Would someone please educate Paul Krugman?

According to this quack, inflation is "hypothetical." A quote from Paul Krugman's latest op-ed  in the New York Times:

The Fed has by no means done all it could, partly because it was more concerned with hypothetical inflation than with real unemployment, partly because it let itself be intimidated by the Ron Paul types.

Time to get out of your ivory tower, dude. Have you been to the gas station or grocery store, looked at your electric bill, or even been out of the house lately?
I don't know about this guy, but ever time I turn around, something is more expensive than it was last week, last month, or last year.

The problem with Krugman is that too many people take his word as gospel, when it should be relegated to just another left-wing nut trying to form a economic theory through liberal filters. Doesn't work.

And don't defend him because of his Nobel Prize. These prizes are now not worth the paper they are printed on (even though the recipient gets a huge amount of cash.)

Need love? You won't get it from "progressives"

From the Spokane Examiner and Newsbusters:

A video has surfaced showing the love progressives have for conservatives like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and talk show host Glenn Beck.

As hundreds of left wing activists protested a meeting held by the Koch brothers last Sunday, cameras were rolling and individual activists were asked what they would do with Clarence Thomas and other conservatives.

The activists questioned responded by calling for impeachment of Thomas, sending the African-American conservative back into slavery and hanging both him and his wife.

One woman challenged Glenn Beck to a duel with her Glock pistol.

Others called for the execution of Fox News executives.

One activist called for a revolution, similar to what is happening in Egypt.

Newsbusters points out the media's glaring hypocrisy regarding the coverage of the event:

Of course if this had been a Tea Party rally, you wouldn't need to come to NewsBusters to see the video, since it would be running on a loop on every nightly news broadcast. But that said, is it fair to call the entire "progressive movement" racist because of these few loons? Of course not. Still, it does give you quite a taste of the left's ungodly hatred for black conservatives.

Not just black conservatives, but practically anyone to the right of Stalin.

Stranger still is the utter silence from MSNBC, who would use this as a battering ram against conservatives had the roles been reversed. Does Chris Matthews approve of the racist, violent comments made by these activists, considering his recent "over-the-top" attacks against Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck?

Does Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal MSNBC lineup approve of the idea of lynching Clarence Thomas and his wife because they happen to be conservative? Why is no one from that network berating Code Pink representatives over this?

The Blaze notes that 25 protesters were arrested at the event, organized by the progressive organizations Common Cause and Code Pink.

So you "progressives" out there who think it's the right the incites to violence, you need to take a hard look at yourselves first. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

A Chris Plante rant...

From Chris Plante, WMAL Radio, Washington DC. He can be heard at their web site, 9 am to noon, EST.

"They slime and they slander and they malign. This is part of an orchestrated campaign...to keep people at home. And you know why they're freaked out — and this is an expression of the fact that they are totally freaked out. Their rhetoric is just...it's Hugo Chavez rhetoric — it's just — I'm sorry — your Republican members of the House 'are aiding and abetting terrorism' (a charge uttered by House Democrat Whip James Clyburn). What terrorism, you hack — you sickening — and you know it's 'Well, people need to be responsible on talk radio.' ON talk radio? You're a member of Congress — you're a senior member of Congress — and you're accusing your fellow (congressmen) of aiding and abetting terrorism because of peaceful protest?

"How many arrests were there, Congressman? How many police officers were injured? How many windows were smashed upon Capitol Hill buildings? How many? How many? Tell them about this terrorism that you're so concerned about, you pathetic hack. Y'know — "why this situation is overheated" — why is this situation overheated? That's why it's overheated, because of what the congressman said right there. They're so freaked out because Middle America is waking up and they [the congressional left] mean to shut us up. They mean to make us sit back down, get back on the couch, and their strategy for doing that — and that's what this is — their strategy for doing that is to slime everyone at these protests with tar — with a broad brush saying you're all terrorists.

"Now they're aiding and abetting terrorists? So obviously Tea Party people are terrorists that the Republicans are 'aiding and abetting.' So now they're calling Middle America terrorists. Nancy Pelosi saying out there, with the swastikas and stuff.... Again, that's Lyndon LaRouche [a Democrat] — except one sign that I saw at a rally — one picture of a swastika with a circle and red slash through it — saying no national socialism. That was not an endorsement of Nazism. That was a suggestion that you're the new version of that, Nanny Pelosi.

"And you can agree or disagree with that, but if you're going to go after these people, then let's compare them with liberal protests, which the news media will not do. And they're going to show the peaceful protests of tens of thousands of Americans on the West Front of the Capitol, and then show you the video or that audio I just played of police coming in on horseback to clear out liberals who are smashing the place up? Of course not — of course they're not. The hypocrisy of the news media is staggering."

Don't get stuck on stupid

After Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, tea parties, town hall meetings, and general unrest among the populace, you'd think the Democrats would be smart enough to change at least their political tactics, let alone their strategy (unless you're James Carville and just think blaming Bush will keep you in power).

But Pelosi and Obama have stated several times that they will stay the course and try to ram not only bad legislation, but a huge national debt on us, whether we like it or now. (And the current Health Care Reform legislation is bad -- it's too big, bloated and not the kind of reform desired by the majority of people in this country). They know better than us, anyway. Charles Krauthammer puts it this way:

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

These are bad axioms to guide your political strategy, because they are not based on any reality that I'm aware of. But many on the left think conservatives in general are stupid, which shuts down any hope of constructive conversation about the issues.

Krauthammer continues:

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest...This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

You can only insult people so much. Eventually they will turn against you. The Republicans got fired for spending too much and creating non-ending wars (with a lot of help from Democrats, if you remember correctly). If the Democrats keep going along their current course, they too will get fired. Jason Richwine, in an interesting article for the American Enterprise Institute, concluded:

The bottom line is that a political debate will never be resolved by measuring the IQs of groups on each side of the issue. Even if certain positions tend to be held by less intelligent people, there will usually be plenty of sharp thinkers who take the same side. Rather than focus on the intellectual deficiencies, real or imagined, of certain politicians and their supporters, people should strive to find the best and brightest spokesmen for the opposing side.

There is a certain devilish fun to contemplating the intelligence of liberals and conservatives, but it should have no effect on how we think about issues. Political debates would be better without it.

We should just get past all this stupid stuff, if you know what I mean. But most likely, human nature being what it is, we won't.

Fed up with liberal lies

Sometimes I want to put my fist through my monitor as I scan news articles, blogs and the comments that go along. Bad enough is the leftist talking-point of the "tax cuts for the rich" which is -- at least -- a distortion of the truth (what they mean is that only the rich got tax cuts, which is ridiculous).

But I keep reading about how the Republicans caused the current recession. I want to scream. Doesn't anybody know how to read and analyze facts anymore?

Here's Dylan Loewe, a Democrat speech writer:

But if Democrats can't stand up and clearly articulate the nightmare scenario we were saved from, while championing the progress we're making everyday, then the economic disaster that Republicans caused may well be the same disaster that helps them surge back into power. (Emphasis mine.)

But like in a divorce where it takes two people to fail a marriage, the Republicans can't shoulder all the blame, nor should they. The current recession had its roots with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act and Bill Clinton putting it on steriods. When Republicans wanted more oversight on these Freddie and Fannie programs in the mid-2000s, efforts were blocked. They should have fought harder.

The truth is out there. You just have to accept it. You can read more about the Community Reinvestment Action here. 

Postscript: Dylan Loewe is coming out with a book entitled: Permanently Blue: How the Democrats Can End the Republican Party and Rule the Next Generation. One party rule? Does that scare you?

The Postal Service vs. Defense

Did you know that the payroll of the postal service is higher than for national defense? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in December 2008, the payroll of the postal service was $3.4 billion, and national defense/interntional relations was $3.3 billion.

President Obama used the postal service as an example why his health care reform would be just fine. From the LA Times, Aug 17, 2009:

President Obama is urging Americans not to worry if the federal government dispenses healthcare insurance. After all, he argues, competition from the government-subsidized U.S. Postal Service hasn't hurt FedEx or UPS. "If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right?" he asked last week at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H. "No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."  Conservatives think the White House model is more revealing than the president might intend. As the Washington Times editorialized this morning: "If the president considers the Postal Service as an example, we should all be scared." The case: "Despite numerous advantages that FedEx and UPS could only dream of having, the Postal Service loses money."

Comparing the post office with a proposed government-run insurance plan is probably counterproductive for the President’s aims. But making the analogy and deriding the government-run mail carrier — while acknowledging that private-sector UPS and FedEx are “fine” — provides some nice ammo for those of us who think the government should be less involved in both health care and mail delivery.

Thoughts for Friday

Air America closes its doors
Blame it on the economy, bad management, or lack of talent, the fact remains that the market for liberal talk radio is much smaller than conservative radio because there are about half as many liberals as conservatives, according to self-identifying polls. If you're as far-left as Al Franken, then there are even fewer liberals.
But the bottom line is that radio is radio. If it's not entertaining,  you'll have trouble getting market share, and the resultant ad revenue. My exposure to talk radio is only about 20 minutes a day, but most of it is entertaining, even if I disagree -- sometimes -- with what is being said. Once upon a time, when I used XM Radio, I listened to the liberal talk there, and it was a big yawn. Boring with a capital B.

E.J. Dionne admits broken Obama promises, almost
In yesterday's Washington Post, E.J. says: "It turns out there were core contradictions in the promises Barack Obama made to the country in 2008." Ya think? Come on E.J. Just come out and say it. What Obama said on the campaign trail has nothing do to with the reality in Washington now. But he goes on to blame things on those obstructionist Republicans, the party of "no." He thinks the majority of Americans want "health-care reform." He's right. We do. The system needs some reform. But we don't need to throw out the current system and replace it with a government monstrosity.  Republicans do have a plan, despite what you are lead to believe. But Americans -- as evidenced by Scot Brown's senate victory -- don't want what the left-wing of the Democrat party proposes. Simple as that. Go figure.

The Supremes rule on corporate financing of campaign ads
I don't like the notion of a ton of money being thrown at political campaigns by corporations, wealthy individuals, et al (should it all be public financing?), but the 1st amendment is plain: Congress shall make NO law abridging freedom of speech. The fact that four justices desented amazes me. You can't read plain English? This is why we have so many problems in Washington. While I applaud the SCOTUS for upholding the Constitution, it's time for Congress to pass some campaign finance laws that make sense.

Brown wins in Mass; Dems to move full speed ahead anyway

Because there wasn't any polling surveys, there is no data on why people voted the way the did, but it's quite easy to postulate that they do not like the way things are going in Washington.

Here's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reaction, as quoted in USA Today:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said only "the political math" has changed. "We remain committed to strengthening our economy, creating good paying jobs and ensuring all Americans can access affordable health care ... There is much work to do to address the problems Democrats inherited last year, and we plan to move full speed ahead."

Here we go again. Blaming all our problems on Bush. But the fact is, that in 2006 and 2008, voters gave the Democrats control of the Congress and the White House. During the last four years, they've had plenty of opportunity to create jobs, strengthen the economy and "reform" health care.

We gave liberals a chance. We've seen their agenda. We've rejected that agenda. Rather than providing what the majority of Americans want, they have tried to ram liberal, socialist policies down our throats.

That ain't gonna happen. But the question is, how is that not going to happen, when 20 percent of the country is mandating their liberalism to the other 80 percent?

Steve McCann, in American Thinker, has an excellent essay on just this question. One excerpt:

Conservatives must discipline themselves to stop being so thin-skinned about what the media, bloggers, and pundits on the Left say about them. These immature and self-righteous blowhards must be ignored and allowed to talk among themselves without any response from anyone on the right. The only response necessary is to correct or rebut immediately and firmly the mistakes and misrepresentations of the once-mainstream media.

To view an example of what these "blowhards" are now saying, check out Cassy Fiano's blog post, The liberal reaction to Scott Brown's victory.

I expect the next 10 months will be interesting, indeed.

Oops. Kerry thinks he's got it.

A story today in the Boston Globe quotes Sen. John Kerry as accusing the Republicans of "bullying" tactics in the Coakley/Brown race. While it's a weak story -- and quite hypocritical for a Democrat to say, considering Coakley's attack ads -- I figured reader comments -- at least some of them -- would support Kerry.

Not so. I scanned about half the comments and found not one in support of Kerry.

It seems people are gunning for both Kerry and the Globe. While I'm not sure if all the comments are from Bostonians, it seems that the days of Democrat rule may be coming to an end.

This only makes sense. Depending on which poll you look at, 17-21 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal. The other 80 percent are conservative or moderate (about evenly split).

Thoughts for Friday

Obama vs. the banks
Obama's proposed "fee" on banks to pay the cost of the TARP program is absurd. Most of the banks that were provided with TARP funds have paid them back with interest. This makes no sense, but points out his liberal belief that banks are bad. '

Why doesn't he charge GM or Chrysler, or AIG, for the money we gave them, yet haven't paid back, and probably won't? (As of Jan 28, 2010: I was informed by a friend who works for GM after I wrote this post that GM is now planning to pay back TARP funds.)

Crony capitalism
An interesting post on crony capitalism by John Stossel. The more I learn about what's going on in government, the more nervous I get.

Liberalism through quotes
"Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared." Who said this? See The Last Decade of Liberalism in 40 Quotes.

Not just conservatives are angry

This from the Huffington Post:

I voted for open transparency in Washington. I voted for bringing our troops home. I voted for to fix the economy by find us jobs instead of fattening the bonuses of Wall Street and financial political supporters. I voted for health care with a public option. And what did we get?

More Bush. Chicago politics. And a worse off economy with deepening unemployment. I have ten friends and family members all out of work, using up all their savings and what has Congress and the White House done about this past 12 months. Nothing. What a disappointment! I wish the election was tomorrow. I would vote them all out!

Another:

We have been played like a one string banjo, pickin' that deceptively simple ditty, "Belief we can change in."

And one more makes the point:

By embracing a half-baked bill from a corrupt Senate and a White House that made backroom sweetheart deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, you are perpetuating bad government. If the political hacks keep receiving praise for their shoddy work, what's the incentive for them to do better?

These are from Democrats and/or liberals, who by the way, happen to be Americans. Our government, as I've been saying for a long time, is failing us all, regardless of political ideology.

Are you conservative? Or liberal?

If a conservative does not like guns, he (or she) does not buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a threat, he plans on how to defend himself.
A liberal wonders how to accommodate the threat by negotiating.

If a conservative is a homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is a homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of of government handouts.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative does not like a talk show, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those they do not like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he does not go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care insurance, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the government provide his.

How many examples of bad thinking do you need?

Here's one: Even after years of a laissez-faire ideology that allowed businesses to pillage the economy, the idea of government intervention makes a lot of Americans nervous. -- Cynthia Tucker.

Cynthia, 99.9 percent of businesses in this country did not pillage the economy. You're drinking the far-left kool-aid if you think so. It was the government that caused the problems.

Here's a little history, courtesy of Paul D. White:

This is not a new problem. Consider a memo written in 1965 to President Lyndon Johnson from Assistant Labor Secretary Daniel Moynihan in which the secretary expressed his great concern over the high rate of out-of-wedlock births among blacks (25 percent at that time). Unaddressed, Mr. Moynihan predicted, this large number of fatherless children would result in increasing school failure, criminal delinquency, and joblessness. Sadly, because liberals across the board condemned this call for action as racist propaganda, President Johnson didn't want to risk heated public debate and so did nothing. (emphasis mine)

See my point. Liberal policies have made things worse in this country, not better.

The article goes on:

The recent Chicago incident, and countless others that occur daily, are the result of not heeding Moynihan's warning 44 years ago. The previous out-of-wedlock birthrate has almost tripled, and 7 out of 10 black children now grow up not only without a father, but also in disproportionate poverty. That means millions of young kids lack adequate parental guidance to make the transition to become successful adults.

I have so many examples of weak or bad thinking by liberals (and some conservatives) on this blog, that you've have to be a true idiot not to see the truth.

Observations about Taxes and the Stimulus

Liberals want to tax the "rich" and redistribute this money to the "poor." Conservatives want the lowest taxes possible for everyone.

Remember, Bush's tax cuts were for the "rich." Yet, if you do any small amount of research and study, when these tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the "rich" will actually pay less of a share of taxes than they do now, according to the Tax Policy Center. This is because the lowest bracket, 10 percent, will go away and be replaced by the older 15 percent bottom bracket.

My conclusion on the liberal argument is that it is really about class warfare and perception, rather than based on fact.

Liberals firmly believe in taxation. Was it a coincidence that the national income tax (with a constitutional amendment) was instituted shortly after the birth of modern liberalism in the late 1800s and early 1900s?

In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10 percent of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.

The Supreme Court later decided this was unconstitutional, so the Democrats responded by getting the 16th Amendment passed (ratified in 1913), which stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As an amendment, it's pretty much permanent, hence the problems we face today.

Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. The Tax Policy Center estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of taxpayers will owe no income tax in 2009.

Also according to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year pay no taxes.

According to the IRS, 23 million taxpayers received earned income credit -- which means they did not pay taxes, but received an amount of money from the government. That is about 17 percent of all individual taxpayers. Millions more get other credits, rather than paying taxes.

I hear all the time from conservatives that more than 50 percent of all Americans -- or is it wage earners -- do not pay income tax. This is about right, according to tax statistics. About 40 percent pay no taxes, yet receive a refund. The other 10 percent is more fuzzy, because the statistics are divided into quintiles. Yet liberals want more taxes, especially for the "rich." But the top 5 percent -- I guess those are "rich" people -- pay nearly 45 percent of federal taxes. Seems enough to me.

Liberals also believe that the worst time to cut taxes is during a recession (of course, during growth periods, they want to raise taxes). Increases government spending will get us out of recessionary periods. Conservatives on the other hand, believe cutting tax rates along with smaller government actually stimulates the economy.

What is the truth?

The Stimulus Doesn't Work

As of Sept 1, 2009, about 17 percent of the $787 billion stimulus package has been spent. You can bet as we get closer to mid-term elections next hear, much more will be spent. But it probably won't make much difference, if government spending doesn't work. Of course, as the economy slowly recovers, the Dems will take credit.

A further study of history will bear out the fact over government spending, yet our friends on the left won't or can't believe it.

What about you?

A Liberal for Today

I'm going to be a liberal today. I'm hoping it will help me understand the mindset of these people -- oops, or I should say "my people." At least for today.

As George Lakoff has taught us, we must frame our debate correctly. One example he uses is "Tax Relief." This is how conservatives sell this typical policy. But since we are not for a reduction in taxes, we must reframe it as "paying taxes is patriotic." It's paying your dues for living in a democratic country.

This is what we're doing by calling conservatives racist: Reframing the debate. Eventually everyone -- including conservatives -- will believe it. My sister does already. If you're Republican, you're racist. She wants be believe she's a Democrat (though voted for McCain) because of this label, which she has learned to believe. That way, you don't have to debate the issues. Sane, rational people don't debate racists.

"You've been in Texas too long," she tells me. You see, Texas is a conservative state, so we all must be racist. When I tell her we're no more racist than anyone else, she's skeptical. When I point out that Texas has lower unemployment, a budget surplus, no income tax, etc, it's not good enough because we're gun-toting, bible-thumping racists. Never mind the fact that she's never been to Texas, doesn't know any Texans.

Misdirection and marginalization are liberal tools that are starting to work. We've taken over the education system, so future generations will only know what we want them to know. Once we silence conservative dissent -- like with the Fairness Doctrine -- we'll be even closer.

Because you see, our way is the correct and humane way. Everyone will feel better, everyone will have the same resources. We're nicer and more intelligent so we know they way everyone should live.

It will happen soon.

But now, again as a conservative -- neo-Libertarian -- I'll continue to support smaller government, less taxes, and individual freedom and responsibility.

Not Afraid? You Will Be.

The facts are piling up faster than manure on a cattle ranch. If you're not worried, frightened, disgusted, or just plain ol' concerned about what our 44th President is doing, saying and planning, you must be living in a different world than the rest of us.

Here are three must reads. You be the judge.

The Obama-Pelosi deficits, from the Wall Street Journal

Insulter-in-chief, from the American Thinker.

Obama's Follies, from Victor David Hanson

Liberal Hypocricy Once Again

While our sympathies go out to the Kennedy family over Sen. Ted Kennedy's death last night, the whole affair again points to liberal hypocrisy.

Back in March, Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the national heath care bill would eventually be named for Ted Kennedy. He caught all kinds of flack -- from Democrats and liberals -- for his comment.

For example, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Limbaugh's comments about Sen. Kennedy "truly outrageous." "“Leader Limbaugh crossed the line. National Republicans must stand up to their leader, Rush Limbaugh, and tell him that enough is enough.”

Yet now, after the Senator's death, Democrats are tripping all over themselves to name the bill in honor of Kennedy.

If a conservative suggests something, it's a horrendous deed; if a liberal suggests the same thing, it's just great.

If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're not living on the same planet. It is one of the reasons debating a liberal is just about impossible.

Liberal Insanity: Spend Your Way Out of Bankruptcy

The break with reality is complete. According to our esteemed Vice President, Joe Biden:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

That should work, right?

I guess I'd better to spend at least twice what I bring in -- that way I won't go bankrupt either. That seems to be the current administration's plan, anyway.

And we've got 42 months left of this insanity? But have no fear. About once every 20 years, we have to give the liberals a chance to see if their programs will work. They never do, but they keep trying.

Besides, it's not the results of their programs; it's the intention. Screw the results -- we had good intentions.

Problem this time is that Obama and Pelosi are trying to ram this in quick before anyone really knows what going on. The damage, if they succeed, will be great.

The re-making of America

Have you been paying attention to what the Democrats are now doing? Why have they been cramming new legislation through the system so fast that no one precisely knows what is being enacted into law?

First, the left-wing of the Democrat party is fully in charge. They now -- especially with the recession -- have the opportunity to covert the United States to a socialist model. But they know they must do it quickly before the majority of Americans realize what they are doing. Once the public does wake up, the chances are great the Democrats will lose power. And the Dems know it. But if they can get enough people dependent upon the teat of government handouts, watch out...

What exactly does the left-wing so highly desire, besides power? Victor Davis Hanson puts it better than I can come up with on a coffee break:

Soon we will all end up after each April 15 making about the same, driving the same sort of cars and using the same sort of mass transit, living in about the same sorts of houses, and having about the same sorts of “‘they’ will take care of it for me” philosophies — all overseen by brilliant, but highly ranked and exempt Platonic Guardians who suffer on our behalf as they jet and limo at breakneck speed ensuring our welfare.

If this is the kind of European-type socialism that you want, then you'll be happy. I'll bet the majority of Americans do not.

Besides, the economic model will create a endless recession. Instead of just a few of us being poor, all of us will be poor.

Hanson comes to the same conclusion I have:

This recovery cannot work, other than a brief spurt that results from trillions in printed money, because we are rewarding unproductive areas of the economy (federal money for more wind farms, federal hurdles for pumping more known natural gas or nuclear power construction; more of the community-organizing model, less of the productive small business model) and punishing the engines of the economy.

If You Ain't Texan, Shut Up

Susan Estrich -- who is orginally from Massachusetts and now lives in California -- basically condemned Rick Perry, governor of Texas, in a recent op-ed.

"What makes it easy for Perry to "fire up" the crowds, as local headlines put it, is what makes it irresponsible for him, or anyone else who calls himself a leader, to do so."

Isn't this what politicians from both sides attempt to do: "fire up" crowds? What is her problem?

Is Washington spending too much money? I don't know. If the people of Texas want to give theirs back, if they really think they have more than they'll need to educate their kids and care for their sick and help their newly homeless, then all I can say is that California most certainly does not and would be happy to have any leftovers from anywhere. Gov. Perry, meet Gov. Schwarzenegger. His hand is out. But angry talk by those who are supposed to be leaders can only lead to even angrier words or deeds by those who follow them, not understanding that it was just political talk in the first place.

Give me a break. We're not going to give California money. Texas is one of the few states with a budget surplus, so we really don't need to have the feds tell us what to do. Texas has been run by conservatives for at least the last 12 years; California by liberals. We have lower unemployment, lower housing costs, a balanced budget and do not need government handouts to survive.

Tell that to California democrats, who have basically destroyed their state.

People like Susan just don't get it.