet tones will soothe them into yet another beatific frenzy like what got him elected in 2008.

Reagan -- The Gipper -- could do it. Obama -- The Gaper -- failed miserably.

In any event, Mr Irrelevant-for-the-Weekend got the urge to take his case to the people in a speech that took only one minute to invoke his favorite get-out-of-jail-free card: It's Bush's Fault. It's clear that he actually intends to be dragging this hoary shibboleth with him into the campaign season as well. Coincidental with his prime disclaimer, the NY Times produced a chart that purported to show how The Light Bringer is also a victim of the vicious, insidious BushHitler and his evil puppet master, the shape shifting Dick Cheney-Condy Rice-Donald Rumsfeld.

Crayon depiction of The World According to The Gaper

Of course, this straw, being grasped at by the lefty blogosphere, has been thoroughly debunked as an amalgam of flawed static analysis, invalid assumptions, and misrepresentation. Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air analyzes (emphasis added):

There are plenty of issues with this chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here. Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues; we’ll return to that in a moment. The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis. It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.

The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion — less than the annual deficit these days. Oddly, it doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the narrative Fallows and the Times wants to build here.

(If you are ever braced in some steamy, waterfront dive by a coterie of Obama libtards murmuring the "BOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH'S FAULT" mantra, visit Ed's dissection, print it, and laminate it for ready reference.)

But, try as they will, they cannot magic away reality. Doing the math is easy: Pelosi and Reid took the helm in January 2007; The Gaper got his grimy mitts on the controls in January 2009. We were launched into the abyss a fortnight later when Mr Wee-Wee Pants hustled the $800 billion stimullatio bill into law (after a three-day vacation in Chicago, remember?) and we were kicked further down the yawning crevasse by his incessant efforts to eventually pass Obamacare -- a millstone around the economy's neck with such untold dire consequences in the out years, that it has dried up business and investment for the moment.

But I am not here to argue stats. I just want to make the observation that his latest effort to play at chief executive is on par with the gold standard effort for the past 30 months. Basically, the speech was a vapid, perfidious airy persiflage devoid of any content whatsoever.

This was no major divergence from his past ability to turn gold into dross; he was no more than a petulant, blather-spewing juvenile incapable of accepting responsibility but more than ready to assign blame to others for his failures.

How many times do we need to listen to this incompetent or one of his clown troupe mumble this "dog ate my homework" excuse? Apparently it's wearing thin as Gallup has him plumbing the depths at 43% for the past week.

I wonder when we are finally subjected to All-Obama -All-the-Time campaigning next year if he will hit the 30% out of sheer, teeth-grating disgust over him belching out lies and slander in an attempt to paper over his pathetic previous three years. What do you think? I think I hear the nails ion the blackboard now!

Anyway, reminiscing, think back to The Oil Spill -- his dithering while the oil spewed into Gulf of Mexico. Several months wasn't it?

Remember how he also took months to finally meet with and discuss the troop surge required in Afghanistan.

How about is 30-month "laser-like focus" on the economy and jobs? How's that working out for ya?

Oh yes, the numerous gaffes and missteps in our foreign policy -- fawning to foreign leaders, kissing the rings of sheiks and asses of despots, bowing and scraping to emperors -- all culminating in a lessened opinion (if not outright contempt) for this country.

With each page turned in the saga of The Chicago Jesus, it is becoming more apparent all he is capable of doing is some light lifting, fluffy speeches, and schedule incessant golf games and expensive, exotic, tone-deaf vacations for him and his family and friends.

As to the "speech", I must candidly admit that I did not watch all of Obama's remarks last night; been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But, as I was fast forwarding the box to catch Speaker Boehner's remarks, I did observe this comical fool in fast motion: a spastic, contorted bobble-head, gesticulating wildly communicating nothing.

Perhaps a preview of how he will be presented in the upcoming campaign?

credo quia absurdum est
(I believe it because it is absurd.)

-30-

Aftermath of Obama's Speech

By Proof

Like the flotsam and jetsam that floats up onto the shore after a hurricane, President Barack H. Obama II floated in front of the microphones last night to give his spin to the deal which is being brokered (and quite more efficiently and quickly without the "help" of Biden or Obama, I might add!) between the House and Senate.
So, the president makes a speech outlining what he believes is the most important thing that Congress and America can do to solve the looming financial crisis...re-elect Barack H. Obama II!

Starting off with the old canard that "Bush spent Clinton's surplus", Obama tried to pin most of our economic woes on the "Bush tax cuts for the rich", which, incidentally became the "Obama tax cuts for the rich", since Bush was a private citizen when Barry signed that extension!

In addition to the fact that Bush really did spend too much, and conservatives called him on that, there was this little thing called the Global War on Terror, which started in earnest after three thousand Americans were killed on our soil on a single day, which also crippled parts of our economy.

If Obama wants to talk about a "surplus", maybe we can talk about the surplus of terrorist attacks Clinton had, which he sent highly skilled teams of lawyers to fight. The first attack on the World Trade Center comes to mind!

The terrorist attack of 9/11 led to what the Democrats like to whiningly call: "two 'unpaid for' wars". Meanwhile, they've added a third 'unpaid for' war in Libya and a half a dozen "kinetic military actions", so do they not care what the effect of these wars are on the economy, or is it simply OtbB? (Opportunity to bash Bush)

Not content just to ask America to "eat your peas" (while the Commander-in-Chief seems always to be seen with an ice cream cone), Obama tries to relate the problem to all you little people out there who just don't see things his way, so he goes into a "credit card schtick".

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy

Could? Only could Mr. President?? Where have you been for the last two and a half years??? And a "little"? This country, especially under our current president has spent trillions more than it takes in. The "credit card" analogy is more closely, we have an irresponsible guy who maxes out all of his credit cards and then, refuses to pay the rent or buy groceries unless his credit limits are raised and he can spend more money he doesn't have!

I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal

Which is convenient, since most of Obama's plans and proposals are conspicuously and notoriously short on details of what he'd like to cut...the so called "waste" he keeps promising to find. Remember when candidate Obama told us he was going to go through the budget line by line and eliminate waste,fraud and abuse? I wonder if you can even see a line of the budget from the 17th green?

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all

So the country has maxed out its credit card and those wascally Wepubwicans are telling you to stop using the card? Imagine that! But, speaking of "an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all"...how about your pal Jeffery Immelt? Immelt, CEO of GE and Obama's hand picked guy for the "President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness", heads a company that is growing in profitability and yet paid no corporate income tax at all in the US last year. Guess that's one way to stay "competitive", eh, Mr. President? Another way to be more competitive, according to Mr. Immelt is to take even more jobs to China.

General Electric Co.’s health care unit, the world’s biggest maker of medical imaging machines, is moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.
“A handful’’ of top managers will move to the Chinese capital and there won’t be any job cuts, said Anne LeGrand, general manager of X-ray for GE Healthcare

Well, of course! You want management to be closer to the manufacturing end of it, don't you? There won't be any job "cuts", but I'd bet there won't be many new jobs, at least not here in the States.

The X-ray business, whose financial results aren’t reported separately by GE, will hire 65 new engineers and support staff at a new Chengdu facility

And, of course, if management and engineering and manufacturing are all in China, then it's most certainly a Chinese division of GE. How many of the "millionaires and billionaires" of GE China do you think will be paying their "fair share" of American taxes? Didn't think so!

But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem

Whoa! You guys keep telling us there is an imminent crisis, a "financial Armageddon" if we "default" on August 2nd., but averting that default "doesn't solve the problem" if it only lasts six months? I've got news for you Barry. Nothing you are proposing will "solve the problem" either. You just don't want anyone talking about the problem you've done nothing to fix and have only exacerbated with your failed economic policies, between now and the 2012 election.

And, as late as 2009, you agreed, Mr. Obama, that you don't raise taxes in a recession, but now you seem pretty hellbent on raising taxes...just to make it "fair"!

But then, the Obama plan is not to raise revenue to pay off the debt. He certainly wasn't concerned about "debt" with his trillion dollar so called "stimulus" plan. He just wants business as usual, so he can spent as much money as he wants supporting his cronies and ideological fellow travelers. You little people insisting that Washington live within its means, like the rest of the country has to do, are just getting in his way.

Here's an idea, Mr. President: How about Washington shares in the sacrifice? After pouring over the budget line by line, (which surely you did because none of your promises come with an expiration date, do they?) are you unable to find a single worthless or wasteful program (other than our military)? Is there no redundant Department of Redundant Redundancy that can be eliminated under your eagle eyes?

Show us that government is willing to "share in the sacrifice" before you ask a single citizen to do with less. Lead by example for a change, Barry! Eat your peas!

Cross posted at Proof Positive

A Friendly Reminder

Are you a wealthy liberal who's worried that tax rates won't be going up any time soon? Here's a friendly reminder:

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Credit Accounting Branch

3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Hat tip: Don Surber

Super Congress - Where's That In The Constitution?

By Chris W
The Libertarian Patriot

So John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have plotted a coup to shred the last remaining vestiges of the Constitution by forming a "Super Congress" which would consolidate legislative power into the hands of a Counsel of Twelve, thereby shutting out the input of the other 523 members of Congress.

Sure they will tell us this is a one time only deal to solve the illusionary debt ceiling crisis, but when is any usurpation by Leviathan not permanent? To me this smacks of another case of not letting a good crisis go to waste.

If they are allowed to go down this road, we may as well sign the death certificate and declare our republican form of government dead.

HuffPo

Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote.

Via Memeorandum

Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner Has His Head in the Clouds

By Proof

I watched most of Turbo Tax Timmy's interview on Fox News Sunday this AM. (Transcript here.) A few things, I thought, were notable.

One was the apparently focus grouped word "cloud". Three times Turbo Tax Timmy mentioned "raising the cloud of default" that hovers over the country.

The idea that we're going to spend another seven months lifting the cloud of default from the American economy...

But they're going to look at whether we lift the cloud of default off the American economy...

And if Congress makes some sensible decisions right now, lifts this cloud of dysfunction, of default, off of the American economy...

He also used "specter" (the ghost, not Arlen) and I believe misspoke it once as "spectrum".

...we're trying to do avoid not just default today, but the specter of default in the future.

Note particularly the partisan blame game in this next quote:

And this spectrum of default that Republicans have put over the country is hurting the confidence of average Americans.

So, when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2010, and were Constitutionally required to submit a budget by October of 2010, wherein they could have addressed any budgetary cuts required, they failed to do so and this is why the Republicans are at fault? Takes two to tango, Timmy! The Democrats' failure to provide any leadership at all up to this point is what fomented the crisis. And now, any Republican plan is met by demagoguery from the Dems (You can't spell "demagogue" without "dem"), which is what they do best.

For the Dems to paint themselves as blameless in this negotiation, in which there are things upon which they themselves will not compromise (like class envy), is rank hypocrisy. Had the 2010 budget been passed, perhaps there would at least be more of a framework to work with here.

However, it was for political reasons that the Dems abdicated their Constitutional duties. They knew that if the voters saw exactly how irresponsible their spending plans were, there would have been more Democrats defeated in 2010. So they ignored the Constitution for the sake of holding on to power, hiding their intentions from the will of the people, so that there would be more of them to demagogue whatever plan the real adults in the room, the Republicans, would put forward.

On a side note, when you're watching the Sunday shows, listen for that one word or phrase that keeps creeping into the conversation, like "cloud of default". It usually means that it's a word that focus groups reacted favorably to. In other words, it will help people buy what you're selling! The most adept interviewees will work this word both into their opening statement and again the last sentence they utter. The gratuitous use of the word in between those two statements is what the spinmeisters hope you will take away from their efforts.

Anyway, little Timmy believes that raising the "cloud of default" that hovers over the country is to do that which is "most important". Actually, kicking this can down the road past the next election is what this administration considers most important.

“We have to lift this credit default from the economy for -- you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election”

Yeah. Right! Obama does not want his stewardship of the economy to be an issue in the 2012 election. The Dems would rather sweep it under the rug than to deal honestly with a problem that affects every household in the country. Notice that Obama and the Dems have stated they will not negotiate on any plan that needs to be re-examined between now and November 2012. Getting Obama re-elected is, as Ford used to say, "Job One".

There is class envy in Geithner's answers. The so called "shared burden", which of course means taking more from those who are productive, because the poor don't have a lot to share. (More on this in another post.) Note the language that Geithner uses, and know that it is not accidental. Geithner wants to raise taxes on the "most fortunate Americans". Get that? people haven't really earned their money, they just "got lucky". "Fortune" smiled upon them and money apparently rained from the skies!

The hypocrisy in this? Our tax code is not set up to tax the fortunate, so much as people who actually produce something. If you inherited a lot of money, you may be "fortunate", but that's not "income". If you work for a living, or own a small business, that's income. And small businesses, which create the bulk of jobs in this country, are squarely in the cross hairs of this administration and their tax "revenue" plans.

Unfortunately, most liberals use a "static" model of the economy, which is "How do you divide up a pie that always stays the same size?" Only, it doesn't stay the same size. More economic activity can increase the size of the pie, providing more and more to more people, while disincentives can discourage economic growth and production and leave an even smaller "pie" to be divided.

Liberal ideologues, like Obama and Geithner talk about increasing tax "revenues", when historically, revenues to the treasury have increased with the introduction of tax cuts**. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, which employs more people who become taxpayers and increases the volume of productivity, which means the government collects less tax on any given individual, but more than makes up for it in the volume.

To the liberal ideologue, this is unacceptable. It offends their sense of "fairness". They would rather see Americans unemployed and businesses ruined than to compromise their class envy based belief system. Candidate Obama said as much, that he would make taxes more "fair" even if it meant less revenue to the government. This was long before he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth".

Then, there is the obligatory: "Bush did it." When Chris Wallace pressed Geithner on poor unemployment and growth issues, here's what he had to say:

the American economy is still suffering undeniably from the tragic after-effects of the crisis this president inherited.

Translation: The effects of Bush's spending and participation in two "unpaid for" wars were so bad that Obama spending three to four times as much and involving us in yet another war and assorted :kinetic military actions" (KMA seems to be a recurring theme for the Obama administration, along with WTF*) cannot be blamed. The "denial" is all ours! Shutting down oil production in the Gulf and refusing to allow drilling and other activities that would increase the nation's wealth (and tax a portion of it as it grows) is not as important as appeasing the environmentalist wackos and trying to foist "green" solutions to every problem. Despite massive influxes of government cash, electric car companies and solar companies are going bankrupt or cutting back. Obama is sacrificing the economy of today for some imaginary tomorrow. Obama and Tim Geithner's plans for "winning" sound more like Charlie Sheen's.

I'll post video from the interview as soon as it becomes available.

*They say it means "Winning the future". Most people say it with regards to the present actions of the president.

**JFK knew this. If only we had a few Democrats like JFK again! Well, in a sense we do. They're all Republicans now!

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Sic Transit Gloria Americanus?

By Proof

I wasn't planning on writing about this today, but the fading glory of our space program moves me to write. In 1977, Jerry Pournelle wrote about the "2007 expedition to Ceres". The old Buck Rogers TV show spoke of the "last of NASA's deep space probes in 1987". The last?? when was the first???

Robert Heinlein spoke of the expectation that many of us had growing up of the inevitability of space travel. In 1949, he wrote in the preface to "The Man Who Sold the Moon":

" (the stories)...are of the "What-would-happen-if" sort, in which the "if", the basic postulate of each story, is some possible change in human environment latent in our present day technology or culture. Sometimes the possibility is quite remote; sometimes the postulated possibility is almost a certainty, as in the stories concerned with interplanetary flight."

Did you get that? In 1949, R.A. Heinlein considered interplanetary flight "almost a certainty".

How did we get from the first Model A Ford to the first walk on the moon in forty two years and from the first walk on the moon to the last flight of the shuttle program in exactly the same time?

And perhaps, more importantly, how do we get back?

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Another Socialist for Hillary?

By Proof

I have said on a number of occasions, that the bloom is off the hibiscus with this President. One more voice from the far Left who thinks it would be a good idea for Obama to face a primary opponent (or opponents). Bernie Sanders, Socialist Independent-VT:

I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that with regard to Social Security and other things, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president. Who cannot believe how weak he has been for whatever reason in negotiating with Republicans, and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has made the move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama believes he’s doing. [...] So I would say to Ryan, discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

So, the far Left thinks Obama is too conservative. The conservatives know him to be too far Left and the Moderates are deserting him in droves.

Might this be the time for a Democrat woman for President???

H/T Memeorandum


Cross posted at Proof Positive

Unexpectedly: The Bitter Clingers Let Go

Image hat tip

Democrats selected this guy to save us from ourselves:

...in a lot of these communities ... people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

You go into some of these small towns ... the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them... So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they 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.

Three years later, the bitter clingers let go...of the party of Obama:

A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites under age 30 three years ago has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage today. And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually has swung to a slim four-point Republican edge today.

Behold the limitations of elitist race-card statism.

Via Memeorandum

Arizona to Move up Primary?

By: Wes Messamore

The Yuma Sun reports:
(hat tip: memeorandum)

"Gov. Jan Brewer is leaning to moving Arizona's presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January in hopes of getting a jump on most other states.

The governor said she believes pushing the primary up from its current Feb. 28 schedule will give Arizona the national attention it deserves. Potentially more significant, she said it will force the candidates not only to spend time here in their quest for early victories but also require them to address issues of specific concern to state residents."

Question is, why don't they all just move their primaries to the same freaking day? Why should Iowa or New Hampshire have more influence than any other state over the process of nominating a presidential candidate? I know it's hardly an original point to make, but maybe it's been made so often because it needs to happen.

Wes Messamore blogs at The Humble Libertarian.

So you want to write about politics?

By: Wes Messamore

"So you want to write about liberty? Use the power of the pen to expose the oft-misused power of the sword? Change hearts and sober up minds to get this country back on the right track again? But you aren't sure the best way to get started? Well pay attention, because I've got the info you need right here..."

Check it out!

Management Goes "Old School": Turns Heat Lamps on Strikers on 100° Day

by Proof

This sounds like the cruel treatment of the "robber barons" of old, doesn't it? Poor abused or at least aggrieved workers set upon by dogs, or in this case, heat lamps on a scorching hot day, to dissuade them from striking.

The heat lamps are used in the winter to help keep the sidewalks clear and to give their guests a bit of a respite from the cold as they enter and exit their limos one might presume. Al Gore comes to mind.

But, what makes this story ever so delicious is exactly which robber baron is abusing the strikers:

Pritzker turns heat lamps on striking Hyatt workers. That's the chair of Barack Obama's national campaign finance committee, Penny Sue Pritzker.*

It was already approaching 100° at 8 a.m. when I arrived at the Park Hyatt where, after 22 months of stalled negotiations, hotel workers were staging a one-day picket to protest the hotel chain's intolerable treatment of their housekeeping staff.

In case you didn't know, Hyatt is owned by the Pritzker family. Heiress Penny Sue Pritzker chairs Obama's national campaign finance committee. She is also big player in Democratic Party politics as well as in the world of anti-union, corporate school reform and was recently appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to a seat on the Chicago school board.

Pritzker's response to the Park Hyatt strikers was to turn on the hotel's powerful heating lamps to try and bake the workers into submission on this brutally hot day.

What's that Obama said about walking the picket lines and standing with the unions? Well, so far, not only has Obama not shown up on any picket lines (not too surprising, since most of his campaign promises come with an expiration date) but now, one of his chief fundraisers is using a little old fashioned union busting when it affects her personally.

Expect a flood of outrage from the President who said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly", when he knew nothing of the circumstances, to vigorously condemn and perhaps fire his campaign finance chair. (Stop laughing!) Maybe he could add this outrage to his litany of millionaires and billionaires and why we need to raise their taxes? Don't hold your breath.

*To be fair, we don't know that it was Penny Sue with her hand on the switch, but using the Obama "acted stupidly" standard, the threshold is very low.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Concealed Carry Stops: Compare and Contrast..

(Cross-posted at The War Planner.)

I won't surround these two videos with too many words. They speak volumes for themselves. The first is a dash-cam video of a stop made by a Canton, Ohio police officer of a person who has a concealed carry permit and is not given an opportunity to declare same in the wake of this cop's angry, intimidating tirade. This is well-documented and commented upon over at the Hot Air post done by Ed Morrissey. The policeman's behavior borders on the frightening:

This next video was provided by one of the Hot Air commenters and is of an Oceanside, California policeman stopping a person who is OPENLY carrying an automatic:

The contrast is stark; the Canton policeman not giving the CCW subject a chance to perform his legal obligation of informing the officer and the Oceanside policeman giving the young ex-Marine EVERY opportunity to cooperate with him. The second officer is a pinnacle of politeness and courtesy and respectfully -- but carefully -- elicits information during his stop. WHat reasonable citizen would NOT be willing to cooperate with this gentleman?

Read the Hot Air post and you will see that the Canton PD was embarrassed by this angry individual and placed him on immediate suspension while an investigation is carried out.

-30-

Obama Blames "Self" for Debt Crisis

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but Obama comes dangerously close to making a Kinsley gaffein his recent discussion of the debt crisis:

"This is actually a self-created crisis in some ways. It has to do with folks who are digging into set positions rather than saying how do we solve a problem..."

I've been waiting for Obama to take some responsibility for our problems. This is probably as close as we'll ever get to that point.

Hat tip: Tea Party Tribune

Via: Memeorandum

'The Gang of Six' Budget-Reduction Plan

By Frank Hill, Telemachus

Sometimes, wonders never cease.

For example, who would have thought that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn would be rising up to 'statesmanlike' status with his $9.5 trillion deficit-reduction plan called 'Back in Black' and leadership on the so-called 'Gang of Six' compromise plan now under consideration in the Senate?

When Congressman Tom Coburn was elected to the US House in the 'Revolution of 1994', he was a 'Tea Party' guy before there was even a Tea Party. Many of his ideas were viewed as 'extreme' even by some of his Republican colleagues. He had been trained as an accountant and then built and grew a family optical business which was then sold in 1978 for a considerable sum of money, we presume.

And then he made the logical career choice that any wealthy person would make after selling his or her business: He went to Medical School! He finished in 1983 and started a practice in Muskogee, Oklahoma where he still specializes in family medicine, obstetrics and allergies in his 'spare time' at home from the Senate. He has delivered over 4000 babies during his career.

Back in the founding days of the Republic, that would be called an 'Enlightenment Man'.

Today, he might become known as 'The Guy Who Helped Save The Republic!'

What does the 'Gang of Six' plan do?

It basically combines specific spending cuts and budget mechanisms to hold down future spending increases below a certain expected growth rate in return for eliminating multiple tax deductions, exemptions, preferences and loopholes.

The specifics are not public yet but there apparently is a 'downpayment' of $500 billion in spending savings to be achieved by 2015 through a combination of freezing the overall discretionary budget; instituting a 'chained' COLA adjustment for Social Security; freezing congressional pay and selling federal assets. The long-term health insurance plan, The CLASS Act would be repealed.

In return, there would be a commitment to come up with close to $3.2 trillion in additional savings over the next 6 months in the committees of jurisdiction, to be implemented over the next 10 years across all of the federal government.

In addition, the Senate Finance Committee and Ways and Means Committee are instructed to lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, the dreaded and deadly 'AMT' that many people get hit with each year without even knowing it is out there.

There are no specifics yet but it is also assumed that many tax breaks and exemptions will be curtailed or limited in return for lowering of individual and corporate tax rates, both of which would spur investment and economic activity in and of themselves.

But one key ingredient of the plan also seems to be the extension of the Bush tax cuts forever first and then work the new details of the tax plan around that presumption. Presumably, the marginal tax rates would fall but so would the numerous tax exemptions that have been surgically-implanted into the tax code over the years by wily lobbyists wearing Gucci loafers.

The net result has not been scored yet but Bloomberg is reporting that it could cut tax revenues by $1.5 trillion (by extending the Bush tax cuts forever) before it raises revenue by $1 trillion through the elimination of tax loopholes and exemptions.

There are so many moving parts to this proposal that perhaps the authors of the legislation are counting on every constituency being so blinded by their brilliance that they can't organize opposition to this 'solution' to the debt-ceiling issue during the dog-days of summer in Washington.

We'll do our best to keep you up-to-date on the developments as the fog begins to clear but here are some key things to bear in mind every time you read the news on-line (does anyone read a paper newspaper anymore?) or listen to the Mainstream Media or the Chattering Heads on cable television in the next 2 weeks:

1) We have a MASSIVE problem in the form of burgeoning debt that we simply have got to tackle for the long-term health of our economy and our children.

2) Watch out for the amount of solid, scoreable up-front spending savings that can be achieved at the outset, not 10 years down the road. The debt crisis we have is 'now' and starting to solve it 10 years from now is too late.

3) Consider the actions of the committees of jurisdiction very closely over the next 4 months in Congress as they has out the details of the reforms and spending reductions in everything from Medicare to defense. If they are not direct and easy-to-understand to the average person, then they are probably ephemeral and 'not real'.

4) Watch the reaction of Grover Norquist and his supporters of the 'No Tax Pledge'. This proposal would extend the Bush tax cuts in perpetuity AND eliminate the dreaded AMT, the most dangerous personal income tax weapon the government has to come after your earnings if not eliminated or annually indexed to inflation.

But it also might wipe out many of the tax deductions and loopholes you may enjoy, so-called 'tax expenditures' that we have written about before. Will Congress limit the home mortgage interest deduction in return for lower marginal tax rates? The charitable donation to churches, synagogues, mosques and the Salvation Army, for example?

They may just wipe out targeted tax credits and deductions such as the ethanol tax break, many of which the average American taxpayer has a below zero on the Kelvin scale chance of ever being able to use for their own personal tax returns. When was the last time you used the 'special tax rules for NASCAR venues'?

These tax exemptions were stuck in the tax code and carved out by clever lobbyists and mean this and this only: Everyone who has access to any of the thousands of special tax breaks in the US code are now paying less tax than they would if they did not have the tax provisions. Is that 'fair' to the average taxpayer?

It is for this main reason that we have been supportive of the consumption tax to be implemented once the entire personal and corporate income tax is repealed. No exemptions, except for the very poor. You are taxed based on what you consume, not on what you save or invest. Very clean and simple to understand.

But that ain't happening anytime soon. This might be our last best shot at a major deficit-reduction package and some semblance of 'certainty' at least as it pertains to the tax code.

Let's give the 'Gang of Six' a chance to become real American heroes. And if President Obama signs something that is 'real' on spending reductions and lowers marginal tax rates, maybe all 7 of them will deserve their visage on a rock near Mount Rushmore.

Just not too close.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).