On the Sunday morning political talk shows

Here's a sampling of the Sunday morning political mess my TIVO is recording while I'm typing this, compliments of Hot Air:

NBC’s Meet the Press: David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Peter King (R-NY); E.J. Dionne, Brookings and Washington Post; David Brooks, New York Times; Helene Cooper, New York Times; Chuck Todd, NBC

ABC’s This Week: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Keith Olbermann; George Will, ABC; Donna Brazile, political strategist; Matthew Dowd, political strategist; Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

CBS’ Face the Nation: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD); Tom Comburn (R-OK); Norah O’Donnell, CBS; Stephanie Cutter, deputy Obama campaign manager; Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to Romney campaign; Melinda Henneberger, Washington Post; Major Garrett, National Journal; John Dickerson, CBS; Cornel West, Princeton University; Tavis Smiley, talk show host

Fox News Sunday: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN);

CNN’s State of the Union: David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL); Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD); Dana Bash, CNN; Jeff Zeleny, New York Times

I watch this junk so you don't have to. 

I can sometimes predict what those folks are going to say long before they say it. 

Ughhhh. 

Believe it or not, Meet The Press usually includes David Brooks of the New York Holy Times because he's an economic conservative and will provide "balance". 

You might remember Brooks as the guy who called the ouster of Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett "a damned outrage". 

Please note that the Court Eunuchs Of The ObamaMedia give Teleprompter Jesus programmer David Axelrod a slot on both CNN and Meet The Press. 

ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" is one of the most astounding examples of media bias you'll see this year.  Truly astounding. 

First of all, can you get drunk enough to imagine ABC airing a program called "This Week With Karl Rove"?  I can't either, but the two Stephanopoulos and Rove essentially had the same White House job.
George's guests this week include Susan Collins of Maine, one of only three Republicans to vote for Obama's Porkulus Bill. 
He's got Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who once took to the podium in Congress to complain of the National Weather Service giving hurricanes nothing but "lilly white" names, and proposed giving hurricanes names like "Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn".  She has also described the Tea Party as racist. 
Keith Olbermann, so left-wing rabid and so afflicted with all the logical symptoms of that condition that even Al Gore won't give him any more money, is on board this morning. 
George Will is actually an interesting guy and is worth listening to.  Will came out in favor of weed legalization last week. 
Staphanopoulos has another Clinton Senior Advisor dropping in: Donna Brazile.
Matthew Dowd used to work for Texas Democrat Bob Bullock.  Then he worked for Texas Republican George W. Bush.  After that, he gained some notoriety by writing long pieces apologizing for the harm he did to Democrat John Kerry.  Matthew Dowd used to be a flip-flopper, but then he changed his mind. 
Rounding out the discussion with George is Reagan Speechwriter and Republican journalist Peggy Noonan.  Four years ago, Noonan endorsed Barack Obama.
Is anyone at ABC even pretending that they aren't in the tank for Obama and rank Statism of the worst sort????

Out of the entire unholy lot of Talking Heads broadcasting this Sunday morning, hosts and guests, Mitch Daniels is the only one of the bunch who comes within missile-launch distance of being a libertarian. 

Here's a modest proposal for the Fox Business channel, the closest thing we have to a libertarian-ish network (they cancelled Napolitano's show, but still air John Stossel).  It would be called "What The Hell Were You Thinking?"  Here's a sample lineup:

Fox Business "What The Hell Were You Thinking?"  John Jay Myers (Libertarian - TX); John Stossel, Fox Business; Gary Johnson (Libertarian - New Mexico); Nick Gillespie, Reason Magazine; David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist;  Four libertarians strap David Axelrod into a chair and review the Obama record on the economy and civil liberties while asking "What the hell were you thinking?"  Next week's guest: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. 

I don't know about you, but I'd watch it. 

The media brainwashing picture came from here. 

King Barack, King Canute, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Here's the legend of King Canute, a wise monarch who knew that his power was limited. 

Long ago, England was ruled by a king named Canute. Like many leaders and men of power, Canute was surrounded by people who were always praising him. Every time he walked into a room, the flattery began.

"You are the greatest man that ever lived," one would say.

"O king, there can never be another as mighty as you," another would insist.

"Your highness, there is nothing you cannot do," someone would smile.

"Great Canute, you are the monarch of all," another would sing. "Nothing in this world dares to disobey you."

The king was a man of sense, and he grew tired of hearing such foolish speeches.

One day he was walking by the seashore, and his officers and courtiers were with him, praising him as usual. Canute decided to teach them a lesson.

"So you say I am the greatest man in the world?" he asked them.

"O king," they cried, "there never has been anyone as mighty as you, and there never be anyone so great, ever again!"

"And you say all things obey me?" Canute asked.

"Absolutely!" they said. "The world bows before you, and gives you honor."

"I see," the king answered. "In that case, bring me my chair, and we will go down to the water."

"At once, your majesty!" They scrambled to carry his royal chair over the sands.

"Bring it closer to the sea," Canute called. "Put it right here, right at the water's edge." He sat down and surveyed the ocean before him. "I notice the tide is coming in. Do you think it will stop if I give the command?"

His officers were puzzled, but they did not dare say no. "Give the order, O great king, and it will obey," one of then assured him.

"Very well. Sea," cried Canute, "I command you to come no further! Waves, stop your rolling!. Surf, stop your pounding! Do not dare touch my feet!"

He waited a moment, quietly, and a tiny wave rushed up the sand and lapped at his feet.

"How dare you!" Canute shouted. "Ocean, turn back now! I have ordered you to retreat before me, and now you must obey! Go back!"

And in answer another wave swept forward and curled around the king's feet. The tide came in, just as it always did. The water rose higher and higher. It came up around the king's chair, and wet not only his feet, but also his robe. His officers stood before him, alarmed, and wondering whether he was not mad.

"Well, my friends," Canute said, "it seems I do not have quite so much power as you would have me believe. Perhaps you have learned something today. Perhaps now you will remember there is only one King who is all-powerful, and it is he who rules the sea, and holds the ocean in the hollow of his hand. I suggest you reserve your praises for him."

Cool story, right?  You could say that it's about the limits of power.  It's a warning about flattery.  One could also claim that it's a cautionary tale outlining the difference between a decree and an accomplishment.  Just because the king says it's gonna happen doesn't mean it's gonna happen. 

Flash forward a thousand years.  Here's Obama courtier and flatterer-in-chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz on yesterday's Meet The Depressed, as outlined by the great Ann Althouse:

On "Meet the Press" today:

It would take 45 years if the Keystone Pipeline were in place, to produce as much oil as President Obama's policy to — on fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles would in increasing those over the next few years.

David Gregory presses her: "So President Clinton had it wrong when he encouraged President Obama to get behind (the Keystone Pipeline)?" And with a second shot, she makes the point more clearly:

It would take 45 years to produce out of oil shale from the Keystone Pipeline as much oil as we save in the increase in fuel efficiency standards from President Obama's policy that would be implemented by the middle of the next decade.

Is it really that simple?  All King Barry O'Bama of Hyde Park has to do is issue a policy, and the vehicles become more efficient?  They'll suddenly get 56 miles per gallon? 

Hell, let's issue a "standard" on business efficiency.  From now on, no businesses can lose money.  They must all be efficient.  Just send out an executive order from the Royal Desk Of The Community Organizer.   

Dammit, I think he should issue a standard, put in a royal guideline, and send forth a decree on poverty.  From now on, all Americans must earn at least 30K per year.  Write down the decree, have it stamped and sealed, and make it so. 

If Obama can send out a Papal Encyclical that declares the only acceptable average is 56 miles per gallon, why stop there?  Why doesn't he jot down a quick little memo about his desire to fuel Air Force One with nothing but algae, good will, and fairy farts?  According to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, his deeds and desires are one and the same.  Make it so, Barack.  Please make it so. 

You eventually have to ask yourself....Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz really believe this mess?  Probably. 

Does King Barack really believe that he can wave his mighty hand and have the tides recede?  Or have all vehicles average 56 miles per gallon? 

No.  Listen carefully for 45 seconds.  This is the often-ridiculed speech about government's ability to make the oceans recede.  What he's really saying is this...."If the oceans don't recede, it's your fault.  If auto makers can't average 56 miles per gallon with their vehicles, they're just too dumb to fulfill King Barry's objectives."

All we have to do is dedicate the rest of our lives to accomplishing this pathetic little dude's desires. 

Liveblogging the Meet The Press debate

I had sworn off of this, but Tivo changed channels for me during breakfast....

Here's what's going on during the Meet The Press Republican debate.   

David Gregory, in order to prove that Meet The Press and the Republican Party are both hip and groovy, announces that some of the questions will come from Facebook.  Perhaps from the city of Farmville. 

Michelle Bachmann is no longer present as the Sarah Palin surrogate, and this is good. 

FIRST QUESTION: Why does Mitt Romney stink?

Gingrich:  Romney is timid, and he wants to grow up to be Barack Obama.  He is BarackLite.  When he makes love, he pretends to be Obama. 

Romney:  I'm proud of being the John The Baptist for ObamaCare.  I also believe that I created jobs as governor, unlike New Mexico governor Gary Johnson who claims that he created NO jobs as governor.  I have no freakin' clue about the true role of government in the economy.

Santorum:  Romney didn't want to run again as governor of Massachusetts.  He didn't fight.  I did the right thing, and fought until I got my ass kicked by a Democrat. 

Gingrich:  Romney ran the red light.  He talked too long ! 

Romney:  Ted Kennedy made me do it.

Ron Paul:  The question should be about the issues, not Mitt.  However, Mitt did endorse the single payer system, the TARP bailouts, the Fed printing money for their friends.  Romney hasn't challenged the idea of a U.S. Overseas Empire.  That's what we should be talking about.  Not whether Mitt and his Magical Mormon Underwear can defeat Obama. 

Perry:  Well I'm the one who can 1) reinvigorate the Tea Party, 2) defeat Obama and 3)  ummmm...Ooops !

SECOND QUESTION:  How will you tell Americans that your spending cuts you are going to cause pain?

Huntsman:  Back to Mitt Romney... He criticized me for putting my country first. 

Romney:  Huntsman went to work for Obama.  If you look closely at the older versions of Mormon doctrine, black men can't enter the highest levels of Mormon heaven.  As a Mormon, Huntsman should know that, and be ashamed. 

Huntsman:  Ok, ok, ok, I would tell Americans that I embrace the Paul Ryan plan.  It takes a pitifully small amount of money out of the budget during the next 10 years. 

David Gregory:  In the name of the prophet Lehi, PLEASE give me 3 programs you would cut....

Huntsman:  Social Security and Medicare?  Maybe?  But I'm not going to touch Defense. 

Santorum:  Means testing on Social Security.  Food Stamps.  Medicaid.  Give it all back to the states.  Give 'em a time limit.  Including Social Security.  If you ain't dead within 20 years, you get no more money. 

Gingrich:  I taught history at the college level for years, and I'm going to lull you to sleep without answering the question.  These are not the droids you are looking for.  I'm going to improve the government, not cut it. 

Perry:  I'm going to get it right this time !!   Commerce, Energy, and Education !!!

The crowd goes totally wild. 

Break for advertisements. 

SECOND QUESTION CONTINUED:

Santorum:  People think that they should have the same plan that Congress has.  They have a choice.  (I'm finding myself liking Santorum on this one.) 

David Gregory:  Grover Norquist has gotten some Congressmen to sign a pledge for No More Taxes.  Warren Buffett thinks the rich can pay more. 

This is where I go stark, raving mad, and I'm going to skip Romney's response on this one.  Warren Buffett has made his billions, and NOW he wants EVERYONE ELSE to pay more in taxes.  His Berkeshire Hathaway group has been in a two-year lawsuit against Washington to avoid paying an extra billion or so in taxes. 
Warren Buffett is a hypocritical old fraud. 

Huntsman:  The loopholes make our entire tax system silly.  We don't govern, we sell exceptions to the tax code. (My words, not his.) 

Gingrich:  I worked with Tip O'Neill.  I worked with Bill Clinton.  You have to do that to get things done. 

Romney:  We didn't just work with Democrats, we were totally immersed in them in Massachusetts.  We developed relationships with them.  We did it so long that we now refer to ourselves in the plural.  We, we, we. 

David Gregory:  Dr. Paul, why is your legislative record so poor?  Why aren't your bills passed?

Ron Paul:  This shows how out of touch Congress is with the American people.  (Paul hits this one out of the park online and live, something like 3 times per week.)  Shit, can you imagine Congress voting against any bill that cuts spending? 

Santorum:  Ron Paul has never accomplished anything, never done anything, he's never successfully worked with anybody.  But if he's Commander In Chief, he's going to bring our troops back home to defend the U.S. !!   Can you believe that ????  We need somebody to maintain the status quo !!!

Ron Paul:  Changing foreign policy mistakes that go back to Woodrow Freakin' Wilson takes time.  We can't be all things to all countries.  Yeah, it takes a while.  In the meantime, let's audit the Fed !!

Santorum:  I've tuned Rick Santorum out.  He's doing talking points.  I Will do better on his next question. 

Huntsman:  I will do better than Obama by demonstrating trust.  Democrats will trust me because, after all, I spent the last 3 years representing one. 

Perry:  I would buck my party by talking about their spending levels.  We need a part-time Congress, which implies that only millionaires could afford to serve in Congress. 

Rick Perry just showed the world that he is stark raving mad. 

Advertising break. 

David Gregory:  Let's bring in some newspaper and TV people to help with the questions. 

Newspaper guy:  Home heating oil is $4.00 a gallon.  Congress is cutting the subsidy.  Whatcha gonna do?

Huntsman:  I feel your pain.  He'll break up the oil distribution monopoly.  (Why not drill, baby, drill?  Or crank up that Keystone pipeline?)

Ron Paul:  Subsidies are bad policy.  On energy, we should de-regulate.  50% of the transaction is the monetary unit.  When you create money out of thin air, prices go up.  If you subsidize somebody and print money to do it, prices go up. 

Romney:  What we don't need is a Federal Government saying we're going to solve all problems for all people.  Give these issues to the states. 

TV Guy:  Romney, you once said that the gay community needs more support from Republicans, according to a GLBT periodical.  Whatcha gonna do now? 

Romney:  I oppose same-sex marriage.  But I don't discriminate against them.  And yet in death, we live. 

Santorum:  I think gays and lesbians should be treated with respect and dignity.  But no marriage or adoption rights.  And yet in death, we live. 

Newspaper Guy:  Are right to work laws a federal issue?

Perry:  Only because of existing federal laws.  It shouldn't be a federal issue.  I'm not anti-union, I'm pro-job.  If you want to grow jobs, pass right to work legislation.  Education, Energy, and Commerce. 

Romney:  Carpenters union makes them better carpenters.  But lets talk about the pure, undiluted evil of government unions - they should have the same salaries and bennies as the private sector. 

Santorum:  I would support Federal Right to Work legislation.  I've worked with unions. 

Another break.  I wish they'd gotten Ron Paul going on the unions. 

THIRD QUESTION:  Jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Gingrich:  The long term answer to the oil problem is to make supply and demand work for us, not against us.  Flood the market with the commodity that is scarce. 

Romney:  Obama didn't cause the problem, but Lord Have Mercy, he made it worse.  Obama is anti-business.  (And he oughta say that Obama's current improving jobs record is only due to the size of the workforce shrinking.  People are just giving up, and those people don't get counted.) 

Newspaper guy:  What about out of state power plants polluting New Hampshire? 

Romney:  I don't know this specific regulation.  We've got to find a way to keep the air clean.  (In economics, this is called an externality.  My transaction with party #1 does harm to party #2.  There are also positive externalities, BTW.) 

Gingrich:  My Environmental Solutions Agency would be better than the EPA, despite having the loathsome buzzword "Solutions" in the title.  Much well-deserved ridicule directed at EPA. 

TV Guy:  Is Obama a Patriot?  Is he evil? 

Perry:  Obama is a f***ing Socialist. 

Santorum:  When I voted for the prescription drug benefit, it was not the act of a f***ing Socialist.  It was a way to require people to have health savings accounts.  No irony intended. 

TV Guy:  Is healthcare a right? 

Ron Paul:  Entitlements are not rights.  You have a right to your rights, liberty, and the fruits of your labor.  There are no "group" rights.  One group is not entitled to take something from someone else. 

Newspaper Guy:  NH motto is "Live Free or Die". 

Huntsman:  "Live Free or Die" is an awesome motto.  New Hampshire wants a leader who will unify.  Huntsman, by use of his word leader, shows that he doesn't understand the NH motto.  We don't need leaders, we need people to maintain the infrastructure and secure the borders and interfere in disputes.  Huntsman as a "leader" would betray that ideal. 

Advertising break. 

David Gregory:  Let's scattershoot for a while. 

Santorum:  Russia and Korea have nukes, but Iran is a Theocracy.  "They think the next life is better than this one."  That is scary.  We can't treat them like normal people.  Therefore, they are different.  Santorum's extreme Catholicism kinda leaves him exposed on this one, right? 

Gingrich:  Concerning my attacks on Romney, Mitt Romney and his firm Bain Capital, committed acts of Capitalism.  There is nothing lower than committing acts of Capitalism.  I want Romney to admit that is his former staff running the anti-Gingrich PAC. 

Romney:  I can't direct ads of a PAC.  It's illegal.  Everything in those ads is true. 

Romney vs Gingrich spat ensues.  They're both silly people.  They both love Big Government, and their records show it.  That's why it's so easy for them to dredge up stuff like this. 

Gingrich:  We've going to make a movie about Romney committing acts of Capitalism. 

Santorum:  It doesn't take a village.  It takes a family.  Obama has a secular ideology. 

Ron Paul:  If president, I will continue to preach liberty.  Sound money.  National Defense.  Defend Liberty and Liberty !!

Yet another ad break.  I had no idea that a debate would cost this much.  I'm getting hungry, as this project has disrupted breakfast.
 I am, however, 100% live.  Had to slow down to catch some stuff, but fast-forwarded through the ads. 
So far, Ron Paul is winning.  Why?  Because he's right. 

What the hell?  I was going to completely finish this liveblog on time, and the TV just cut it off, just like that?  No closing statements?  No nothing, just The End? 

Time to scramble some eggs. 

Enough of the political crap.  It's a nice day.  Hope y'all have a good one !!!

But how are we going to pay for the tax cuts?

From Townhall.com:

In recent American history three presidents, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—and Democrat icon John Fitzgerald Kennedy—all lowered taxes in response to economic recessions. In all three cases, more money flowed into federal coffers than expected, and all three recessions ended.

But, in the words of David Gregory of Meet The Press, how are we going to pay for a tax cut? 

In 2003, President Bush lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. As a result of the Bush tax cuts, the amount of revenue flowing into the federal Treasury over the next four years surged by over 40%, or $743 billion. To illustrate how the tax cuts boosted the economy, Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was a robust 4.1%. While some of that growth was naturally occurring, the sudden and dramatic turnaround in the economy began at the exact moment those pro-growth policies were enacted.

But David Gregory of Meet The Press has a good point, and he makes it every freakin' Sunday morning....How are these tax cut going to be paid for? 

Yet, despite compelling evidence, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats intend to raise taxes beginning in 2011 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The top marginal tax rate will increase from 35% to 39.6%, capital gains rates will increase from 15% to 20%, and dividend rates will increase from 15% to as high as 39.6%.

Good for them !  We can't have tax cuts that favor the rich unless the tax cuts are paid for. 
Be sure to watch David Gregory on Meet The Press this Sunday.  I hope the talking points that The White House gives him haven't changed. 

The picture of the David Gregory puppet came from here. 

Why economic conservatives need to start voting for Libertarians

Here's wannabe House Speaker John Boehner (Daddy Party - Ohio) from last Sunday's edition of Meet The Press.
Lord have mercy, what an empty suit.  At least when Pelosi is wrong, she's entertaining.  She's displays a vibrant, colorful ignorance.  Ignorance that I can have fun with.   All Boehner can do is pull the string in the back of his neck and stumble through his talking points with his calm, soothing, mid-1970's disc jockey baritone fog of a voice. 

David Gregory, the host, in this segment and the later ones, keeps harping that THE BUSH TAX CUTS AREN'T PAID FOR.  And they aren't.  They don't have to be. 


Here's how Boehner should have responded:

Boehner:  David, thank you for that interesting perspective.  I would like to agree with you, but that would make both of us wrong, wouldn't it? 
You see, when you cut taxes, you allow people to make better choices with their money, instead of letting Washington pour the money into the gaping maw of the government beast.  The economy is more likely to expand when this is the case.  People can make rational investments in rational projects.  Raising taxes also makes people less likely to take risks with their investments - you see, David, starting a business is a risky proposition.  Would YOU take that risk if government munchkins were allowed to confiscate 50% of your potential profits?  (long pause....)

David Gregory:  I was speaking more about the hypothetical.....

Boehner:  No, David, I'm not speaking of hypotheticals.  I'm talking about reality, and how people act.  Do you have a tax attorney or accountant who tries to guarantee that you pay as little as possible in taxes?

David Gregory:  Well, yes.  But how are the Bush Tax Cuts going to be paid for? 

Boehner:  I'll get there, David.  Give me time.  You see, the super-wealthy have tax accountants also.  The super-wealthy, like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and every other member of the megabucks earning circle, they all have tax accountants.  If you raise their taxes, they're simply going to put their money into shelters instead of into more productive investments.  Increasing their taxes will change their behavior.  It will not guarantee that a higher percentage of money will pour into Tiny Timmy Geithner's piggy bank.
Look at what happened when Reagan cut the tax rate.  The amount coming into the treasury increased !

David Gregory:  But the deficit increased under Reagan !

Boehner (embarrassed):  Well, yes, the deficit increased because we also increased spending at the same time.  We are, after all, Republicans, and that's what we do with money. 
Ok, let's go back to hypotheticals: say you are playing roulette.  You can either bet on red or black, and there's a $100.00 minimum wager.  If you lose, you lose everything.  If you win, you could win another $100.00 or possibly $200.00 or maybe even $300.00    Would you play? 

David Gregory:  Possibly.....

Boehner:  But what if the Nutcase-In-Chief declares that nobody should be able to win more than $75.00, and that all winnings above that rate will be given to the government.  Would you play?

David Gregory:  No.....But how would the Bush Tax Cuts be paid for? 

Boehner:  David, please listen to me.....when the pie is expanding, which is what happens when you lower tax rates, the amount the government collects increases also.  Investor behavior will....

David Gregory:  Thank you for being with us, Congressman Boehner !   Please stay with us after this break, when I will be joined by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, and Democrat campaign consultant Bob Shrum, as we discuss "How Are We Going To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts?" 

6 suggestions for creating jobs

On Meet The Press yesterday, I watched former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie, and New York Times typist David Brooks.  The sat in a circle and lamented the current failure of the Statist dream.


They were trying to decide how to create jobs and “grow” the economy. It would have been funny had it not been so depressing. Some level of government pump-priming was assumed by all to be necessary. Needless interference from Washington munchkins was a given. No one really questioned the level of harm caused by the recent Porkulus, TARP, Detroit and Wall Street bailouts. Even ideas about tax cuts were presented as “for small businesses only”, as if the janitors at General Electric weren’t worth a raise, but the millionaire owners of a Mom’n’Pop enterprises should automatically get a tax break.

(One important thing to remember: Corporations don’t pay taxes. People do. Corporations merely aid the government in collecting taxes from people - they funnel money to Uncle Sam from their employees, their vendors, customers, and their owners.)

Ford, Maddow, Gillespie and Brooks, along with their lords and masters in government, are like the folks whose only tool is a hammer. Everything looks like a nail. The only remaining solution in their toolbag is to take away everything, and then parcel it back out to the people whose behavior they like.

Imagine that you are a small business owner, one of the ones now beloved by politicians everywhere. Or imagine that you are one of Obama's greedy mega-business owners and that you have difficulty speaking because of all the steak and lobster stuffed into your cheeks and the multiple cigars in your mouth that you lit with $100 bills stolen from the savings of orphans.

Imagine that you’re either one of those types of guys. There’s really no difference between the two, except for lobbying power. What would encourage you to hire more people? More speeches from The Teleprompter Jesus? “Investments” of more of your tax money into green “energy”? (Note the scorn quotes.) Would you feel better about hiring more people if the government passed another Porkulus Plan to spend even more money on….government?

I think not. Ask yourself if the following proposals might be more effective:

1. We currently have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Cut that tax rate in half. Let businesses keep the money that they’re earning and let them spend it as they see fit. They can spend it on themselves, on employees, on equipment, on paying vendors, or giving the savings to customers. Either way, it will still get spent or invested. Letting Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or even Jerry Jones spend the money is always a better choice than letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi give the money to their constitutents. If that means there’s less money to be squandered by the Richland Hills Texas City Planning Department, well, so be it.

2. The teen unemployment rate is hovering around 40-50%. We just had a minimum wage increase from $5.25 to $7.25 an hour. Statists are always, always, always surprised when these arbitrary price-fixes hurt teen employment. I have teenagers show up every day looking for work, and some of them might already be worth $10.00 or $12.00 an hour to my employer. Some of them are worth about $3.00 an hour, if motivated with cattle prods. Some of them aren’t worth the amount of CO2 they pump into the environment every day. I would be willing to take a chance on hiring trainloads of these kids if I could do so at around $4.00 an hour. Some of them would be making $12.00 within a year. Most would not. Others would quit within the first week. The only way to find out who is in which group? Hire a bunch of them. But I’m not taking that chance at $7.25 an hour.

3. The black unemployment rate is now at 15%, as compared to a nationwide rate of 9.6%. Why is this? It’s because if I hire a black guy and he doesn’t work out, I’m going to have to spend countless hours with our Human Resources department proving that I’m not a racist who discriminates against black people. The black employee that I let go will automatically be given unemployment compensation, whereas we usually fight those claims filed by someone in a non-protected group. If employees couldn’t sue employers who didn’t want to employ them any longer, just like grocery stores or lawn services can’t sue me when I stop employing them, we might again see minority employment once again pass white employment levels. (Do a bit o’Googling to find out when that was last true. Hint: use the key words “Davis Bacon Act”.)

4. When you hire a babysitter, do you look forward to withholding and paying her taxes? Do you feel obligated to provide for her health insurance? Do you believe that babysitters should be unionized, without benefit of a secret ballot election, and that you should then be forced to hire ONLY union babysitters? Would collecting taxes, providing healthcare, and paying more for union babysitters cause you to hire more or less of them? Please be brief with your response.

5. Our president delights, absolutely delights, in demonizing successful large businesses and employers who want to hang onto the money they earn after they take the risk of hiring people. Could whoever programs his teleprompter change the script and get that idiot to stop doing that? He’s scaring people.

6. Central banks are starting to look at dollars as if they were hand-grenades dipped in HIV vaseline. These people know that the current regime isn’t going to stop throwing money to its constituents as if every day is Mardi Gras, and billions are beads. They know that the Obama/Bernanke/Pelosi Axis Of Inflation is about to start firing up the printing presses. Could we encourage them to stop spending, since dollars are the only currency we can use in the U.S., and we don’t want the market to be flooded with them?

I don’t have an economics degree, and I will never, ever be selected as a talking head on Meet The Press. But I do hire people. Or don't.  It just depends on the incentives, doesn't it?

Rachel Maddow eats a Republican Congressman's lunch

They had a new Republican Congressman on Meet The Press yesterday, and Rachel Maddow took his lunch, carved it up into little bite-sized pieces, dipped it in Ranch Dressing, and ate it.  This is from The Huffington Post:
 
A heated exchange took place during NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow accused Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) of hypocrisy for railing against a spending bill in public while touting its benefits in his home district.

Schock was introduced as our youngest Congressman, and the first to be born in the 1980's. 

Appearing alongside each other during a panel session, Maddow pivoted from a discussion on job creation to note that Schock had appeared at an event on Friday touting a grant program that he had voted against.

Get the kids out of the room, finish digesting your breakfast, and hit that link.  Ughhh....

"You, in your district, I just read that you were at a community college touting a $350,000 green technology education program, talking about how great that was going to be for your district," she said. "You voted against the bill that created that grant. That's happening a lot with Republicans sort of taking credit for things that Democratic bills do and then Republicans simultaneously touting their votes against them and trashing them. That, I think, is a problem that needs to be resolved within your caucus. Because you seem like a very nice person but that is a very hypocritical stance to take."

Where to begin, where to begin....Let's start with the "Green Technology Education Program" concept.  Since almost all government funding for Green Technology is a massive waste, and since the word Green is now nothing but a feel-good righteousness blanket, would it not be cheaper to eliminate everything but the education component of Green programs?  Eliminate the research, engineering and manufacturing, and go straight to the indoctrination component, which is what this mess is all about?   
"Ok, kids, get ready.  I'm going to say a magic word 3 times.  Please write a 750 word essay on how righteous you feel afterwards.  'We are Green, Green, Green.'  Start typing.  Don't you all feel better about giving these nice people your money?"

A somewhat taken-aback Schock insisted that Republicans were "not consulted on the stimulus bill" and shouldn't be blamed for the lack of a bipartisan vote for its passage. This didn't really get to Maddow's point. So after some back-and-forth among the other panelists, Schock jumped back in.

"I think the argument that liberals are making is absolutely ridiculous," he said. "With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you are going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against. The fact of the matter is our country operates and is governed by a majority. And I, along with almost all my Republican colleagues and a good number of Democrats, have voted against the stimulus, the omnibus and all this runaway spending. But we lost those battles in the House... At the end of the day my constituents and their children and grandchildren will be on the hook for the deficit being created by this majority and they deserve to their fair share of federal spending."

And Schuyler Colfax, Jr. was Vice President during the Ulysses S. Grant presidency, and Colfax later died due to cold and exhaustion while walking 3/4 of a mile to change trains.  What the hell does that have to do withy anything, Mr. Schock????  The Democrats dumped a fat, juicy, artery-clogging chunk of rancid, maggot-infested, greenish pork into your district.  You should have avoided it like it was Rachel Maddow's boudoir.  But instead, you had to slide up next to it, roll in it, lift your leg on it, mark it as your own, and talk about how stealing from the many for the benefit of the few was going to create jobs.  Rachel Maddow, of all people, called you out on it.  More power to her.   

New York Times columnist David Brooks -- appearing alongside Maddow and Schock -- chimed in to suggest that the argument over who should take credit for the stimulus' successes exemplified what was wrong with Washington. But that debate seems likely to only grow in prominence leading up to the 2010 elections. This past week, the Washington Times reported that a host of Republican lawmakers were doing exactly the same thing that Schock was -- only with a bit more insincerity.

"More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects," the paper reported.

I saw this analogy in somebody's Comment Field.  Will give credit later if I can find it: 

Think of the Republican Party as an abusive husband, and the wife has locked him out of the house.  He's now pounding on the door in the middle of the night, drunk out of his mind.  "But, honey, I'VE CHANGED !  I'VE CHANGED !  I'M A DIFFERENT MAN NOW ! ! ! " 

Bullshit. 

They don't want to decrease the size of the mega-state.  They just want to be the ones driving it. 

Regarding Schock's appearance at the green technology education program ribbon-cutting ceremony, the bill providing funds for that program was an omnibus-spending bill that Congress took up last spring. Maddow's point, nevertheless, remained the same.

"If you vote against the omnibus bill," she said at the end of the exchange, "if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against."

Precisely.  One cannot effectively lead The Sheeple of Illinois to believe that this behavior is wasteful by showing up for these ribbon-cuttings and touting the benefits of stolen, tainted pork.  Well said, Rachel Maddow. 
Here's a Youtube of the exchange.  You can jump to the 1:00 mark and get the general feel of the thing.  Note to Congressman Schock:  Please, please, please, don't make people agree with Rachel Maddow.  Please.  Stay home if you have to.   



Just to get this unpleasantness out of my system, here's a picture of Rachel Maddow wearing tennis shoes to interview Barney Frank.  Doesn't mean anything.  Just trying to change the subject.