Good-bye and Good Riddance to the 111th Congress

What a mess Democrats have made of things over the last two years. It's not wrong to remind Americans what Democrats have done to them over the course of the last four years: high and long-term unemployment, reckless and pointless spending, increased job-killing regulation and more intrusion into our lives. Worse was the arrogance with which Democrats did all these monstrous things to us. This Wall Street Journal piece sums it up nicely:

For today's left, the main goal of politics is not to respond to public opinion. The goal is to impose the dream of an egalitarian entitlement state whether the public likes it or not. Sooner or later, they figure, the anger will subside and Americans will come to like the cozy confines of the cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Democrats are betting that once Americans start receiving "free" medical care, the demands for higher taxes on "the rich" will be overwhelming. And who knows? They might be right. When 1/2 of Americans aren't paying any income taxes at all and demanding more services, it's hard to argue that they won't want someone else to pay even more for them. My hope is that Americans truly aren't so stupid and greedy as Democrats rely on them to be.

We Were in Favor of Oversight Before We Were Against It

Remember when oversight was the favorite word of Democrats? Back in 2006, Democrats were interested in oversight of the environment, welfare, and the FCC. Democrats were really hot for oversight when it meant trying to hobble a Republican president.

Of course, oversight is just another word for putting the brakes on stuff we don't like, which is why it's ok when we're exercising Congressional oversight powers over a Republican president (cuz he's gonna destroy us) but is a shocking power grab by the rat bastards when exercised by Republicans against a Democratic president. In this case, oversight comes in the form of a provision of the 1996 Congressional Review Act.

House Republicans will have carte blanche next year, and will be able to pass as many of these "resolutions of disapproval" as they want. The key is that a small minority in the Senate can force votes on them as well, and they require only simple-majority support to pass. If they can find four conservative Democrats to vote with them on these resolutions, they can force Obama to serially veto politically potent measures to block unpopular regulations, and create a chilling effect on the federal agencies charged with writing them.

Considering the midterm elections were all about reining in government, you'd think Democrats would be all squiggly about doing the will of the people and fulfilling their constitutional duties to provide oversight to the president. But that only applies if the president is a Republican. I'm sure Democrats will love any ramp-up of executive power as long as the guy wielding it has a "D" after his name.

It's a Sad Day...

When the President of the United States going to church is a news item.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Buh-Bye

The military's ridiculous Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is now history and that's only 15 years too late, IMO.

Call it a leftover from my more liberal days, but the military policy regarding homosexuals never made a lot of sense to me, especially once we weren't kicking people out for being homosexual (just for answering someone who asked if one were). I understand that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was just a compromise to force the government to stop punishing people for being in the military and being gay, but this policy always left me scratching my head.

These days, I'd just as soon everybody kept this information to themselves. You're gay? Fine. You can talk about your boyfriend, your girlfriend, your spouse and what y'all had for dinner. But I don't want a lecture about gay rights on Dancing With the Stars or any other television show I bother watching. That's about as equal as it gets around here.

UPDATE: I won't link to the stupid American Family Association which takes a "teh sky is falling!!1!!" approach to the subject of gay people in the military not hiding it anymore, but Confederate Yankee discusses the whole thing.

Glenn Greenwald Loves Terrorists

Blenn Greenwald is wringing his hands over the inhumane conditions that Wikileaks terrorist Bradley Manning must live with.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

Well, gosh, I'm glad Manning isn't violent now, but he admitted punching an officer in the face (hence his demotion), so it isn't like there's no history of violence here.

Most importantly, if Manning hadn't wanted to be subjected to solitary confinement, he probably shouldn't have downloaded more than 260,000 cables and then given them to a guy like Julian Assange to harm his own country. This isn't "whistleblowing." It's treason.

From RedState:

Glenn Greenwald is constantly telling us that the reason the terrorists want to kill us is not because they are regressive degenerates who hate Western values like freedom and tolerance, but rather because they just don’t like our military policies and how we’re all meddling in their business.

Well, I am not a man without a heart, so I am willing to propose a solution to Greenwald’s problem which I am confident the Army would be amenable to. As an added bonus, it will serve as an opportunity to validate Glenn Greenwald’s views on the causes of Islamic terrorism. We will give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back, and remove him from solitary confinement. In fact, we’ll let him be around lots of people. We’ll call an emissary with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and tell them that we have a political prisoner to release to them, no strings attached. We will tell them that we are going to release to them an American who thoroughly rejects our interventionist policies and our military meddling - he rejects them so strongly, in fact, that he did everything in his power to see that American soldiers were killed and that Islamic terrorists were given access to our operational details. Therefore, we have decided to let him go to be with the Taliban so that he can self-actualize and join the fight against America with them.

I’m sure that like John Walker Lindh, the Taliban will be happy to have an American like this on board. So we’ll drive Manning out there to meet them at some safe remote location in Afghanistan somewhere, and we’ll release Manning and let him rush to join his new Taliban brethren.

Then we’ll tell them he’s gay.

Yeah, that'll work.

From Health Care...

To feeding your kids.

Because the government knows better than you do.

The Presidency of Barack Obama Is History-Making For Many Reasons...

And encouraging opposition from your base is just the latest.

Modern presidents are never challenged from their base, always by the people who didn't love them going in. You're not supposed to get a serious primary challenge from the people who loved you. But that's the talk of what may happen with Mr. Obama.

I think this is still a lot of political thumb-sucking, personally, and the reason is found farther down in the article:

The Democrats' problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He'd lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency.

Most of the things I read (from news sites and blogs, mainly) indicate that liberals are unhappy with Barack Obama, but the alternative from the GOP (Sarah Palin is always the boogey man) scares them enough to stay loyal to Obama. Republicans angry with the GOP, wanting to "teach them a lesson," stayed home in 2008. They didn't vote for the opposition. I can't imagine liberals wanting to destroy their party over DADT or tax cuts or the public option.

New Poll: Americans Want Everything and Don't Want to Cut Anything

Brace yourselves, the great intellect of the American public has spoken and says it wants it all:

Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control,” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

The story goes on in that vein, explaining all the areas Americans don't want the federal government cut, and who they think should pay for it, namely, the mythical rich.

I agree that the cap on earnings covered by Social Security taxes should be lifted. But if Social Security is means tested, it will become just another welfare program and a lot of people in the middle class will be angry with the results. If you're making $75,000 a year, the system is going to tell you why you should be paying for yourself.

Charles Krauthammer called the latest tax deal the swindle of the year, but that hasn't stopped Democrats from scuttling the whole thing. It's probably a good thing Obama's letting Bill Clinton be president again.

On the Tax Cut Deal...

I like it. Anything that pisses off so many liberals so quickly must be a good deal.

OTOH, it isn't perfect. The death tax is still there and much too high, and extending unemployment for another 13 months gives people another 13 months to sit around fretting and doing nothing about finding a job. It's not perfect but probably the best we could hope for.

The Painful Truth about Unemployment

This pathetic Think Progress piece reminds me why solving the unemployent problem is going to be so difficult. The TP loons are upset with Newt Gingrich for saying this:

I would agree to a short-term extension of unemployment. But I have proposed, since we spent $134 billion last year in unemployment, that we change the entire program into a worker training program and not give anybody money for doing nothing.

For me, the irony is that I had said something similar that very morning without knowing anything about Gingrich's idea. It simply makes sense to me that people unemployed for a year or more are going to be very hard to fit into today's job market and it's crazy to pay people not to work. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will, in fact, do nothing until their unemployment runs out, and with the latest unemployment extensions, it means someone could be sitting around unemployed for nearly four years. Does anyone honestly think a person who hasn't worked in four years is going to find employment quickly after the unemployment checks quit coming?

Yet reading the Think Progress piece, you'd think we were talking about slave labor here, rather than getting people to be self-supporting again.

The economy grows by nearly two dollars for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits “because recipients typically spend all of their benefit payments quickly.” The money “ripples through the economy into supermarkets, gasoline stations, utilities, convenience stores.” Flush with the revenue provided by these new consumers, those businesses are then able to hire additional workers and diminish the ranks of the unemployed.

Except for the fact that somebody is having to work in the private sector to pay for those benefits "rippling through the economy," and that person has less of his own money to spend. It's hard to imagine who it is who can't find a job in three years, but I guess if you're a trade show organizer, there probably aren't many of those jobs out there these days. You might have to take a job that's beneath you. Well, in another 13 months. In the meantime, I'll continue working my two jobs to support you.

The Democrats' Tax Cut Dilemma

Nate Silverman (not my favorite pollster) has an interesting article on the dilemma facing Democrats over raising taxes (by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on someone or anyone). What popped out at me first was this statement:

It’s a little bit more difficult to identify the preferences of Democrats, because there are more divisions within the party: between the president and Congress, between moderate Democrats and liberal ones, between Democrats who are electorally vulnerable and those who aren’t. It is safe to say, however, that on balance, the Democrats would prefer to extend the tax cuts only below the $250,000 threshold, and not above it.

This goes with something Aphrael said last week, which was that to many Democrats, raising taxes only on a segment of the populace is a compromise, because some Dems would like all the tax cuts to expire. At the time, I didn't really give this much thought, because it seemed crazy to me that in a bad economy, there were people who wanted to raise taxes on everyone, including the poorest people. But in the last day or so, I've heard arguments from some liberals that amount to the same thing; these are people complaining that we need to go back to "Eisenhower era" tax rates or "Reagan era" tax rates.

The people making this argument, of course, are only concerned about the top marginal rate and how much "the rich" will pay. But the truth is that going back to the tax rates of the Eisenhower administration wouldn't have quite the effect liberals want. For one thing, that 92% tax rate was for people making millions of dollars. And, as with raising tax rates back to the levels of Ronald Reagan, there were significantly more loopholes in the tax system so that virtually no one paid that higher rate.

Ronald Reagan's tax plan was drastic because it cut out most tax shelters (for example, no more credit card interest deductions) while flattening the rate structure. But there would be at least one unintended consequence to going back to either of these levels: it would hurt the working poor.

If Congress passed a new tax law pushing the rates back to Eisenhower (or Reagan) levels and Barack Obama signed it, items like the Earned Income Tax Credit and higher deductions for children would go away, not to mention that tax rates would go up for just about everyone. Even Silverman notes that letting all the Bush tax cuts expire would detrimentally affect everyone in a bad economy, which is why there is almost no talk about doing it.

So why are some liberals still talking about this idea like it is the cure-all we've been needing? My only guess is that the fringe left is so wedded to the idea of sticking it to "the rich" that they aren't concerned about the consequences their policies would have for everyone else. That policy isn't even sane and is far more cruel than anything the Evil Republicans can dream up.

Democrats Are Only Interested in Compromise When They Can't Cram Their Agenda Through Procedurally

Steve Benen is complaining that there's no compromising with Senate Republicans.

Obama practically begged congressional Republicans to work with him on everything from the stimulus to health care, financial regulatory reform to energy. The GOP minority not only refused to compromise or negotiate, they conceded, publicly and on the record, that this was a deliberate strategy -- even in a time of crisis, Republicans decided it was important to deny Democrats victories for their own partisan purposes.

Does "begging the GOP minority" include snarky exchanges that demean the GOP?

As he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was asked about Republican complaints that Democrats aren’t listening to what their GOP colleagues have to say. “We’re responding to the American people,” he said. “The American people didn’t listen to them too well during the election.”

And then there's President Obama attacking Republicans for disagreeing with him on issues like health care, financial regulatory reform, and energy. Does begging include Obama using the GOP as a punching bag even when Republicans compromise?

We've seen what the Democrat playbook is going to be the next two years: Those mean ol' Republicans won't compromise with us. Of course, compromise to Democrats means rolling over and doing what Democrats propose, ruining the country in the process. Well, in the words of James Clyburn, the GOP is responding to the American people and the American people didn't listen to the Democrats too well during the election.

The Unintended Consequences of Government Policy

We all tend to take our personal experiences and compare them (favorably) to the world at large. Sometimes, this creates an accurate picture of the world and sometimes it doesn't.

I was thinking about this today after my husband told me certain decisions he'd made in response to Obamacare. Remember, President Barack Obama promised that, not only would you be allowed to keep your insurance and your doctor, but that your rates wouldn't go up.

Well, guess what? Our health insurance rates are going up and our coverage is going down. In and of itself, this is bad enough. But the higher cost for health insurance has created some unpleasant and unintended consequences.

And uncertainty. Because we are uncertain about what health care costs will be like next year, my husband decided to cut down his United Way contribution. Way down. His reasoning is that he can donate more later if our health care doesn't cost as much as he thinks it might. While I hate cutting that contribution, it makes sense to me.

And the whole situation got me to thinking: if rising insurance costs--remember, our insurance wasn't supposed to go up under Obamacare--is causing us to cut our charitable donations (at least in this area), what will those increases do to others? Is this the Hope and Change We Can Believe In?

Obama Freezes Federal Wages for 2 Years

It's a token--and I do mean token--effort at trimming the budget. It saves $5 billion over 2 years, but as Ed Morrissey notes, we're talking about a $2 trillion deficit.

Of course, liberals are no happier with a wage freeze than conservatives. Echidne seems to think it's unfair for federal workers--who get paid by folks in the private sector--should have to live with the same tough economy as the rest of us. I can't remember when the last time was I got a cost of living increase that matched the cost of living. It's very hard to work up much sympathy for the guys making 150 grand.

Laughably, Jacob Davies at Obsidian Wings complains that "Federal workers must "sacrifice" because of an economic catastrophe they didn't cause, in a way that will do nothing to help the federal government or the economy." So, wait. The only people who should be "sacrificing" right now are those who "caused" the economic problems? How, exactly, does that work? Do only workers for Fannie and Freddie have to take the wage freeze since they "caused" the problem? Or is this more of the same liberal whinging that only "the rich bankers" caused the economic collapse (without help from people buying houses they couldn't afford or running up personal debt)?

I'm sure all those people unemployed don't think they "caused" our economic woes, either, but they're dealing with it. Not to mention all the people working harder than ever to keep things together. There's no reason federal employees can't take a wage freeze like millions of other Americans. Suck it up.

1 Out of 280

That's the number of convictions against terrorist Ahmed Ghailani, who killed 224 Americans in bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Liberals are pompously arguing that the system worked and that it's unconscionable to complain that terrorists shouldn't be tried in a court system designed for petty thieves. What nonsense.

My favorite excuse is that Barack Obama's DOJ has promised to keep the guy in jail regardless of the trial results. Now there's a result that should send shivers down the spine of anyone to the right of Teh One. The idea that we're depending on the POTUS to decide this guy's dangerous enough to keep in jail regardless of the result of these show trials does put us smack dab in the middle of the moonbats' favorite metaphor: a banana republic.

As Patterico noted, the witness against Ghailani who was barred from his civilian trial probably would have been allowed in a military trial (Glenn Greenwald's assumptions notwithstanding).

This embarassment should have the Holder DOJ thinking twice before trying this again. In the meantime, we're all a little less safe because of the political correctness of this regime.

Conservatives Don't "Get" Racism...Except They Do

For those assuming conservatives are just closeted KKK members, Adam Serwer sets 'em straight:

What's clear, though, is that conservatives deploy racially tinged rhetoric against liberal policy priorities and Democratic politicians, and that Obama being president has a lot to do with these arguments being used. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be comparing him to gang members if he weren't black. With Clinton, Limbaugh's sexism, rather than his racism, would be amplified. So while it might be unfair to suggest people are conservatives because they're racists, it's entirely fair to ask why conservatives are comfortable with their most prominent ideological figure's casual use of racism as a political bludgeon.

There's another option here that guys like Serwer miss, which is that conservatives like Limbaugh use the attack that is most likely to enrage liberals. That's why he mocks environmentalists with chainsaw sound effects or feminists with the shrewish voices of their leaders (not to mention calling them "babes" constantly). The "casual use of racism" is simply a way of taunting liberals to explain why their fealty to a black president regardless of his abandonment of their treasured beliefs isn't racism itself.

Republicans know they'll be called racists no matter how carefully they construct their criticisms of Teh One. That's why comparing the POTUS to spraycan-wielding graffiti artists is both subtle and effective. And, in the comments, Tom Maguire completely destroys the author's argument that the word "gang" is only used against darker-skinned politicians.

If liberals spent less time being offended and searching for "dog whistles" from commentators, they might discover that their slide to obscurity is directly related to their policy proposals, not racist/sexism/otherism by the voters.

Why Civilian Trials for Terrorists Doesn't Work

Terrorist kills hundreds of Americans and is only convicted on one count. Civilian trials for terrorists is nutty and dangerous.

From Hugh Hewitt:

224 innocents were killed by this terrorist, including 12 Americans. They will never receive justice because of the absurd legal theories of a small group of justices and the refusal of Barack Obama and Eric Holder to demand of their left-wing colleagues in the Congress a continued insistence on military tribunals.

How on earth do liberals justify this bizarre notion of "fairness" and "justice"?

"I Won" Is Gonna Bite Obama's Butt

Words are powerful things, and I can't imagine that Republican leaders aren't remembering Barack Obama's "I won" snark after the 2009 inauguration. Now, Republicans are rebuffing the President's invitation to the White House, recalling how he crashed their retreat to lecture them on their duty as citizen legislators.

Obama has a long, long way to go to rebuild any kind of bipartisanship.

Well, The Election Was All About Him

Poliico has an article up about how President Obama has alienated not only most of the American people, but devoted Dems, as well.

In his effort to change Washington, Obama has failed to engage Washington and its institutions and customs, leaving him estranged from the capital’s permanent power structure — right at the moment when Democrats say he must rethink his strategy for cultivating and nurturing relations with key constituencies ahead of 2012.

“This guy swept to power on a wave of adulation, and he learned the wrong lessons from that,” said a Democratic official who deals frequently with the White House. “He’s more of a movement leader than a politician. He needs someone to kick his ass on things large and small and teach him to be a politician.”

These kind of quotes always make me wonder if Democrats attended the same election I attended.

Democrats act surprised that Obama is an inexperienced, self-absorbed, arrogant, and incompetent leader. But Obama is his raison d'etre. Is it no wonder this is the end of the affair?

White House: Obamacare Doesn't Reduce Costs or Deficit

We're not surprised Democrats are backpedaling on the strongest claims made about Obamacare: That it would cut the cost of medicine and improve the deficit.

Our lovable lefty Perry claimed repeatedly that the CBO said it would reduce the deficit in the first decade. This was always a sham claim, since Obamacare takes in 10 years worth of payments from taxpayers but only pays out 6 years of benefits. Even Democrats can improve costs when they aren't paying for things.

This is just the latest example of how the Democrat agenda is coming back to bite 'em in the ass, and I can't say "I told you so" enough. I'm hopeful November is just the start.