A Tale of Two First Ladies

Via Flopping Aces.
We've been told that being a woman is about more than fashion. Why is Michelle Obama so focused on it?

"Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More"

That's what Larry Kudlow says.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years...

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Many on the Left are hailing the notion of bigger government and punishing business. They argue that taxing businesses and making it harder for them to operate won't affect workers. They think carbon taxes, which will push up operating costs, won't cause businesses to move to countries like China and India, who don't operate by those rules.

But the fact is that taxing business owners--such as the tax hikes Obama promotes against those making $250,000--will affect workers. Small business owners, who drive the U.S. economy, will shut down operations, fire workers or grow much more slowly. When taxes rise, those being taxed start looking for ways to avoid the taxes. That means the only people who get employed are accountants, who will help build tax shelters and move assets offshore.

The economy will recover, but the costs we will pay will be massive.

Democrisy in Action, Part 2

Remember when liberals argued that dissent was patriotism? John Edwards said,

“Patriotism is about refusing to support something you know is wrong, and having the courage to speak out with strength and passion and backbone for something you know is right.”

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out,

Everyone from American Communist spies and saboteurs dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government during the Cold War to the protesters carrying signs saying “Bomb Texas, Not Iraq” at your typical ANSWER rally is patriotic, according to Edwards’s definition

So now, Media Matters and Think Progress are on a witchhunt of its own to point out every Republican who states that he wants Obama to fail.

Notice, these quotes are never put into context or discuss the sentiment that Obama's proposals are terrible for this country. This is rather different from liberals who discussed impeachment or assassination of George W. Bush because they disliked his policies.

No, to the moonbats who think Think Progress and Media Matters aren't propaganda, wanting bad policy to fail is the same as calling for bombing your own country.

And, in addition to the hypocrisy regarding his intolerance for drug users - until he became one himself - there was also the non-stop anti-Clinton rhetoric he belched forth on the Armed Forces Radio Network. Talk about unpatriotic (by the Dittoheads malleable definition, of course)!

Get it? Not agreeing with Bill Clinton was unpatriotic.

But advocating the assassination of the president is the height of patriotism. Can you imagine what the Left would say if there were "Kill Obama" T-shirts? We already have the lunatic left praying for an assassination attempt on the POTUS (and yes, they are praying for it, because that's the only reason they would hammer that hysteria over and over for the last year). It's disgusting when "stop him" is code language for "kill him." When political disagreement--real political disagreement, not the ad hominem attacks, the lies about the war, the hyperbolic rhetoric about "shredding the Constitution" and so on, but actual disagreement with the execution of policy--is vaunted as treasonous, then Americans should be concerned.

Posting

Will probably be light for a couple of more days. I'm recuperating from cookies and other things and hope to be back in the groove in a day or two. Thanks for reading!

Day of Reckoning?

William Kristol has an interesting column discussing Obama's SOTU speech and what Republicans need to do.

George W. Bush defined his presidency by his response to the terror attacks. Obama didn't discuss Sept. 11. And by relegating foreign policy to the status of a virtual afterthought, Obama indicated that he doesn't think his presidency will rise or fall by the success or failure of his diplomatic or military endeavors. Bill Clinton told Congress in 1996 that the era of big government was over. Obama withdrew that concession to conservatives and conservatism. George H.W. Bush worried in 1989 that we have more will than wallet. Obama has no such worries.

Obama isn't worried about mortgaging our children's future. He doesn't care about the stock market. If businesses struggle or go under, it gives him more authority to expand government even more. Why should he be concerned about the costs of his "stimulus" plan or socialized medicine? Can't waste a good crisis, you know.

If you complain about the costs--which far exceed George W. Bush's wildest dreams--you get told that Republicans spent profligately, so now Democrats should have a turn. Now, this reasoning might not have worked with your mother, but these days, nobody's worried about costs. After all, if we don't offer a billion to everyone, then we aren't compassionate enough. Or something.

As Kristol notes, Republicans have more members in Congress than during FDR's reign or LBJ's. That will make it easier to fight his more ridiculous (and expensive) ideas.

Maybe Dittoheads Don't Take Their Marching Orders from Rush

That's my take on reax to Rush Limbaugh's temper tantrum regarding criticism of Bobby Jindal's address Tuesday night.

Up front, I will admit I watched neither the POTUS nor the rebuttal. I had better things to do, like Girl Scouts. But I read the reactions this morning and they were uniformly good for Teh One and uniformly bad for Jindal. From that, I can assume that the Obamessiah read well again and Jindal read poorly.

Here's what Republicans are going to need to realize very quickly, or else we won't be making a comeback any time soon: Barack Obama reads well and people want to like him. Because of those facts, he's going to start out with an advantage over any opposition. What will trip up Obama is having to make decisions (something leadership experiences helps one do) and not being able to wait for everybody else to do the deciding for him. It's going to be Obama's wont to allow others (say, Pelosi and Reid) to do the heavy-lifting, but eventually, he will be responsible for the policy of the U.S. I expect the American people to give Teh One three to six months before they tire of his all-campaign-all-the-time shtick.

If Republicans want to out maneuver Teh One, it's going to take substance and style. We can't pretend that being able to read well doesn't count, because the American Idol watchers respect it. But substance will also be in the mix. Jindal has the substance; he just needs to work on the delivery. And I don't think snapping at anyone critical of our side is helpful. If Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity or anyone else) wants Republicans to return to power, it won't happen by pretending bad performances are good ones.

Gee, I wonder if those who accuse me of being a Dittohead will read this?

Dilbert on the Bailout

This is hilarious.

Why Polls Don't Matter, Part 2

Poll: Most Americans Back Obama on Stimulus, Mortgage Plans screams the headline on Memeorandum regarding a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Survey Reveals Broad Support for President says the New York Times about the NYT-CBS News poll.

I'm always fascinated at the chattering classes who live and die by the latest twist in polling data. OMG! Obama's approval fell from 70 to 63 percent in a month! More Americans approve of the way Democrats handled the stimulus bill than the way Republicans did! More Americans want less government spending but approve of the porkapalooza!

We spent eight years under Bill Clinton with schizophrenic leadership because Clinton governed by polls. One of the reasons many people voted for George W. Bush in 2000, in fact, was because he promised to be a decider. Now, apparently, we're back to governing by the latest whim of the American people.

I'm sure this seems like a smart thing to some, but at a time of economic crisis, responding to the latest polling data gives you the spectacle of Barack Obama promising to cut his deficit to a record level by the end of his term after passing the largest pork project bill in history.

I'm not impressed by the numbers for Obama. People are anxious for the POTUS to succeed, particularly after Teh One has spent three months scaring the public about the economy. Let's look at his ratings in a few months when his policies have taken affect.

Legendary Support

We've heard a lot about Barack Obama's legendary public support. But that support can be, shall we say, fleeting.

President Barack Obama remains highly popular among the U.S. public at the end of his first month in office. However, the 63% of Americans currently approving of his job performance is down slightly from his initial 68% rating in January. The percentage disapproving has doubled, from 12% to 24%.

These shifts result in a slightly different profile for Obama relative to past presidents than what he enjoyed in the immediate afterglow of his inauguration. While Obama's initial 68% job approval rating was one of the highest in Gallup polling history (from Dwight Eisenhower through George W. Bush), his current 63% job approval rating is typical of how the last several presidents have fared at the one-month mark.

Including George W. Bush. Oh, the irony!

The Myth of the Phonebook-Reading Filibuster

Regardless of which party is in power, there are always calls for forcing the minority party to "read a phonebook" to keep a filibuster alive. Unfortunately, the Mr. Smith filibuster is another Hollywood fiction. In real life,
it can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

So, for all those screaming for an all-nighter, tough luck.

Solving the Economic Crisis and Committing Political Suicide

Tax the hell out of everybody.

Proving, Yet Again, Business Is a Cycle

Yahoo CEO Set to Install Top-Down Management

Not yet six weeks into the job, Yahoo Inc. Chief Executive Carol Bartz is preparing a company-wide reorganization that underscores the new CEO's belief in a more top-down managerial approach.

The plan aims to speed-up decision-making and give Yahoo products a more consistent appearance by consolidating certain functions that have previously been spread out across the company -- like product development and marketing -- into single, standalone departments, people familiar with the matter say.

Welcome to the 1950s.

Five Rules for Getting a Million Hits on Your Blog

Robert Stacy McCain explains it all.

It's an interesting read and makes a blogger stop and reflect on what she does and could do better. I'm not McCain, and I'm not sure how many of his rules for success I could ever make myself follow. For example, believe it or not, I'm notorious for hiding my light under a bushel IRL and have a real problem begging for linkage. This isn't to say I have a problem with others begging for linkage, and it obviously works! But I'd say that part of the reason I've got 46k hits in 2+ years is that I've never networked enough, asked for enough linkage or succumbed to posting bikini pics. Oh, and I take myself too seriously, but that probably comes from being overly focused on politics, which makes a person both harsh and cynical. And maybe puckered.

What I found most interesting on McCain's list of things to do to get 1,000,000 hits was about feminists:

Feminism sucks -- You can never go wrong in the blogosphere by having a laugh at the expense of feminists. All sane people hate feminism, and no one hates feminism more than smart, successful, independent women who've made it on their own without all that idiotic "Sisterhood Is Powerful" groupthink crap.

Occasionally, I (and I've seen this happen to Dana at Common Sense Political Thought) get asked why I spend so much time bashing Amanda Marcotte, a pasttime that, no doubt, led to my eventual banning. The reason is that shrill people like Amanda are made for lampooning because their positions on women (no double entendre intended there!) are so completely contradictory. On the one hand, they want the world to treat women as competent, independent beings who can not only make all major life decisions for themselves but who have a God-given right to determine which human beings get to make it to birth. On the other hand, women are clearly not competent and independent enough to deal with ultrasound pictures of the beings they are making life and death decisions for, or in finding pharmacists who will dispense their birth control pills.

If you couple that silliness with the typical Pam Spaulding post drooling over her dogs the way married people dote on their children, it's no wonder we like mocking Amanda and the Pandagonistas at every turn. After all, this was the blog with the famous "abortion is just a 20-minute procedure" comment.

I'll admit that the Amanda well has probably run dry and it's time to find other feminist bloggers to satirize. I've heard Feministing and Feministe are good for some giggles, so I may have to check them out.

I suppose this is my post where I say I'm re-evaluating my blog habits of late and considering revamping my blogging style a bit. Call it the equivalent of getting a new haircut, going on a diet, getting on an exercise routine.

Good Stimulus Ad

Via The Other McCain

Misinformation of the Day

Irrational Envy at Echidne of the Snakes:

he conservative mind set is intrinsically infested with envy and resentment. Disdain for those in need, even those who are in need through no discernible fault of their own, is endemic to conservatism. That is why even before President Obama had released the broad outlines of his plans to stem massive homelessness, the Republicans and their media started nourishing the evil seed of envy in the minds of those susceptible to this form of irrationality.

It's a coffee-spewer, I know. How on earth the "soak the rich" clan can argue that conservatives are envious and resentful is anyone's guess. But what is missing is why anyone would resent paying their own mortgage and their neighbor's.

This isn't about disdain for one's neighbor. The resentment comes from people who scrimped and saved for years to buy a nice house, who are now paying, through their taxes, for those who played the (housing) market and lost. This isn't just about people who lost jobs or had medical problems and lost their homes. This is about 125% mortgages and interest only mortgages (something most of us used to call renting). It's about people wanting houses they couldn't afford when they moved in, then playing the system to stay in them.

There are plenty of people losing their homes because of job losses, and I know not one conservative who is gleeful about it. No one wants anyone to be homeless. But much the resentment is from people who sacrificed to make their own mortgages now realizing that they must pony up for those who did not.

Where are the liberals calling for "fairness" now? Is "fairness" only when discussing CEO salaries or successful talk show hosts?

And is every person or family who loses his/her house to foreclosure "homeless"? No more than every renter.

It's a harsh reality that when you can't afford something, you have to settle for something you can afford. That's not political ideology. It's life.

I Was Joking With My Son About Barack Obama Bedsheets...

But I guess a blanket is close enough.

More About That Socialized Medicine

'Right to die' can become a 'duty to die'

Imagine that you have lung cancer. It has been in remission, but tests show the cancer has returned and is likely to be terminal. Still, there is some hope. Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it. You ask to begin treatment. But you soon receive more devastating news. A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would provide. However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.

Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity"? Wrong. That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.

Barbara Wagner had recurrent lung cancer and Randy Stroup had prostate cancer. Both were on Medicaid, the state's health insurance plan for the poor that, like some NHS services, is rationed. The state denied both treatment, but told them it would pay for their assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told the media. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" (Wagner eventually received free medication from the drug manufacturer. She has since died. The denial of chemotherapy to Stroup was reversed on appeal after his story hit the media.)

Frequently, we're told of studies about how terrific socialized medicine is and how well it works in other countries. And I suppose, on the average, it may. But I don't want to be the person told to go home and die. And I bet you don't, either.

H/T: Brothers Judd blog.

Just In Case Carbon Emission Regulation Doesn't Kill the Economy

Raise the price of gas to $4 – before the next oil crunch

It might not be pretty at first, but a price floor – a government-mandated minimum – on retail gas will buy us the time we need to wean us off the oil.

Oil's prognosis is grim for one reason: When prices are low, oil companies do not invest in new projects. That means we are draining global reserves without replacing spare capacity. From North Dakota to Kuwait, new projects that looked lucrative when every barrel fetched $147 got shelved when prices plunged. Many of these developments will resume when prices rebound but, because it takes years before oil from a new field reaches the market, it will be too late.

Cheap oil has been the engine driving US economic growth for decades; its evil twin is pricey oil and, given time, it will drive our economy over a cliff.

The effects of oil scarcity are by now well understood: soaring food prices, social unrest, geopolitical conflict – euphemisms for hunger, food riots, and war.

So, one supposes, we should accelerate the process now. Makes sense, right?

This Should Help the Economy...Not

EPA to issue carbon dioxide rule.

President Barack Obama's climate czar said Sunday the Environmental Protection Agency would soon issue a rule on regulation of carbon dioxide, finding that it represents a danger to the public.

The White House is pressing Congress to draft and pass legislation that would cut greenhouse gases by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, threatening to use authorities under the Clean Air Act if legislators don't move fast enough or create strong enough provisions...

Officially recognizing that carbon dioxide is a danger to the public sets would trigger regulation of the greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, refineries, chemical plants, cement firms, vehicles and any other emitting sectors across the economy.

Industry fears it could shut down the economy, not only preventing plants to operate and a drastic retooling of the energy sector but also pushing costs up uncompetitively, while environmentalists say that Administration action is required by law and to pressure lawmakers to act.

New and more stringent regulation of greenhouse gasses not only will affect obvious offenders like power plants and heavy industry. It will affect industries like railroads, which transport coal, and businesses that depend on servicing the transportation sector. These industries have already been hit hard by the recession, and now President Obama wants to crush them? Is this the change you voted for?

When All You Have To Sell Is Your Obamaness

Obama in perpetual campaign, Barbour says.

It's no coincidence President Obama has traveled to key swing states to push his massive stimulus measure, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said Sunday.

Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Obama's recent travel is an indication that the new president is already running for reelection.

"He's going to those places for a reason," Barbour said on CNN's State of the Union. "I mean David Axelrod, who's his campaign consultant/manager/guru really is one of the brightest, most capable people in American politics. And so this is what we've become accustomed to, the perpetual campaign."

Obama has no experience leading anything, but plenty campaigning for the next office. It's a role he's far more comfortable with than as the leader of the free world, as his performance in office shows.