Category Archives: Politics: National

Yesterday Seems so Far Away……

WOW!

Look at this!  This is intrade’s odds of Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass.


Price for Winner of Massachusetts Special Election (to replace Ted Kennedy) at intrade.com

Just 8 days ago betting had him at 10% chance to win!

Go AMERICA!

I have Two Words For You

Scott ‘effin Brown.

Think Obama is going to be watching the TV tomorrow?

Brand New Day

I still think that we’ll lose this, but my oh my, this would be HUGE!

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Does this mean Brown is gonna win?  No way.  This is too big for the Dems to lose for them not to rally.  But serious, this guy was down by 30 3 months ago.  He is surging and surging huge.

Why?  Because no one wants this health care to pass.  Not even those in Kennedy’s home state:

…it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

Further, this race has massive a massive impact in Washington politics.  It is so big that Obama doesn’t know what to do about this race.  He can not afford to support a Democrat that loses a major race; see Jersey Govna’.  Yet, he desperately needs to support the winner.  And right now, he’s stuck.  Does he fly to Massachusetts and risk losing or does he stay home and risk winning without him?

Gotta tell ya, this is an interesting time.  Who woulda thunk that the Senate seat held by royalty could go Red?

Riiight….

When you make a promise that can’t be tracked, you are then able to claim that you kept your promise:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s emergency spending measures last year saved up to 2 million U.S. jobs, the White House said on Wednesday…

The White House, using two different approaches to figure out the impact of the stimulus package, estimates that U.S. employment had been raised by between 1-1/2 and 2 million jobs by the end of 2009 as a result of the stimulus measures.

Awesome.  When they made a number up at the beginning of this mess, they did it because:

  1. They needed to sell this turd.
  2. They knew it was made up and couldn’t be tracked.

But serious, did they create jobs?  Let’s look here:

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

…several organizations that offer Head Start preschool programs and other services in Georgia reported retaining hundreds of jobs based on raises they gave their employees. In one such case, the Central Savannah River Area Economic Opportunity Authority in Augusta reported saving 317 jobs. But that represents the number of Head Start workers who received 2.3 percent raises from the stimulus funds, said Chris Whitley, the authority’s fiscal officer….

And then, finally, this one, which, by the way, is perhaps the most damaging report I’ve seen out of the MSM.  For one, it’s ABC, for another it’s recent and for another, it’s pretty harsh:

The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It’s no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it’s a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham.

Take a look at some of those numbers.  The first, in Boston, claims that they created 160 full-time jobs with 7 large.  Did ANYONE check into that?  And then the idea of counting jobs as saved simply because those people got a raise is insane.  How does THAT make sense?  And finally, we get the goods from the White House.  In order to make their made up number, they are going to have to change their made up rules.  And why not?  It’s their rules to begin with.

Remarkable.

Beer and Taxes

I can’t believe that I haven’t posted on this before.  Even my dad, a die hard Democrat had to tip his hat to this logic:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

California: Part VI

Planes, trains and automobiles.  It’s a famous movie, but what really has the attention of politicians everywhere is this very same concept.  Planes, trains and automobiles.  Specifically, “how do we get fewer automobiles and more trains?”.  Everywhere people are requesting and demanding that we expand our mass transit system.  Part of it is a pander to the people who are best served at the expense of the rest of us.  Lately, though, we have begun to see the Global Warming crowd clamor that we need to implement more transit in order to reduce the number of carbon producing cars.  Still others claim that we have reached peak oil and going forward, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

In each case, the supporters are wrong, blind or both.  But nobody is as wrong as often or as blind as California.  Check this out via Reason:

For three years, Veronique Selgado took BART from the East Bay to her job working for an airline at San Francisco International Airport. But she recently switched to driving because BART raised fares and upped its SFO round-trip surcharge from $3 to $8, boosting her daily trip cost to nearly $20.

“It’s outrageous,” Selgado said. “At what point do they stop raising the prices, when it’s $50 a day to go round-trip to work? At what point does BART stand back and say, ‘People can’t pay that much to commute’?”

Millbrae resident Robert Smith, 63, had taken BART and Golden Gate Transit to his job in Sausalito because his employer provided transit vouchers, but eventually he threw up his hands, bought a Honda Civic and started driving.

It took him 21/2 hours each way by train and bus, turning his nine-hour workday into a 14-hour endeavor. Now he drives, and it takes him 45 minutes each way, which he said is well worth the extra gas and toll bridge costs.

Rick Mann loves public transit but hates the two hours and 15 minutes it takes him to walk from his Milpitas home to a transit station, catch a train, transfer to another train and then walk to his job as a software engineer in Sunnyvale.

The point is this: “Mass transit doesn’t work”.  We aren’t dense enough to make it work.  People live too far from where they work.  Transfers are common.  Further, because this is the government, making upgrades to the system is seen as an expense, not an investment.  As such, expenses are minimized meaning fewer trains and busses and fewer stops.  This raises the time of the commute and reduces riders.  But we have to continue to meet the costs.  And that means higher fares and higher taxes.

And soon, gentle reader, that means I am going to be taxed here in North Carolina so that someone in San Francisco can ride a bus that they don’t wanna ride.

California: Part V

Mark Perry has a most excellent post over at Carpe Diem.  The whole thing is a must read, but the highlights:

Exhibit A: California has lost more than one million jobs in the last several years, while employment levels in Texas have remained relatively stable.

Exhibit B: In early 2006, California’s unemployment was actually slightly below Texas, but is now 4.3 percentage points higher than Texas (12.3% vs. 8%).

Exhibit C:

One-way rental rates for a 26-foot truck from U-Haul:

From Dallas to San Francisco: $734
From San Francisco to Dallas: $2,116

From Houston to Los Angeles: $706
From Los Angeles to Houston: $2,051

Exhibit D: Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age.

Exhibit E: William Voegeli tartly says that “Rome wasn’t sacked in a day, and California didn’t become Argentina overnight.”

Net/net children, it is high time to get the hell out of California.  And, now that I think of it, to get California’s mind-set OUT of Washington.

Update: become Argentina overnight!  THAT, is hil-ar-i-ous.

Wherein Pino Shades Purple

I am beginning to feel that I am slightly less red than I thought.  And with the New Year tried to talk myself into coming out.  That resolution is turning out to be harder than I thought.  See, I am convinced that both parties are flawed and am often dismayed that by claiming allegiance to one side or the other locks you into the whole bill of goods of either.  So, with that said, there are several {many} times when I think the right, or at least far right, has it wrong.  And when I am discussing or commenting, I always feel that if I come to defend the more liberal or “Democrat”‘ish view, I will be defending ALL of the policies of the Left.  And somehow that seems worse than letting the Right get a free pass.

Maybe I can try harder and allow my trend toward the Purple shine.

So, without further ado, I wanna say that I think this is good news:

The American Law Institute, the organization that provided the framework for our current capital punishment system, has washed its hands of the whole sorry mess. Abandoning the death penalty was necessary “‘in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.’” In other words, we don’t have a fair system, and we’re not ever gonna get one. Better to stick a fork in it than to keep pretending it will ever be workable.

Now, to be clear.  I firmly and absolutely feel that there are things that members of our tribe can do that should result in death.  When your actions are so egregious that the survival of all of us is risked, you have, in essence, self selected out.  This is not punishment or deterrence.  It’s just you can’t be part of us any longer.

With that said, our current system of laws and courts, as good as it is, simply can not and will not apply the death penalty fairly.  As such, it just can’t be part of us any longer.

A Lesson in the Tender Mercies Of Organized Labor

November results for car makers:

Ford’s U.S. sales surge 33% in December

GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline

Chrysler…reported a 4% dip

Toyota Motor Corp. said its U.S. sales increased 32.3%

Gawd, it is SO nice to be right.

How Cities Benefit by Labor Unions

How does a public pension fund respond after losing more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

“It is important for you to know that the current credit crisis does not directly affect your retirement benefits, which are securely protected by law, or our ability to pay benefits.”

Translation: Not to worry; the taxpayers will have to bail us out.

Excellent.

And what does it mean to tax payers when said fund loses more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

In the end, taxpayers stand to pay plenty for all this, either through increased taxes or diminished public services — closed libraries and shelters for battered women, fewer trash pickups, shuttered courts, slower police and fire response times, more potholes, early county jail prisoner releases and much more — if local governments see layoffs and furloughs as their only way out.

This is your bed, California.  I really REALLY hope that only YOU have to lie in it.