Rabu, 31 Agustus 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

Clearing the Browser Tabs – Go Away Christine Wednesday Edition

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 03:10 AM PDT

I don’t know how to make this point delicately, so I’ll just make it plainly. Christine O’Donnell does not deserve any bit of the attention she has gotten since she piloted her Senate campaign into the side of Mount Failmore last November. She has nothing interesting to say about politics or grassroots organization and certainly nothing worth publishing in a book. She was not a special darling of the Tea Parties; their support existed because she wasn’t Chris Coons.

It was a mistake for the Iowa Tea Party to invite her speak at their event on Saturday — a big one (via memeorandum). They partially-corrected the mistake by disinviting her as nicely as they possibly could, though their conflicting stories do not cover them in any great glory. Hopefully, that will be the last we see of O’Donnell on the national political stage for a decade or so.

I don’t imagine she’s looking for any advice, but if I were in a position to give it, I’d beseech her to stay out of the spotlight for a while. She needs to take a regular job — yes, maybe even one in politics where she wouldn’t be in the spotlight — and work at it diligently for a while. Perhaps she can help out a local county GOP organization somewhere and learn the ropes. I’d recommend she study her conservative philosophy so that when she is ready to get back in as a candidate again, she’ll have more than talking points behind her. She could one day be a formidable candidate for the House or Senate, but that day is a long time from now and conservatives are far better off if she stays out of the spotlight for a while.

I’ll be away from the computer for most of the day. I expect that I won’t get the post for last night’s episode of The Delivery up until later in the evening, or perhaps even first thing tomorrow. It was a good show, though, with a raucous and fun bunch of Deliverati in the chatroom. If you haven’t come along for a live show, why not try to make it in the next couple of weeks?

And now, links!

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

The Stimulus that Dare Not Speak Its Name

Posted: 30 Aug 2011 01:05 PM PDT

This morning Jeffrey Anderson noted that the latest Rasmussen poll had a couple interesting things to say about Obamacare. First, the voting public wants it gone — not just partially gone or mostly gone, but erased from the very fabric of space and time like a cupcake after a two-week Michael Moore fast. Second, independent voters want Obamacare repealed more than Republican voters.

So of course the new GOP jobs plan includes not a single mention of Obamacare, because why would repealing a multi-trillion dollar taxation and regulatory plan that hoovers money from Medicare, employers, and employees that almost singlehandedly killed job creation when it passed in 2010 ever be considered job stimulus? That’s just crazy talk, right?

Don’t get me wrong. The GOP jobs plan is solid, if not exactly spectacular. It will help, if the party pushes it hard enough and gets it past Congress. But…

But…Obamacare is still there and so long as it is, nothing the Republicans do on jobs will matter much because all their solutions are small in comparison. Clearly, it’s a winning issue, not just because America wants to be rid of it but also because it puts the President in an extremely uncomfortable position. Let me turn this part over to Ace.

Here’s a Question: Is there any one-sentence legislation that can do the following?:

1. Reduce the uncertainty and fear factor among businesses, and hence stimulate the economy

2. Save a trillion in spending

3. Add a half-trillion to Medicare without costing the taxpayers a dime

I know one. Repealing ObamaCare.

If this SCOAMF wants a “stimulus” — thus putting our must-have (lower spending) in question — then let us return that favor in kind and put his must-have in question.

You know why the Republicans suffered in the debt debate? Because the argument was always about how we wouldn’t give on our top-priority items of keeping taxes low and cutting spending.

The argument was never about getting into the Democrats’ top agenda items.

Now, if the Democrats and Obama balk at helping the economy over an unpopular law that only 40% (at most) of the public supports, whose fault is that?

But you can’t have this happen unless you frigging ask.

Now, Obama won’t agree to this. He’ll destroy his presidency before he repeals his Big F’n’ Deal.

Fine.

Then let him.

That level of public support, by the way, is down to 25 percent, according to Rasmussen. That means three-quarters of the country at least somewhat wants Obamacare repealed. I can not imagine the President will stand strong against 75 percent of the American public, not when that pressure is brought against him every single day, from as many different directions as the Republicans can devise.

And here’s the best part. We on the right already know what the Democrats’ defense of Obamacare will be. We heard all the demagoguery when they shoved the bill down our throats. We’ve seen their talking points and I’ll bet you a box of Krispy Kreme donuts (soon to be illegal thanks to some obscure section of Obamacare, I’m sure) that they won’t have a single new one. Do these sound familiar?

  • Republicans want to drive up the cost of health care.
  • Republicans want to put you in the hands of uncaring corporate drones.
  • Republicans want old people to die early.
  • Republicans want health care chaos.

We heard them before and we’ll hear them again, because the Democrats believe they worked two years ago. That’s not just arrogance on their part. Republicans gave them reason to believe their arguments worked because they still haven’t mounted a credible effort to repeal the odious law.

But since we know their avenues of attack, we can devise an effective counter. As it happens, I believe I have one that will work.

When the attacks come, and they will in the predictable way at the predictable volume and with the predictable amount of spittle and invective behind them, whatever Republican is on the receiving end should absorb them with grace and calm, then turn to the camera, pause for a second, and say:

“Folks, you know what what my Democrat friend just said is not true. You knew it when they pushed the bill past our opposition and against your will. You don’t want Obamacare and I don’t want anyone to have to live with it, so we Republicans and as many Democrats who still believe they ought to listen to you are going to get it out of your way.”

That is a winner. The GOP doesn’t need to get back into the muck with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. There is no need to quibble over some buried Obamacare detail. This is not an argument about merit — it never was. This is a battle over whether our Congress governs with the consent of the people or if a willful majority can do whatever it wants whenever it wants to whatever degree it wants.

It’s also a battle for jobs, freedom, and the continued health of the economy will only be won once Obamacare has been tossed in the dumpster along with the rest of the trash.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Selasa, 30 Agustus 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

Clearing the Browser Tabs – Slooooowly They Retracted Tuesday Edition

Posted: 30 Aug 2011 03:10 AM PDT

One of my favorite comedy bits is an old Vaudeville routine done most famously by the Three Stooges. It revolves around the phrase “Niagara Falls” and I can’t hear that city’s name today without immediately following it with “Sloooooooowly I turned…step by step, inch by inch”. I was reminded of that routine as I read these posts by Moe Lane and John Hinderaker on the New York Times’ piecemeal retraction of what can only be called a hit piece against Congressman Darrell Issa (via memeorandum). The Times’ first mistake was trusting its reporter not to crib a whole story from the Think Progress propaganda and fiction mill. Its second mistake was to believe that Congressman Issa wouldn’t fight back with his whole strength.

Eventually, there won’t be anything left of the story but a few spare conjunctions and that’s as it should be. There won’t be an apology, of course, but that’s okay. The Times really isn’t sorry.

Don’t forget The Delivery tonight at 9:30 PM Eastern. Show up in the chat room a few minutes early for the pre-show warm up with music and exclusive chit-chat you won’t get if you only listen to the polished and pretty podcast. I’ve a story that’s been percolating in my head for a day or so that ought to make for an interesting first half, at least. Stick around and see what happens after. Some weeks I never quite know where the non-political half of the show will go. This week feels like another one of those shows.

And now, links!

 

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Venn You’ve Got It, Ezra Klein, You’ve Got It.

Posted: 29 Aug 2011 08:56 PM PDT

It’s time again for another trip into the mind of Ezra Klein. Please take your motion-sickness pills and if, for some reason, your entire being is catapulted into a universe of unicorns and rainbows, please do not be alarmed. A rescue team will find you in relatively short order.

Klein has decided to take on the conservative contention that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. His argument takes the “two guys said so on the Internet” form and includes a Venn Diagram that asserts, without any actual proof, that Social Security is in no way a Ponzi Scheme. In brief, here are the reasons why Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme:

  1. …because the government can print as much money as it wants and “tax people”, thus the fund will never, ever run out of money.
  2. …because people who collect Social Security know where their money comes from.
  3. …because it’s not a “deliberate fraud”.
  4. …because the administrator of the Social Security Fund only makes $200,000 a year.
  5. …because it promises you little to no return.
  6. …because it’s “invested” in Treasury bonds.
  7. …because it can be changed or ended by the people ultimately responsible for it.
  8. …because it’s been around for a long time.
  9. …because it’s not a Ponzi Scheme. Seriously. That is really a bullet point in the Venn Diagram.

AG Conservative wrote a pretty good rebuttal to Klein’s cloud cuckoo land “proof”, which could best be translated as Quod Erat PowerPointum and I recommend you read it. First, though, let me take my shot as smacking down Klein’s adopted assertions in brief bullet points.

  1. The government can not always print money and there is a limit to how much more taxing can be done, mostly because we have a finite number of rich people and they have a finite amount of money. Social Security payouts, however, have no bounds.
  2. Not all participants in a Ponzi Scheme are ignorant of the source of their revenue. See, for instance, multi-level marketing schemes.
  3. So a Ponzi Scheme is only a Ponzi Scheme if it’s intentional? I’m fairly sure a judge would laugh at such an argument. For more laughs, refer to this document, sent to people in 1936, when Social Security began.
  4. This is not proof that Social Security isn’t a Ponzi Scheme. It’s proof that it’s not a very profitable Ponzi Scheme. However, at the risk of rebutting myself, let me note that the Social Security Trust Fund should have about $2.6 trillion dollars in it. It does not. The people in charge of the trust fund spent the money. That is how a Ponzi Scheme works.
  5. Again, this is not proof that Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. It’s proof that those who have gotten paid by the scheme settled for a paltry return on their “contribution”.
  6. This is half-true. Social Security is not “invested” in normal Treasury bonds but in special bonds issued by the Treasury specifically to act as IOUs for Social Security. Those IOUs can only be paid back by going outside the scheme…err, fund…and press-ganging new people to pay into the scheme or to take more from those who are already in it. In other words, Social Security has acted for decades in exactly the way a Ponzi Scheme acts when it gets into real financial trouble because those in charge of it have paid out far more money than they collected.
  7. Anyone running a Ponzi Scheme can end it at any time. Of course, when they do, they’ll have to explain to the people in the scheme what happened to all the money and why they’re ending it, and the comeuppance will be great. That’s why the people at the top of the scheme don’t end it until it comes crashing down around their ears. It’s easier to postpone the pain until they’ve made plans to be far, far away from the fallout where they believe they won’t be affected by it and…wait…that sounds a bit like Congress, doesn’t it?
  8. If you let me set up a Ponzi Scheme backed by the authority of the Federal Government, with the power to force people into it for their entire working lives and if I was willing to continue to print money and run up a deficit larger than the entire country could pay off in a year, my scheme would be around for a long time, too.
  9. Stop. Ezra, please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a fancy-schmancy Venn Diagram in which to put my points, so I’ll understand if you don’t take everything I’ve written to this point seriously. I do, however have another diagram that you might find shocking and even unbelievable, but by Klein Logic it is unassailable because it is a Venn Diagram.

Behold the power of two circles with some words inside!

I remind you, by the way, that the Washington Post, Bloomberg, and MS-NBC actually pay Klein pretty handsomely for his insightful economic analyses.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:
Langganan: Postingan (Atom)