Sunday, January 31, 2010

Irony – Tiller's Killer Gets LIFE!...

In a weird irony, Scott Roeder (pictured above), the anti-abortion activist who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life, after his “justifiable homicide” defense failed.

He’ll be sentenced on March 9th, 2010 to a sentence of life....and be eligible for parole after 25 years!

So, in the end, this sad trial highlights the illogic of both extremes on this issue...those who support abortion up through the last day of pregnancy (ie. those who support the killing of even the fully formed and viable outside the womb innocents) still oppose the Death Penalty for those who murder, while ironically enough, the most radical of those who seek to defend the LIFE“the Army of God” of the unborn (for instance, those in ), are willing to kill to do just that.

As I said, I can respect the Catholic Church's stance on LIFE because it’s consistent – the RC Church opposes BOTH abortion and Capital Punishment because it holds that “ALL life is sacred.”

As for me, I am consistent too, in that I DON’T accept that ALL life is sacred. I accept abortion on demand up through the time when the child is fully formed in the womb (about 20 weeks) and I support the killing of those who commit heinous crimes, such as murder, repeat child-rape, etc.).

Not at all surprising is the fact that this case also demonstrates the dysgenic effect of violent crime, which is yet another reason to support the Death Penalty. In the overwhelming amount of violent crimes (almost certainly well over 95% of the time) the victim is far more educated, accomplished and valuable to society than is the perpetrator.

In this case, Scott Roeder, was a relatively unaccomplished and deeply troubled individual. In the six months before his arrest, he'd worked for an airport shuttle service, a party-rental shop, a convenience store and a property management enterprise.

After Scott Roeder's arrest, his ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder, claimed that Roeder had been suffering from mental illness and that at about the age of 20 he'd been diagnosed with possible schizophrenia. So a marginally employable man, with a history of mental illness kills a physician.

See the glaring disparity there?

Can you see how that disparity diminishes the productive capacity of any country that doesn’t excise such dysgenic acts with a swift and horrifying response, one that would serve as a deterrent to others? Such penalties do so and without question, as fully 7 of the 10 nations on earth with the lowest violent crime rates are Arab-Muslim countries where some of the most horrific punishments are meted out.

You can peruse the world crime rates by scrolling about six or eight posts back.

Acknowledging Yet ANOTHER Mistake...

Yesterday the Obama administration acknowledged that scheduling the 9-11 Trials in downtown Manhattan was an ill-conceived idea.

It took a lot of doing, with NY Senator Charles Schumer and Mayor Mike Bloomberg having led that fight from New York.

Security concerns, cost concerns and the logistics of having to lock down America’s financial hub, all make lower Manhattan a very poor venue for such a trial.

On January 27th, Bloomberg said that he wanted the trial moved, a change from November when he said he supported holding it in lower Manhattan.

In comments made earlier this week, he said security for a trial in lower Manhattan could cost as much as $1 billion!

Bloomberg said yesterday that he spoke with “high level” officials in the Obama administration, and told them it “would be better to do it elsewhere.”

“They understand and they’re trying to do something,” the mayor said yesterday on his weekly radio show. “I pointed out again, that it would be phenomenally expensive and very disruptive to people who live in the area and businesses.”

The original idea of trying the 9-11 suspects “within view of the scene of their crime” was a romanticized, emotion-driven decision...the kind this administration has made on the economy since it took office a little over a year ago.

You know what would be a good venue for these trials? The state-of-the-art court rooms they built at Guantanamo Bay!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Some Democrats Call For Obama to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts...

Now this is a surprising and positive development – some Democrats are calling on the administration to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Some (mostly Blue Dog) Democrats want President Barack Obama to extend Bush’s across-the-board income tax rate cuts now scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, arguing that a tax increase could hinder economic recovery.

"I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.). "It's a question of prudent judgment and timing."

Much of this is being driven by the fact that a number of Democratic strategists, looking toward midterm elections, see political disaster in heading into the November elections with looming tax increases on the horizon. Tax increases would almost certainly be a huge wedge issue for Republican opponents as Democrats try to defend their majorities in both Houses.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D., Ariz.), a second-term congressman who held on to his seat in 2008 with 53% of the vote, wrote Obama last week asking him to extend the lower capital gains and dividend rate, and estate tax rates.

“Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation,” Mitchell wrote.

In the wake of the Scott Brown victory in MA., this certainly looks like a no-brainer, but then again, this administration has been pretty brainless on the economy, so far. With GOP victories in Virginia, new Jersey and Massachusetts, it looks like any kind of major healthcare reform is on hold, Cap and Trade is all but dead and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire looks tenuous at best.

Ellie Light Revealed – And “She’s” a 51 y/o Male...and a Kos Kid...

This is an odd story that’s broken about a pro-Obama letter. Over the past couple of months the same or very similar letter to the editor has been printed in dozens of newspapers cross the country...a message about how the waning support for the current President is due to a childishly impatient electorate and not bad policy.

There was only one problem with that letter, ALL of them turned out to be written by an “Ellie Light” and “Ellie Light” turned out to be a frightened 51 y/o man who claimed he used the name “Ellie Light” because he feared writing the letters in his own name might get him attacked for his views.

The letter read,

A year ago, if we had read in the paper that employers were hiring again, that health care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly became a nice place to take your kids, we would've known we were being lied to. Back then, we recognized that the problems Obama inherited as president wouldn't go away overnight.

During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of empires and would not be an easy venture for us.

Candidate Obama didn't feed us happy talk, which is why we elected him. He never said America could solve our health care, economic and security problems without raising the deficit. Instead, he talked of hard choices, of government taking painful and contentious first steps towards fixing problems that can't be left for another day.

Right after Obama's election, we seemed to grasp this. We understood that companies would be happy to squeeze more work out of frightened employees, and would be slow to hire more. We understood that the banks that had extorted us out of billions of dollars, were lying when they said they would share their recovery. We understood that a national consensus on health care would not come easily. Candidate Obama never claimed that his proposed solutions would work flawlessly right out of the box, and we respected him for that.

But today, the president is being attacked as if he were a salesman who promised us that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never made such a promise. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Ellie Light

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer; “A man who identified himself as Winston Steward, 51, of Frazier Park, Calif., says he made up the name "Ellie Light" to protect himself from criticism and possible physical attacks, and used fake addresses across the country to get local newspapers to publish his letters.”


According to the Cleveland newspaper’s account, “His e-mail address matched the address of the Ellie Light missives that were sent to newspapers to praise Obama and urged second-guessers to be patient as the president advances the Democratic agenda.

“The story took several twists this week, as The Plain Dealer and "Ellie Light" spoke first through e-mail and later via phone. At one point Tuesday, the person who had been using the name acknowledged it was fake - but then said her real name was Barbara Brooks. The person spoke in a husky voice that could pass for either gender.

“But public records, including those of marriages, property and professional licenses in California and Texas, and phone interviews eventually led to the identity of Steward. Those interviews included several with a woman in Texas who said she is the real Barbara Brooks - records appear to confirm this -- and that she is married to Steward, who for now lives in their other home in California but plans to join her in their home near San Antonio.

“He said, however, that he and Brooks are no longer married, a point Brooks disputed.

"He's making up all kinds of garbage," she said. "We're not divorced. We're not separated. He just doesn't want anybody to trace him because he's afraid of the right-wing crazies up in Bakersfield."

“She said she does not condone his use of a fake name.”

There’s a lot that can be gleaned from that piece about a

The letter itself is hardly compelling as it fails to make any case for any of the misguided domestic agenda the American people seem sick of. Although that may not be the point, perhaps the real intent was to show that there are many Americans who still strongly support the Obama agenda...though in this case, it seems to be only one middle aged man with a deep-set fear of his own neighbors whom he refers to as “right-wing crazies.”

The letter itself is not all that well written and doesn’t offer a single compelling argument for “staying the course.”

The first paragraph starts off with some misdirection, “A year ago, if we had read in the paper that employers were hiring again, that health care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly became a nice place to take your kids, we would've known we were being lied to. Back then, we recognized that the problems Obama inherited as president wouldn't go away overnight,” adding, “During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year...”

Hmmm, Ms. Ligh...I mean Mr. Steward conveniently omits the mortgage meltdown that was generated back in the 1970s when Senators Proxmire and Kennedy pushed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) through the Senate, without House approval and set the mechanism of government’s micromanaging our banks in place.

That micromanaging picked up steam in the 1990s as both Attorney general Reno and HUD Secretary Cisneros began suing banks both large and small for “not loaning money to low income Americans.”

As a result of that, America’s banks wrote over $1 TRILLION in subprime loans (loans to people with poor or sub-prime credit ratings) in the 1990s, resulting in the Clinton administration bailing out a number of our major banks.

With Moderate Republicans on-board Jack Kemp’s “Ownership Society,” the GSEs (Fannie Mae ad Freddie Mac) were set loose with the goal of freeing up credit and expanding home ownership. Cisneros’ successor as HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo called it “affirmative action in lending.”

And that’s what resulted in the $4 TRILLION in subprime loans made by American banks (under threat of lawsuit and worse by the government) from 2001 and 2008, most of that bad paper bought by Fannie Mae and repackaged by Freddie Mac, triggering a global credit crisis once our mortgage market here imploded.

So the economy wasn’t broken in 8 years, and it wasn’t broken by “greedy bankers,” but instead by banks that were being micromanaged by mouth-breathing bureaucrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. In fact, a not so funny story, a young Barack Obama worked on one of those lawsuits for an ACORN member (Ms. Roberson) suing Citibank for “not making enough subprime loans available to low income people” in that area.

Apparently Ms. Ligh...damn!...I mean Mr. Steward is unaware that a growing number of Americans are learning about what led to last year’s economic meltdown through the cottage of industry of books on the subject, from the aptly named Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Ron Paul, Architects of Ruin by Peter Schweizer and Financial Fiasco by Johan Norberg.

As for the current administration’s anti-terror policies, they’ve failed to close Gitmo by their own deadline, not only didn’t they scuttle the NSA Surveillance Program, they’ve ratcheted it up. They’ve increased the use of Rendition (sending high-value detainees to foreign portals for “enhanced interrogations”) and Barack Obama has authorized more predator drone attacks in a single year than Bush did from 2003 until 2009.

This administration’s anti-terror policies can be described as schizophrenic at best. While we haven’t drawn down in Iraq, as Afghanistan spirals out of control, the Obama administration has seen fit to give KSM a controversial trial in New York City, a move opposed by over 2/3s of the American people. Although, to be fair, that’s perfectly in line with this administration’s ordering FBI agents to mirandize Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab (the Christmas “underwear bomber”) even though terror suspects do not have to be mirandized as there is a major exception to the Miranda requirements in such cases – “Investigators ARE allowed to question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning if they are trying to end a threat to public safety.”

Most of the rest of the missive is collection of anti-business ranting, “We understood that companies would be happy to squeeze more work out of frightened employees, and would be slow to hire more. We understood that the banks that had extorted us out of billions of dollars, were lying when they said they would share their recovery.”

Of course, in Ms. Light’s/Mr. Stewart’s view it’s the “greedy” private sector that’s at fault...only the private sector is flawed. Sadly for her...I mean him(?), it’s the private sector that allows the public sector to exist by actually producing things and providing the revenues the public sector takes for granted.

So who is Ellie Light/Winston Steward?

That might better be phrased, “Who ARE?”

Some really great work’s been done by Dan Riehl ((, in fact, he seems to have come close to linking this to the WH;

Left Coast Rebel ( and Patterico’s Pontifications ( have been doing a lot of work on trying to dig this up. Those two and, of course, Dan Riehl ( are the ones to check to stay current on this

The Fatal Flaw of Keynesian Economic Policy....

Keynesian policy does NOT differentiate between positive and negative action.

And THAT is its fatal flaw.

Keynesian economics posits that “government spending and government jobs can generate as much productivity and GDP as private sector jobs.”

That is a ridiculous, even an absurd assertion. Public sector jobs (teachers, cops, firefighters, social workers, etc.) exist, only because they can be and are paid for by private sector revenues based entirely on producing value and making things and as such. Public sector jobs, are entirely funded by tax revenues and as such, they are a net drain on GDP. That’s why the public sector must be coldly efficient, utilizing small workforces that work smarter to constantly do more with less, so that the private sector can not only flourish, but expand, because the private sector’s gains allow the public sector to exist.

Harare, Zimbabwe has as many needs as any American city, perhaps even more, BUT there is no money in Zimbabwe to fund all those “necessary” public services.


Primarily because there’s no vital, expansive private sector to provide those revenues, from which a workable public sector might be funded.

Keynesianism’s flaw is best represented by its own “broken window” theory. John Maynard Keynes (pictured on the Time Magazine cover above) saw a vandal throwing a brick through a storefront window as “a good thing” because it resulted in a good deal of economic activity. He started off with the premise that the store owner, himself, was inconvenienced, but effectively unharmed, since that storeowner was insured. From there, John Maynard Keynes outlined a flurry of activity that Keynes believed led to a greater overall economic vitality, as from there, the insurer goes to work, the insurance company sends in the assessor and the assessor gets to work, after that, the glass maker, the window framer and the glazer all get work...and so on.

The key flaw is that Keynesianism makes no distinction between positive (productive) and negative (destructive) activity. That’s as absurd as someone observing two people in two different scenarios, in the first, seeing two people engaged in a cooperative, productive venture, while in the second, seeing the same two people observed in a brawl, rolling around on the floor throwing punches...AND making no real distinction between them, as in the second scenario, the emergency room doctors get work, perhaps the local dentist, as well as the police and court officers and eventually, defense attorneys all get to work. If the two combatants must buy new clothes and other items damaged in their brawl, even more economic activity is generated.

That failure to distinguish between positive/productive action and negative/destructive action is the real flaw of Keynesianism and why Keynesianism fails to realize that ALL productivity and creation is delivered by the private sector, as it’s produced by a combination of investors, entrepreneurial owners and workers who cooperate in producing all that.

That, in a nutshell, is why Keynesian economic policies always deliver poor economic results. Of course, Keynesianism is the predominant liberal economic orthodoxy of the day, but most “Moderate” or “Rockefeller-wing” Republicans are Keynesians too. Herbert Hoover, FDR, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr., G W Bush are some notable Keynesian Chief Executives. Barack Obama is best described as a “hyper-Keynesian.”

There are still Keynesians who argue that, “At least the poor are better off, when wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor,” always conveniently leaving out that the “political class” is also better off, much, MUCH better off, when it’s THEY who do the “redistributing.”

But Margaret Thatcher captured the sentiments of the political class perfectly when she said, “In the end, you’d rather that the poor are poorer, so long as the rich are less rich.”

Of course, that which Maggie Thatcher criticized was NOT the fault of Keynesianism, but a flaw of human nature and perhaps the fatal flaw of the venal “political class” at all times and in all places.

Oregon‘s Voters Ponder Two Taxing Ballot Initiatives...

Today (Tuesday, January 26th, 2010) Oregonians have been going to the polls to, among other things, consider two Ballot Initiatives that would raise state income taxes on households and businesses to fund government expenditures the legislature there has already spent the projected revenues on!

Economist Randall Pozdena, in a Cascade Policy Institute report, wrote, "Because it taxes gross income rather than net income, the tax easily may exceed a company's net income and can be tantamount to a net income tax of more than 100 percent. Some business owners may not have sufficient net income to pay the gross sales tax. This provision hits especially hard those businesses that use subcontractors and thus may eliminate even more jobs and inefficiently distort business practices."

For Initiative 66, which would raise tax rates on individuals earning $125,000/year or more and households earning $250,000/year or more, opposition has grown from 36% to 44%, while a December Poll showed those in favor have fallen from 55% to 50%.

For Initiative 67, which would raise taxes on businesses in the state, “...for the privilege of carrying on or doing business by it within this state,” opposition has grown 12%, from 33% to 45%, while support has grown just 2% from 46% to 48% since December.

Raising taxes on upper income individuals ALWAYS reduces investments and incentivizes those people to save or defer more of their income in tax-deferred vehicles, which even on the state level often reduces revenues.

Increasing taxes on businesses amounts to both taxing ourselves, as those costs are passed onto us as consumers in higher prices and they cost jobs as companies generally retract when tax rates rise.

I’m hoping that Oregon shows the Dems that the politics of class envy is dead by defeating these two ill-conceived initiatives
UPDATE: Oregonians passed BOTH Initiatives yesterday, Ballot Measure 66 by 54% to 46% and Ballot Measure 67 by a 53% to 47% margin, with a 60% voter turnout, which is high for such special elections.

Economists there state that the measures could cost the state some 700,000 jobs over the next few years and could cost the state as many as 80,000 high-income filers, and those are the folks who invest and create jobs. What those economists fear is that Oregon is about to find out that both Capital and people are mobile, especially the high-income individuals targeted here.

SEE RESULTS:,_Ballot_Measures_66_and_67_%282010%29

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A GREAT Piece That Highlights Our Current Fiscal Chaos....

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

By Conn Carroll
March 24, 2009

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic (ABOVE) which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do.

While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post.

Read the full piece:

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Typical Liberal Reaction to Free Speech - Citizens United v. FEC...

WoW! The far-Left is positively apoplectic over Citizens United V FEC!

Take Keith Olbermann’s reaction; “Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people....In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886.”

What a perversely illogical stance!

What’s that last phrase (“ speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886”) even mean?

Is Old Keith (Red Bell Bottoms) Olbermann actually saying that because “corporations weren’t recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886,” that means that because of that, they, apparently like any PERSON whose family came here AFTER 1886, shouldn’t have their 1st Amendment rights upheld?!

That’s what that seems to imply.

According to old “Red Bell Bottoms,” (1) the 1st Amendment went into effect in 1791, (2) corporations were recognized as the equivalents of persons in 1886...ergo, because corporations were recognized or (came here) AFTER 1791, the Constitution does not apply to them.

OK, Keithy, then riddle me this...“If those who were 'recognized as the equivalent of a person,' OR came here after 1791 don’t have Constitutional Rights, then how can jihadists, who aren’t even citizens here TODAY, have any of the Constitutionally protected civil rights that you’ve claimed they have, since...around 2003?

How perversely illogical is that Olby statement?

For starters, among those the 1st Amendment protects are Corporations like the one Keith Olbermann himself works for (NBC...which until recently was owned by GE, now by ComCast Cable). Moreover, one of the many things the 1st Amendment protects is “freedom of the press.” If Corporations DON’T have any 1st Amendment protections, that means that it would follow that neither do the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Rall, Bill O'Reilly, Ed Schultz, etc. have those protections either, since the corporate entities they all work for(Corporations like the New York Times Company, Fox News Corp, the Washington Post Company, etc.) don't have such protections and can be censored or even silenced by government at any time.

Is that really where Keith Olbermann stands on this vital issue?!

If those 1st Amendment protections enumerated in the Constitution (N.B. the Constitution merely enumerates our innate, inalienable, “God-given” rights, it DOES NOT grant/give any rights) don’t apply to their employers, then they don’t protect the speech that folks like Olby offer as employees of those corporations. Following that line of "reasoning", the government can simply outlaw or regulate any publication, broadcast or activity by any Corporate entity.

If so, it’s not merely illogical, it’s, like most liberal positions, incredibly hypocritical as well.

After all, the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular were the biggest recipients of Wall Street cash in 2008!

I mean for God's sake!

Are the Dems now going to act like Wall Street hasn't been their best friend...and benefactor?!

Anyone believing that, is as dumb as a pet rock...try getting one of those stones to roll over some time.

Don’t believe me?

Then, as those TV pitchmen always say, "Don’t take my word for it," check out this report from ABC News;

"As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.

"Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.

"At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30.

"More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash with $184,750, according to the ABC analysis."

OR THIS from Buzzle;

“Wall Street has contributed $10.6 million to U.S. Senators this year, with a staggering $1.65 million going to Chuck Schumer, D-NY, alone. That’s good for 15% of the entire sum that the princes of finance have coughed up, and $7.7 million (or appx. 73%) of the total contributed has gone to Democratic senators.”

OR THIS from The Business and Media Institute;

"According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site, out the top 25 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, nine were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including the now defunct firm Lehman Brothers. Employees at eight of those nine firms gave more money to Democratic candidates – nearly $17 million to Democratic candidates versus only $11 million to their Republican counterparts. That’s slightly OVER 60 percent for Democrats to just under 40 percent for Republicans."

AND again, courtesy of ABC News, just take a look at which Wall Street firms leaned Democrat and which leaned Republican;

Democratic-Leaning Companies

UBS: 72.7 percent to Democrats
Citigroup: 66.6 percent to Democrats
Goldman Sachs: 63.4 percent to Democrats
Lehman Brothers: 63 percent to Democrats
Morgan Stanley: 54 percent to Democrats

Republican-Leaning Companies

Bear Sterns: 87.6 percent to Republicans
Merrill Lynch: 66.7 percent to Republicans
Deutsche Bank: 62.2 percent to Republicans
Credit Suisse: 57.5 percent to Republicans

Then recall what happened to those firms in the wake of the mortgage meltdown and subsequent global credit crisis in late 2008. Hmmmm, Merrill Lynch (out - takeover), Bear Stearns (out - takeover), Deutsche Bank (being sued), Credit Suisse (being sued), while Citi Group, UBS and Goldman Sachs are all doing swell.

Please! When you look at those stats and all those billions in bank bailouts, then that federal deluge of cash to Wall Street, seems to follow an earlier deluge of Wall Street cash to the Democrats...and it all starts making a LOT more sense.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

An Earthquake Hits Massachusetts!...

In 2008 America’s Independents slammed the Republicans for being too Keynesian, in 2009 those same Independents are slamming the Democrats for their hyper-Keynesianism.

THAT is “THE message” of those two electoral seasons.

While the Bush administration did two very positive things, (1) first it engaged the scourge of our day, global jihadist terrorism, AND (2) greatly INCREASED tax revenues via those across-the-board tax rate cuts, the overwhelming bulk of its agenda was recklessly Keynesian.

How successful those tax rate cuts were was proven when the Capital Gains tax was cut from 30% to 20% and Capital Gains revenues subsequently soared, as investments skyrocketed. The SAME THING happened when the income tax rates were lowered across-the-board - income tax revenues soared and the Deficit was halved by 2006.

Opponents lamely argue that “Had those incomes and investments been taxed at their original (higher rates) we’d have reaped a LOT more in tax revenues.”

That’s not merely na├»ve it’s absolutely UNTRUE.

When the Capital Gains rate is lowered, investments rise and so do Cap Gains tax revenues. When the Capital Gains rate is raised, investments fall and the Cap Gains revenues really is just as simple as that.

The same goes for the income tax – escalating income tax rates incentivize SAVING (deferring income tax deferred) and result in lower income tax revenues, while lower rates, incentivize spending (taking more of one’s income upfront) and that results in higher income tax revenues.

But aside from those two things, the Bush administration was as Keynesian as LBJ’s, Nixon’s or Carter’s. In fact, not only did the Bush administration spend MORE in social spending (adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did, it also delivered over 1,000 pages of REGULATION per year, including the most expensive and far-reaching piece of financial regulation in decades, in Sarbannes-Oxley, which single-handedly resulted in the “jobless recovery” in that administration’s first term.

The "de-regulation" liberals often complain about, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, occurred in 1999 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton on November 12th, 1999.

So the Bush administration’s legacy is primarily a Keynesian one. In fact, it was at least as Keynesian as Nixon’s and close to that of Carter’s and LBJ’s.

THAT’S what America’s Independents responded to in 2008 in delivering these Keynesian Republicans a serious warning and political body-blow.

Pundits from across the political spectrum speculated that “perhaps the American electorate had veered Left,” or “embraced big government.”

Not even close.

Since 2007, the number of self-proclaimed Conservatives has increased (from 37% to 41%...and growing) every year, as the number of self-proclaimed liberals actually decreased a little - a fact hardly indicative of a nation “veering Left.”

And this year, those same Independents have made it all too clear where they stand and that’s solidly AGAINST big government and excessive government spending.

So far in 2009, the Dems have suffered three major losses, the first in “bluing” Virginia, which saw its first Republican sweep of the top 3 spots (Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General) in over 25 years! New Jersey saw a heavy-set, charisma-challenged Republican (Doug Christie) beat a well-funded, incumbent Democrat (Jon Corzine)...and last night, we saw the most shocking of upsets – a little known Republican State Senator beat out another well-funded, politically connected and “Democrat’s ANNOINTED candidate” (Martha Coakley), by more than 5% (over 100,000 votes) in perhaps the BLUEST of blue states!

The fact that President Obama campaigned for all three Democratic losers is telling...even the “popular” Obama couldn’t save them.

Still, last night’s upset, which saw a seat occupied by Ted Kennedy since 1962 taken by an under-funded and unknown Republican upstart was the clearest message America’s Independents have sent! In that special election, 71% of the Independents in Massachusetts (a state where 51% of the electorate is Independent) voted for a Conservative Republican!

As Scott Brown so presciently said, “When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere.”

Massachusetts was clearly a referendum on the current healthcare abomination, the ineptly carried out non-stimulating stimulus packages, the huge and wasteful bailouts, Cap & Trade and the reckless and irresponsible exploding national debt, which the current administration just added a whopping $1.6 TRILLION to in ONE year!

I am still concerned that the Rockefeller-wing of the GOP may not be ready to listen to the people any more than liberal Democrats are.

Starting in 2006 and in the route of 2008, the American people rejected the Keynesian overspending GOP.

So far in 2009, the American people have rejected the Keynesian overspending of the liberal Democrats in 3 major races (VA, NJ and last night, in MA)...BUT the Keynesians (who inanely believe that, “Every problem has a scientific solution, best implemented by a beneficent government”) in BOTH major Parties have proven to be stubbornly tone deaf.

But it’s clear for anyone with eyes to see, the American people have spoken loud and clear over the last four years (2006 thru 2009) in rejecting that Keynesianism overspending outright.

Monday, January 18, 2010

The “Compassionate Blame Game” – Scapegoating, Liberal Style

There’s a game that upper-crust (almost exclusively white) liberals love to play. They like this game so much because it allows them to feign compassion for the very group they’re insulting and demeaning, while at the very same time, scapegoating that group to “the goobers” (their not at all affectionate term for working class white ethnics).

This game is especially popular among far-Left liberals because it undermines individual achievement by undermining common standards for achievement. Do you think the Gores’, the Bush’s and the Kennedy’s got into those Ivy League schools based on competitive merit?

If so, think again.

At any rate, this game starts off with our upper-crust liberals decrying how blacks, on average, do significantly poorer on standardized tests, from the PSATs and SATs, to the LSATs and MCATs, to various civil service entrance exams and private sector job performance and aptitude exams, and coming to the non-empirical conclusion that “it must be that something’s wrong with these tests.”

Fact is, there are numerous other disparate impacts (that is disparate or differing passing rates) between ALL ethnic groups - white, black and Asian.

Caribbean-born blacks tend to do significantly better on such exams than American-born blacks, and the various and sundry ethnicities among whites and Asians all have differing passing rates, as well.

Of course that fact is rarely, if ever mentioned, as it would ruin the game.

You see, “disparate impact” theory isn’t used to posit either (A) that since there are disparities in passing rates across all ethnic lines, we should advance what is most aptly called “proportionalism,” where every group must be represented exactly to its percentage of that region’s population, NOR (B) that any specific questions on such exams are demonstrably biased. To date, NO standardized exam has seen ANY specific questions shown to be demonstrably biased against any ethnic or racial group or groups.

What is apparently “biased” and/or “racist” about all these standardized exams are the outcomes, or results themselves – to wit, significantly less blacks doing well than whites.

But the purpose of that charge seems more about amplifying the poor performance of a particular ethnic group, by highlighting that blacks, on average, do less well than most other ethnic groups, than in addressing any actual “bias” in such testing.

But such group comparisons are invidious, as standardized tests are designed to measure individual performance and are only useful in comparing individuals to one another.

When we look at the outcomes of such exams by group performance, the results are effectively meaningless, given the myriad variables involved.

Not only do random groupings exhibit significantly differing/disparate passing rates on such standardized exams, but the results of any given exam is merely a snapshot in time of the sampling groups involved and the numerous and changing variables among those groups.

For instance, in New York City, one of the reasons given for the FDNY being so predominantly white and male is that more college educated whites take that test, some take only the emergency service exams (police and fire) and when that group tests out against a smaller pool of black and Hispanic applicants, with decidedly fewer College educated applicants, the results are skewed in favor of the white applicant pool.

Is it “racist” that more College educated whites are currently taking that exam?

Is that changeable and changing group dynamic somehow either “racist” or “unfair”?

At some time down the road, when there are more College educated blacks taking such exams than some other groups, will that also be “biased” and “unfair,” and if so, why, or how so?

As an example of how misguided these group comparisons are, back in February of 2009, the Justice Department (DOJ) sent a letter to Virginia Beach, alerting that Municipality that the DOJ had determined that the Virginia Beach Police Department had “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination” against black and Hispanics applicants.

How so?

Because the Virginia Beach Police Department gave a very basic math exam to ALL of its police recruits. In fact, the only evidence of the “discrimination” cited, were the results of those very basic math exams that were given to all Virginia Beach police recruits. Those test results showed a wide gap between the passing rates for white applicants and the passing rates for black and Hispanics.

Apparently, the DOJ didn’t like the results of those basic math exams, in which approximately 85 percent of white applicants passed the math test from 2002 to mid-2005, compared with 66% of Hispanics and 59 percent of blacks. Personally, I don’t like those results either. No test should have such high passing rates. A “test” with any group achieving an 85% pass rate is really not a “test,” at least not a valid one.

So, I guess the DOJ must’ve concluded that there must be something wrong with basic math. After all, it couldn’t be that the applicants for those specific exams, at that particular time and in that particular place, differed in their performance for other factors unrelated to race/ethnicity like, more college educated whites taking those exams compared to other groups.

No, the unspoken conclusion of the DOJ, based on those results, is apparently that blacks and Hispanics are not capable of competing equally with whites and Asians because they are less able or intelligent. THAT is the unspoken, wrong-headed and pernicious rationale behind “disparate impact” and “protected groups.”

In short, this “game” allows these upper-crust liberals to feign compassion for blacks while at the very same time calling them “hopelessly incompetent” and “less intelligent” than other groups. That’s why I call their game, “the compassionate blame game.”

What’s been at least a little surprising to me has been how many blacks have bought into this “disparate impact” viewpoint built upon the dictum of “presumed black incompetence” simply because it delivers a little short-term gain.

But as those commercials say, “Wait, there’s more,” and it gets even better! The upper-crust liberals know that these arguments in favor of “disparate impact” and “protected groups” are not only both damaging and unfair, but that they inculcate and solidify the corrosive view of “black incompetence” (blacks being innately unable to compete) among both whites and blacks!

At nearly every turn, the games playing upper-crust liberals blame those poor and working class whites for, in effect, doing better than black applicants on these exams.

The government isn’t really blamed for designing the tests...and they deserve no blame for that! After all, there’s nothing wrong or “biased” about any standardized exam.

“Fairness,” or “equal opportunity” is, in essence, having everyone held to the same set of standards. So long as the rim is 10’ for us all, the fact that someone else worked harder, practiced more, and/or was born with greater natural athletic ability does NOT make the competition “unfair.” Forcing the better athletes to wear weighted vests, certainly would be unfair, but those who hold to that are today, derided as “bigots” by those playing “the compassionate blame game.”

A favorite aspect of this game is when “the goobers” (working class whites) oppose racial preferences, segregated standards and other “remedies” pursued due to “disparate impact,” they’re predictably called “racists” and “redneck bigots” for daring to support “equality before the law” (which the concept of “protected groups” violates) and “equality of opportunity” (which requires a single, common standard equally applied to all).

In every sense this game is as much a win-win for the upper-crust liberal pseudo elites as it is a lose-lose for the poor and working class, both black and white. Since most of today’s upper-crust liberals are the scions of yesterday’s exploiters, that age’s slave traders and plantation owners. It must be uproariously amusing for that group to see their penance pawned off on those who actually fought America’s Civil War, built its railroads, bridges and roads and dug its mines...funny stuff, indeed.

And they do this while at the very same time crippling American blacks even further by adding to an already ubiquitous and perverse entitlement-dependency culture, by hanging yet another albatross around the neck of black-America by highlighting via championing that group’s trumpeted “inability to compete” – further binding them in dependence to a State that is almost completely controlled by these self-same upper-crust Liberals.

What a game!

The problem is that it’s not a game at all. It’s a very real, vicious and cynical manipulation of the populace via a deplorable “divide and conquer” strategy, that keeps those with the least power and control, at each others throats and equally unaware of their both being had, by their so-called “betters.”

American Ideas Click Here!