Thursday, September 30, 2010

From Global Cooling to Global Cooling

Back in the 1970s, Time magazine and other major media outlets published a series of articles about the coming ice age. For those of you who have forgotten, or are too young to have experienced this environmental fear campaign, I kid you not. On June 24, 1974, they published an article titled, "Science, Another Ice Age?" By 1977, it was a done deal, as indicated by their cover story, "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age," illustrated here.

But it was also in 1977 that scientific opinion started to shift toward global warming. In early 1978 the New York Times reported that a poll of climate scientists found them evenly divided on whether there would be warming, cooling, or no particular change. But the balance among the handful of top experts had shifted strongly toward the likelihood of warming.

The climate change issue became more politicized in the 1980s, as more and more people became aware of the issue. But not everyone thought more greeenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, were a bad thing. The most comforting ideas came from a respected scientist, Sherwood Idso, who published arguments that greenhouse gas emissions would not warm the Earth or bring any other harm to climate. Better still, by fertilizing crops, the increase of CO2 would bring tremendous benefits. His book, Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? came down entirely on the side of Friend. In his opinion, the increase of CO2 "is something to be encouraged and not suppressed."

The controversy over climate change continued throughout the 1990s until today, culminating in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. At this point, Gore's position was that the debate was over, that global warming was a fact. This lasted until we found out that some of the researchers cooked some of their books, and not all the data was correct, nor was all the analysis done correctly. In fact, some of the data is missing. This has been referred to as ClimateGate, a huge cover-up.

Then the climate began to show signs of change again, but this time cooling instead of warming. When the Obama administration took over in 2009, global warming was no longer the preferred term; climate change or disruptive climate change became the new descriptive terminology.

But we're now back to where we started. The next event will be global cooling, some predict. As James Delingpole writes:

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist…. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations. [emphasis mine]
Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.
Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

With so many people and governments pushing for de-carbonization, and the taxes and policies that have been and would be put in place, can we really believe which way the climate is going? Is cutting back on carbon dioxide a good thing?

Al Gore's global warming scare may turn out to be the biggest hoax of the century. But I think if we just wait a few decades, it might be back in vogue. In the meantime, my message to my government: You can no longer use global warming as an excuse to steal more of my money.

And by the way, where is Al Gore?

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

California Cows?

Wonder why some states, like California, are a bugetary and legislative nightmare? Well, from the Slatest:

A state budget was due three months ago, but California lawmakers have not been idle. Amongst their legislative handiwork this year: a bill that would bar foreign cows from appearing in California milk ads as California cows, reports the Wall Street Journal. The bill's author, Ted Lieu (D) said filming parts of the ads in New Zealand was "very misleading." The milk board denies using overseas bovines in place of California ones. "The only images of cows filmed in New Zealand are foreign cows, unhappy cows from all the world, auditioning to become a California cow," said the board's vice president of advertising. California lawmakers have also busied themselves with the creation of "Motorcycle Awareness Month," a "Cuss Free Week," and a "Lobster Management Enhancement Advisory Committee." Last but not least, state senators battled over a bill that would change the state rock. At the moment, it's serpentine, but Sen. Gloria Romero (D) wants to see it replaced. "We shouldn't have a known carcinogen as the California state rock," she said. The bill is currently stuck in committee.
The orginal appeared in the WSJ.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Is Obama from Planet X?

Yesterday, Obama said: "We've proposed to freeze discretionary spending for three years, to start whittling down some of the debt that I inherited."

Please, don't let facts get in the way of still blaming Bush for your troubles.

The recession is over?

The recession was over in June of 2009. That is one way of putting it. More accurately, one would say that Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, which was in a free-fall, bottomed out around June 2009 and began rising again. But we are not yet out of the recession.

The recession, in my opinion, is not "over" until we reach both GDP and employment levels of 2007. We are not there yet. If the government would get out of the way, the recovery would be faster.

Randall Hoven, who in April called the "end" of the recession as June 2009, has this to say about the current situation:

There are two hypotheses, at least. One hypothesis is the standard story of the government-as-savior crowd. TARP and other bailouts fixed the financial crisis and Obama's stimulus stopped the economic recession that resulted. Without either one, things would have been worse, much worse.

Here is another hypothesis. We had a recession, just like the other 10 times since World War II. As in every other such case, this recession would have ended in about a year if government had done nothing in particular. But this time, the extra costs and uncertainties caused by government "fixes" in fact prolonged and deepened this recession and threatened a double-dip or stalling out of economic activity.

Neither hypothesis can be "proved," since all we know is what government did and what happened. We do not know what might have happened had we done something else.

But here is my take. The times we let government do the most to "fix" a recession, meaning the Great Depression and our current Great Recession, were the very times the economy did the worst. When government let things more or less alone, the economy recovered fairly quickly and with minimal damage.

We also have the academic studies by, of all people, Christina Romer, Obama's initial chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, that say fiscal policies (e.g. government spending or "stimuli") did not get us out of the Great Depression or any of our post-war recessions.

The analogy is bleeding a patient. If the doctors bleed a patient and he gets better, they take credit. If the patient gets worse, the doctors say he was not bled enough.

Paul Krugman is the quintessential Dr. James Craik of our day. Krugman seriously believes that Japan's problem was that it was not bled enough! Enough stimuli to cause a debt of 200% of GDP, highest in the developed world, resulting in two decades of near non-existent growth, and Krugman still says more bleeding needed. (Do facts ever matter to these guys?)

I think, at this point, we have enough evidence for both bleeding as a medical cure and fiscal stimulus as an economic cure that we can stop killing patients by bleeding them to death.
Government needs to get out of the way. Government can't manage the economy, a fact proven by history over and over again.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Why Nancy Pelosi should be fired

Remember when she said that Congress had to pass the health care bill so they could find out what was in it?

Well, that was enough for me to want her out, but now she's really stuck on stupid.
“What I believe the American people deserve is a tax cut for the middle class,” Pelosi said. “And without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we’re going to do is to say at the end of the day the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place, and that’s what I have to say on the subject.”
Really? You propose cutting my taxes? But extending the Bush tax rates is not a tax cut. Repeat after me: This is not a tax cut. Get it? Let me explain. If taxes go down, that's a tax cut. If taxes remain the same, that is NOT a tax cut. And if they go up, that is a tax increase. Easy, huh? Not for Pelosi. But I think she is actually twisting the language on purpose. How about this: She's a liar.

And the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts? What Obama tax cuts? Is she living on the same planet?

People of San Francisco: Fire this woman, please.

Why Harry "The War is Lost" Reid should be fired

This shows just how big Reid's ego and elitist attitude have grown. In praising Chris Coons, Democrat nominee for Senate in Delaware, who will face Christine O'Donnell, Reid called him "my pet" as a way of praising him. Twice! The Hill reports that he made the remarks on the Capitol steps.

"I'm going to be very honest with you - Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate," Reid said.

Perhaps Reid is under the mistaken impression he is a revered national figure, and that voters in a state on the other side of the continent from Nevada would regard it as an honor to be represented by his pet. Most sane people, however, would see this as a way of saying Coons is not his own man, and will be a tool of the unpopular Leader.

If that isn't enough, Reid wrote for The Hill Tuesday he is adding the DREAM Act into the Defense appropriations bill that will be taken up by the Senate next week.

The DREAM Act would give special amnesty status to illegal aliens attending college, putting them on a path to citizenship. It also includes provisions for those in this country illegally who would serve in the military.

The appropriations bill is already in big trouble as it seeks to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gays from openly serving in the military -- long before the study of the impact to the military has been completed.

Sen. John McCain said yesterday about Reid's manipulation:

"This is turning legislation related to our national defense and military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through the Senate," he said. "What's worse, the majority leader is pushing this controversial agenda under the cover of supporting our troops, knowing that the National Defense Authorization Act is a must-pass bill, and whatever else is in it will inevitably become law as a result."
Then Reid comes back to defend his antics:

Sen. McCain should know better than anyone that patriots who step up to serve our grateful nation should be offered a path to citizenship, and that anyone who volunteers to serve should be welcomed regardless of their sexual orientation."
Sen. Reid, there are no illegal immigrants serving in the military, to the best of my knowledge, and I spent 25 years in the Air Force. If they are, they have well-forged documentation, which would probably land them in a military prison if caught (the military takes a dim view of fraud). At the very least, they would be given a less-than-honorable discharge. However, if you're talking about giving those who were brought here under 15 years of age by their parents, and have clean records, and qualify for military service, and if they are willing to serve, that they are then given a path to citizenship, I'd be OK with that. But college? Not so sure on that one. And I really don't care about sexual orientation, unless you flaunt it in my face.

In addition, the Defense appropriations bill as currently constituted also provides for elective abortions to be performed at military hospitals. You know what? If some woman wants to abort her child, go for it. But I do not want to support that with my tax dollars.

Will the good people of Nevada please fire this guy in November?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Sorry E.J. You just don't get it

From one of the most liberal writers in journalism today, E.J. Dionne, a disciple of Barack Obama, writing on Christine O'Donnell's win over Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican primary:
But the larger question is whether the country is ready to deliver a majority to a Republican Party that now holds problem-solvers like Castle in contempt; is scared to death of a well-financed right wing that parades under a false populist banner; and, in primary after primary, has aligned itself with Sarah Palin, who anointed O'Donnell one of her Grizzlies. 
Will moderate voters take a chance on the preposterous proposition that this Republican Party will turn around and work in a calm, bipartisan way with President Obama? Or will they use their ballots to wake up the Republicans and tell them that they need more Mike Castles, and fewer extremists?
Poor E.J. just doesn't understand. It was not only conservatives, but moderates as well, who rejected Castle. He voted against the Iraq surge in 2007, and supports Cap and Trade. He votes with the Democrats about half the time.  (He did not vote for the stimulus or ObamaCare, regardless of the misinformation out there: even Hannity has stated that he voted for ObamaCare).

According to Project Vote Smart, "Representative Michael N. 'Mike' Castle refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders."

However, according to the American Conservative Union, he has voted conservative 52 percent during his congressional career. But the bigger picture here is that, as one blogger for RedState wrote: 
Have these people learned nothing about the policy and politics of the Republican Party over the past 16 years?  What is the purpose of winning back control of both houses of congress if it will lead to the same results as last time?  In other words, we will have a slim majority that is held hostage by RINO Senators, in which we will receive the blame for wrongheaded policies that result from initiatives that are anything but Republican!  Then we will get crushed in the next election and keep repeating the vicious cycle that was 1995-2006.  We need [to] run and govern as conservatives or not run at all. 
I couldn't have said it better myself.

We are not scared of this well-financed right wing. This holds no more weight than well-financed left wing organizations. Need I mention George Soros and, as just one example? I'm sure to E.J. that these guys are "moderates."  And the populist banner of the tea parties is not false. You've been listening to Pelosi, and haven't a clue what is actually happening outside the beltway.

And E.J., I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but I am not an extremist. You need to quite calling conservatives extremists. It's just a bald-faced lie.

On another point, Obama is not interested in working with the Republican party. He has proved this many times.

The bottom line: We will not vote for more Mike Castles.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Roundup: Sharia, Light Bulbs and Obama

While Obama and his ilk are cuddling up to Muslims in a misguided attempt to appease the extremists, people who actually know about the reality of the world are saying something else.

Sharia a danger to U.S., security pros say
A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States.
After all the groans and whines from the left about Roger Abel donating $1 toward Republicans, the next op-ed explores other relationships.

Turning off the light of liberty
...While the ban [incandescent lights] was initiated in 2007, before the Obama administration took power, it has not gone unnoticed that the chief executive officer of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, "sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board." Recovery is nowhere in sight, while GE closes its factory making incandescent light bulbs.

There's more. GE was the recipient of bailout funds and "stands to benefit from current and future contracts with the U.S. government." Connect the dots. GE owns MSNBC, a cable news channel famous for its adulation of President Obama before and since his election.


Everything Obama does is right out of "Rules for Radicals." And most of his comments lately are either misleading at best, or an out-right lie at worse.

Polarizer In Chief
If any doubts remain that President Obama isn't the "post-partisan" uniter as advertised, witness his oddly personal attack on House Minority Leader John Boehner last week.

Acting more like a hired gun, the president stormed into Boehner's Ohio district to single out the Republican leader for rebuke, disparaging him as a country club elitist who cares only about "millionaires."

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Tax cuts for the rich. What cuts?

Just a short comment on how the Democrats and the main stream media are confusing tax cuts with tax increases. Regardless of whether you agree to extend the current tax rates for one or more group of taxpayers, can we get the language correct?

We've been paying taxes based on the same tax rate table for seven years now. Allowing taxes to remain the same for those earning more than $250,000 is not a tax cut.

By allowing taxes to revert back to the 2003 tax table for those making more than $250,000 is a tax increase. If they remain the same, then that is neither an increase or a decrease.

Repeat after me: When your tax bill goes up, that's an increase. When your tax bill remains the same, then it's no change. When your bill goes down, that's a cut.

If you think we're dumb enough out here not to know the difference, you'd better start paying attention. This class warfare stoked by liberals is getting old.

Remember: Nov. 2 is take-out-the-trash day.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Moratorium on payroll tax instead of extending current rates?

Here's a statement in today's HuffPost by Robert Kuttner, in his nine-point plan for Obama (of course, Obama can only propose, not enact, a feature of our government that many forget):

Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.
Temporary tax cuts only work in the short term. They do not work if only for a six-month period. Besides, cutting my taxes by 3.2 (I'm not sure if he means to include the 1.45 percent Medicaid tax) percent over six months really doesn't mean anything. Most people will save only about $900. I'll take the money, since it's mine anyway, and pay down some debt. And if I'm a small business owner with a payroll -- let's say -- of $500,000 over that six month period, then the 3.2 percent will save me $16,000. Not enough savings there for me to hire even one employee.

Then in six months, I have to start paying payroll tax again.

And the "Republicans' proposed tax cuts" aren't tax cuts at all. They're just extensions of the current tax rates. So in other words, not raising taxes is now a tax cut.

This whole thing sounds nice, feels nice, but would do absolutely nothing. And $50 billion (Kuttner wants $200 billion) won't do much either, because it's a multi-year plan which would take at least a year for the government to ramp up.

Guys like Kuttner can think of only one way out of the mess. Spend more. Borrow more. Which is, of course, one of the reasons we're in this mess.

I have one more question for people like Kuttner. Can you write one article without invoking the memory of Hitler? This is getting sick.
Force major Republicans to choose between siding with Jefferson and religious tolerance or Hitler and book-burning.
I don't recall any Republicans that supported the Koran burning, but if you're a liberal, you can assume it.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Thousands on U.S. payroll owe billions to IRS

Must be one of those perks for working for Uncle Sam.

The Washington Post's T.W. Farnum did some research and found that out of the total sum, just 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9.3 million in back taxes. As in, overdue.

As of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes.

Or how about the Office of Government Ethics? Three employees owe $75,304.

From the Los Angeles Times:
In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463.
Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.
Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.
Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.
Employees of the Postal Service owe about $283 million. Or another: The Federal Reserve -- Board of Chairman where 81 employees owe just over $1 million. Then there's military retirees (I'm not one of these) who owe more than $1 billion (and I mean Billion, not million).

The government doesn't need to raise taxes. Its employees just need to pay them.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Robert Reich on spreading the wealth around

Mr. Reich, the former Clinton cabinet officer, pundit, and Berkeley professor, in a recent editorial in the New York Times, stated that part of his economic plan would include "extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon." He also said that we hurt the economy by not raising taxes on the rich.

If you don't understand how misguided these ideas are, read Liberal Economics -- Insular, Misguided, and Obsolete and Robert Reich is wrong. The rich don't hurt US output and Robert Reich: Economic Illiterate.

Of course, I'm sure some of you will be able to find articles which state that Reich's theories are the best thing since sliced bread, as I did, but they'd be left-wing and rather misguided themselves, and we all know that modern liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism) doesn't work.

Just for fun, let's re-visit with Henry Morgenthau, who was FDR's Treasury Secretary from 1934-1945, who wrote in 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

Larry Elder compares this to the mess President Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter:

President Reagan, in the early '80s, inherited an economy with 13.5 percent inflation, 21 percent prime interest rates, and an unemployment rate that reached 10.8 percent. He addressed this by doing the opposite of what Obama has done. Reagan sharply lowered taxes, dropping the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. He slowed the rate of domestic spending. And he continued the deregulation policies of President Carter. Interest rates fell; inflation declined; and unemployment, after nearly two years, started dropping.
So why is our government sticking with the failed policies of FDR? Because they've been told over and over again that FDR's policies worked. This is what they were taught in college. They've not been exposed to other ideas, nor are they taught to think critically.

The way Mr. Elder sums it up: "Is it unfair to be skeptical of the opinions of left-wing economists — just because they're left-wing? Not if you agree that a) conservatives believe what they see and b) liberals see what they believe."

It worries me to think that Professor Reich is teaching our children this stuff.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

One-time tax breaks won't work

Cash for clunkers, while not a tax break, was a one time deal that created false demand. Once over, car sales tanked.

The first-time home buyer tax credit of up to $8,000 also created false demand. Once the tax break expired, sales tanked.

Government programs of this sort create un-natural market cycles.

Now, Obama wants to implement more temporary tax breaks for "small" business. Why is it that liberals keep trying shit that doesn't work? According to the AP:
President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of showing action on the economy ahead of the November elections. 
These are temporary. This and new infrastructure spending is only temporary. And it's spending more money that we don't have. It's like we're back in the 1930s. Will this recession last 9 years?

If he would actually listen to business leaders, he could find out what they really need to start expanding again.

Tax reform -- for both business and individuals -- needs to be immediate and permanent. Of the OECD countries, only Japan taxes their business more than the U.S. Our companies are keeping a lot of their cash overseas, because to bring it home would cost too much in taxes. See this story about that in the San Fran Gate:  U.S. tech firms shop abroad to avoid taxes.

Let's hope after November we can get some real reform, not just more of the same crap.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Peace talks with animals are a waste of time

The so-called peace talks between Israel and Palestine -- for the umpteenth time -- will go no where. Why? You won't read about this in most mainstream media. Mona Charen has it here:
Hamas sent a greeting card to the quintet of leaders meeting in Washington, D.C., this week to initiate negotiations about a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In a well-planned ambush, they killed four Israeli civilians near the city of Hebron, two men and two women (one nine months pregnant), creating seven orphans. The murderers escaped, and may perhaps have videotaped the atrocity.
In Gaza that evening, 3,000 celebrants clogged the streets, waving flags, setting bonfires, passing out candy, and carrying their children on their shoulders. If there is videotape, it will presumably permit the revelers to relive the pleasure, even as the video of Daniel Pearl's beheading has circulated on the Internet...
In the course of the past few months, the PA has named a square and a children's summer camp in honor of a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians on a bus, and provided a hero's funeral to Amin al-Hindi, one of the planners of the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. The official PA newspaper described al-Hindi as "one of the stars ... who sparkled at the sports stadium in Munich." Both Mahmoud Abbas and Fayyad attended the funeral.
Oh, and she forgot to mention, the killers pulled the pregnant woman out of the car after they murdered her and pumped more bullets in her head, just to make sure the job was done. Animals.

You can't make peace with these people.

Charen sums it up nicely:
These realities, reflecting as they do the unreadiness of the Palestinian people for peace with Israel, have been and will continue to be ignored by the Obama administration, the so-called international community, and most journalists. Instead, world leaders, very much including President Obama, speak of borders, confidence-building measures, and opportunities for peace, as if the problem were one of details. This thoroughly misconceives the nature of the dispute. An Israeli saying (now decades old) captured the essence: If the Palestinians were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no conflict. If the Israelis were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no Israel.
Obama ought to send the Palestinian president packing. But he won't. He's an ass-kisser, and will screw our friends and appease our enemies.

Can we take two more years of this?

Thursday, September 2, 2010

From the past: The wisdom of Ronald Reagan

The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.

Man is not free unless government is limited.

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.

Government is not a solution to our problems, government is the problem.

Mentally unbalanced: Let's spend more

A sure sign of being mentally unbalanced is when you do something and it causes problems or does not work, yet you keep doing it over and over hoping that it will work.

So the chief economic advisor to Obama, who is quitting her job to go teach at Berkeley (which should tell you something), wants our government to do some more stimulus spending, with money we don't have, to fix things.

How stupid can a person be? Is there anyone in this administration who has any sense of reality? From the Washington Post:
She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.
Yet Christina Romer wants to tax less and spend more. So more of the same bad economic policies, which haven't worked, should be tried again. I feel sorry for her students, who will learn nothing from this idiot.

Even the Europeans, with their grand experiment with socialism, have seen the light. Their economies are actually on the mend, while our economy is stagnating, or getting worse.

It's been proven over and over again that socialist, central planning policies don't work. So why would anyone try them again? Only the mentally ill would.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Who was right? Germany or the U.S.?

When I ask who was right, I'll bet you thought I'd be talking about Obama's speech last night. So I will put in my two cents on that and get to an editorial I think everyone should read.

I think it shows Obama's character when he takes credit for the "end" of combat operations in Iraq, when he opposed the surge, and the drawdown in troop levels was set before he took office. (Look up the Status of Forces Agreement). I predict this President will go down as one of our worst, worse than Carter.

Now, this editorial in the New York Times should be required reading. Remember back when Obama went to the G8 and told the Europeans they needed to follow his policies. Well, they didn't. And Obama is being proven wrong once again. The full text is here.

An excerpt:
During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence.

The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.”

The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus.
This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?

The early returns suggest the Germans were. The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.

The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.
Will Obama ever get anything right?