Obamacare is Kryptonite to Incumbent Democrats

Opinion at large

The greatest liberal accomplishment in 50 years. Obamacare! The official government takeover of 1/6th of the United States' economy. Total control over our healthcare. The democrats explained that it would improve healthcare, reduce costs, reduce waste, fraud,
abuse and insure 20, 30 40 or 45 million uninsured Americans (The number keeps changing depending on who is speaking). As we approach the midterm elections, why aren't the democrats talking up their paramount victory which lacked the approval of the American people? I mean, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said in a speech that "we need to pass the healthcare bill so we can find out what's in it." Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, said in a recent interview, that he never read the healthcare bill. He was the lead democrat who shoved this down our throats. He said they (the democrats) hire experts to read and understand the bills. Baucus has been in the Senate for many years, I thought we hired them because they were the experts! I wish I could hire someone to do my job. The democrats banked on, after the passage of this obamination of a bill, America would warm up to it after it became law. On the contrary... Mainstream America, big business, doctors, states and republican politicians have become even more against this harbinger of liberty and rights of the American people. Not to mention a plethora of lawsuits against Obamacare. As we get ready for the onslaught of political TV, radio and Internet commercials, the left will attempt to run a misdirection play and not talk or get specific about Obamacare. They will talk about everything other than healthcare. Stanley Greenberg, democratic pollster, has told the democrats that Obamacare lies vagueness is the answer. If republicans will grow some backbone (and something else), they will utilize this to their advantage. The majority of Americans are against Obamacare and in the latest Rasmussen poll, 58% of Americans want to repeal the healthcare law. Even the anointed one, hasn't been in campaign mode, traveling on Air Force One, travelling on our dime, trying to convince that healthcare is righteous. I've read many articles stating incumbent democrats should stay away from Obama. He is their Kryptonite. Take a look at his latest polls. He is losing his 2008 base. Now you know why he wants to legalize 12 millions illegals, that's 12 million undocumented democrat voters. Big labor unions are planning on spending a huge amount of money to support incumbent democrats this fall. My wife and I were at the Restoring Honor Rally last Saturday and we are headed for the 912 Rally in DC next Sunday. The conservative party definitely has the momentum and enthusiasm this election. The left is unmotivated and shattered by their liberal leadership. They know, we know, what is going to happen. However, we can not get over confident. We must persevere and remain vigilant until November 3rd, take off a few days, then get back to taking back our country. As I've said so many times before, get involved, join a conservative group that you feel comfortable being part of. I must admit, it makes me feel good to belong to something that is a lot bigger than I am. "Get involved or be quiet." http://www.freedomworks.org/912-taxpayer-march-on-washington-2010

We The People:Great message!


Daft Statement of the week:
"It's a free country. I wish it weren't."
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, D,  commenting about Glenn Beck's RHR.

What do you mean Bias? 

Was George Bush an Idiot?



Before you answer with a resounding yes, read this through.


If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?


If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?


If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?


If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.


If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.


If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?


If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?


If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?


If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?


If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?


If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.


If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.

Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor



By Michael Barone


Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen -- even though just about everyone thought they would.


Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.



Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.



How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units -- Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.


In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.


The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.


The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.


The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.


Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.


Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.


The conformist "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by non-conformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.


Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.


The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.


Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.


What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.


Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.


But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.


In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?



Patriotica:


Michael Berry try decaf. LOL!

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey



Original Data Value
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010


Year Jan     Feb   Mar   Apr  May  Jun    Jul   Aug  Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual


2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634


2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258


2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640


2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317


2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934


2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279


2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784


2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696


2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400


2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267


2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599

Question 1: Who was in charge of the House and Senate since January, 2007?
Question 2: Who writes and passes laws to send to the President to sign into law?
Question 3: Should Obama, Reid and Pelosi blame Bush for the economy?

Look at the numbers. Especially, the years 2007 to 2010. Yes, I blame Bush for some of it. Period. But, like the financial (mortgage) meltdown, I blame Barney (I thought I saw a puddy cat) Frank, Chris (friend of Angelo) Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and others for looking the other way when George Bush, John Mccain and other republicans exposed and tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But, passing the buck and not taking responsibility for your actions is the Potomac Two Step mastered by politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Why do you think Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor Rally" was so popular. Honor (A tangible symbol signifying approval or distinction). So much for a trillion dollar porkulus stimulus. I believe the President, his administration and the democrat majority congress were extremely disingenuous when they proclaimed if we pass the stimulus, unemployment would not go above 8%. I must admit, 8% sounds pretty good at this time. I think it's the "Crisis of Confidence" with the President and his administration. If the government borrows all of the available money out there, the private sector has less of an opportunity to borrow or it is at higher rates and more prerequisites. Bottom line, there is plenty of blame to go around. If the politicians had honor and integrity, they would admit their mistakes. America understands people will make mistakes. They don't tolerate liars, blamers and backstabbers. Ifyou don't believe me, talk to me November 3rd.

Pathetic Funnies: 

Quote du jour:

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

 Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 55


The Total Number of the House of Representatives


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 15, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


THE number of which the House of Representatives is to consist, forms another and a very interesting point of view, under which this branch of the federal legislature may be contemplated.


Scarce any article, indeed, in the whole Constitution seems to be rendered more worthy of attention, by the weight of character and the apparent force of argument with which it has been assailed.


The charges exhibited against it are, first, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; fourthly, that defective as the number will be in the first instance, it will be more and more disproportionate, by the increase of the people, and the obstacles which will prevent a correspondent increase of the representatives. In general it may be remarked on this subject, that no political problem is less susceptible of a precise solution than that which relates to the number most convenient for a representative legislature; nor is there any point on which the policy of the several States is more at variance, whether we compare their legislative assemblies directly with each other, or consider the proportions which they respectively bear to the number of their constituents. Passing over the difference between the smallest and largest States, as Delaware, whose most numerous branch consists of twenty-one representatives, and Massachusetts, where it amounts to between three and four hundred, a very considerable difference is observable among States nearly equal in population. The number of representatives in Pennsylvania is not more than one fifth of that in the State last mentioned. New York, whose population is to that of South Carolina as six to five, has little more than one third of the number of representatives. As great a disparity prevails between the States of Georgia and Delaware or Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, the representatives do not bear a greater proportion to their constituents than of one for every four or five thousand. In Rhode Island, they bear a proportion of at least one for every thousand. And according to the constitution of Georgia, the proportion may be carried to one to every ten electors; and must unavoidably far exceed the proportion in any of the other States. Another general remark to be made is, that the ratio between the representatives and the people ought not to be the same where the latter are very numerous as where they are very few. Were the representatives in Virginia to be regulated by the standard in Rhode Island, they would, at this time, amount to between four and five hundred; and twenty or thirty years hence, to a thousand. On the other hand, the ratio of Pennsylvania, if applied to the State of Delaware, would reduce the representative assembly of the latter to seven or eight members. Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.


Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.


It is necessary also to recollect here the observations which were applied to the case of biennial elections. For the same reason that the limited powers of the Congress, and the control of the State legislatures, justify less frequent elections than the public safely might otherwise require, the members of the Congress need be less numerous than if they possessed the whole power of legislation, and were under no other than the ordinary restraints of other legislative bodies. With these general ideas in our mind, let us weigh the objections which have been stated against the number of members proposed for the House of Representatives. It is said, in the first place, that so small a number cannot be safely trusted with so much power. The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Estimating the negroes in the proportion of three fifths, it can scarcely be doubted that the population of the United States will by that time, if it does not already, amount to three millions. At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body. I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereafter show, that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a contrary supposition, I should admit the objection to have very great weight indeed. The true question to be decided then is, whether the smallness of the number, as a temporary regulation, be dangerous to the public liberty? Whether sixty-five members for a few years, and a hundred or two hundred for a few more, be a safe depositary for a limited and well-guarded power of legislating for the United States? I must own that I could not give a negative answer to this question, without first obliterating every impression which I have received with regard to the present genius of the people of America, the spirit which actuates the State legislatures, and the principles which are incorporated with the political character of every class of citizens I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery. I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting, the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents. I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them. What change of circumstances, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions. But judging from the circumstances now before us, and from the probable state of them within a moderate period of time, I must pronounce that the liberties of America cannot be unsafe in the number of hands proposed by the federal Constitution. From what quarter can the danger proceed? Are we afraid of foreign gold? If foreign gold could so easily corrupt our federal rulers and enable them to ensnare and betray their constituents, how has it happened that we are at this time a free and independent nation? The Congress which conducted us through the Revolution was a less numerous body than their successors will be; they were not chosen by, nor responsible to, their fellow citizens at large; though appointed from year to year, and recallable at pleasure, they were generally continued for three years, and prior to the ratification of the federal articles, for a still longer term.


They held their consultations always under the veil of secrecy; they had the sole transaction of our affairs with foreign nations; through the whole course of the war they had the fate of their country more in their hands than it is to be hoped will ever be the case with our future representatives; and from the greatness of the prize at stake, and the eagerness of the party which lost it, it may well be supposed that the use of other means than force would not have been scrupled. Yet we know by happy experience that the public trust was not betrayed; nor has the purity of our public councils in this particular ever suffered, even from the whispers of calumny. Is the danger apprehended from the other branches of the federal government?


But where are the means to be found by the President, or the Senate, or both? Their emoluments of office, it is to be presumed, will not, and without a previous corruption of the House of Representatives cannot, more than suffice for very different purposes; their private fortunes, as they must all be American citizens, cannot possibly be sources of danger. The only means, then, which they can possess, will be in the dispensation of appointments. Is it here that suspicion rests her charge? Sometimes we are told that this fund of corruption is to be exhausted by the President in subduing the virtue of the Senate. Now, the fidelity of the other House is to be the victim. The improbability of such a mercenary and perfidious combination of the several members of government, standing on as different foundations as republican principles will well admit, and at the same time accountable to the society over which they are placed, ought alone to quiet this apprehension. But, fortunately, the Constitution has provided a still further safeguard. The members of the Congress are rendered ineligible to any civil offices that may be created, or of which the emoluments may be increased, during the term of their election.


No offices therefore can be dealt out to the existing members but such as may become vacant by ordinary casualties: and to suppose that these would be sufficient to purchase the guardians of the people, selected by the people themselves, is to renounce every rule by which events ought to be calculated, and to substitute an indiscriminate and unbounded jealousy, with which all reasoning must be vain. The sincere friends of liberty, who give themselves up to the extravagancies of this passion, are not aware of the injury they do their own cause. As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.


PUBLIUS.

References:

http://www.hotair.com/

http://www.newsmax.com/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/

http://www.thehill.com/

http://www.youtube.com/

http://www.quotationspage.com/

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

http://www.wnd.com/

http://www.wsj.com/

Department of Labor statistics

Library of Congress/Federalist Papers

www.politico.com

www.rasmussenreports.com

Michael Barone

Duke Misnik

 



 

Lives touched by the Stimulus

Opinion at Large

Let's see, who hasn't been touched by the notorious Obama administration 787B stimulus which is costing over a trillion dollars? All of America has been touched and some touching is inappropriate. I can't wait to see my 2010 tax liability. I think our kids and grand kids will be burdened with the accumulative debt service accrued by this generation. It seems the Obama administration doesn't have a clue how to fix our economy. They know if they lowered certain taxes and extend the Bush tax cuts would assist small business to grow and develop the confidence needed to rebuild our American exceptionalism and leadership in the world. I wish I could take as many vacations as the anointed one. I get two weeks a year vacation. Who writes the President's contract? The President? If the faltering economy was on my watch, I would not be hanging out with the elitist liberals on Martha's Vineyard's finest golf courses. Obama seems almost indifferent. He does love the fun part of being the President of the United States, however, when it comes to those pesky foreign affairs matters or solutions to fix the economy or domestic issues like immigration, he doesn't tackle these issues which are important to regular Americans. I as read the news, even left leaning news agencies, better known as "state run media," has called for the firing of Obama's financial team, especially little Timmy Geitner, (Mr. Turbotax). Three years ago, I was on my high-horse telling anyone who would listen my opinion of Obama. My analysis of him was of a typical extremely liberal, tax and spend democrat who could speak eloquently (with teleprompter) and dazzle audiences with his vocabulary. Unfortunately, what I call "useful idiots" followed Obama like the Pied Piper leading the hoards of rats. I don't think this was the change they were looking for as they, the useful idiots search frantically for employment as the bank repossesses their homes or cars. Why did Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush lower taxes? Because it worked and repaired the economies of these respective Presidents. The Keynesian theory of spending your way out of a recession has never worked. Why do we not learn from Europe. What really scares me with Barry O, is he will sacrifice his second term and any democrat ally to achieve his socialistic agenda in transforming his idea of America. In my opinion, Obama has a major chip on his shoulder concerning America, simply put, he is embarrassed by America, he believes America is the problem and we should pay for this. Over the weekend, my wife and I went to the Restoring Honor Rally in DC hosted by Glenn Beck. It was so refreshing to see 300K to 400K patriotic Americans gathering on a hot Saturday to show the rest of America that we yearn to return to the traditional values of God, family and country. This rally was not political. Alveda King, (MLK's niece) spoke about family, abortion and gay issues. Reverend C.L. Wright spoke about how great this country is and the people that have make it exceptional. Sarah Palin (the liberals' nemesis), spoke of our incredible military and what it means to be a family member of a military service person. Glenn Beck spoke about all these topics. There were not any political signs, however, an abundance of American flags were proudly carried and displayed. In less than two weeks,we will attend another 912 rally in DC. That rally will be very political. Obama doesn't realize he has awoken a sleeping giant. Regular people from across our nation attends these rallies to show their disgust and opposition to the administration's policies and radical shift to the left. Mainstream America does not subscribe to the liberal/socialistic policies that Obama and the majority liberal democrats are stoving down our throats. Having said that, it all boils down to the economy and the 9.5% unemployment. This is the engine that runs America. If this administration doesn't create a economic miracle in the next month, the midterms will be even worse for democrats than previously estimated. A big factor will be the black vote. Unemployment amongst black men has been estimated from 30 to 40%. That is unacceptable. We went out to dinner the other night and our nice, young waiter mentioned he graduated from the University of Maryland a year ago and can not find any kind of professional position. He said no one is hiring, period. He refuses to accept unemployment (good for him). I have heard this from so many people. A friend who lives in Florida said he just lost his job after twenty years at the same job. Americans will be thinking about this when they go to the polls. I believe this midterm election will go down in the history books before the liberal teacher's union has a chance to change history. Please attend the 912 Rally in DC coming up. Attend a Tea Party and you will see that these are the nicest and friendliest people you will ever meet. I feel honored to be part of these patriotic events. November 2nd is coming. It's time to clean House (and Senate).  

Taxman and Robber:


Superman Obama:



Charles Krauthammer: A comeuppance for liberals


The left has relied on careless accusations of bigotry instead of considering why most Americans reject it. No wonder it's in trouble.


By Charles Krauthammer


Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight. Just yesterday, it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat.


Ah, the people - the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama, in an unguarded moment, once memorably called them - clinging "to guns or religion or" - this is less remembered - "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."


That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.


Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness, and debt, as represented by the tea-party movement? Why, racist resentment of a black president.


Disgust and alarm at the U.S. government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.


Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.


Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near ground zero? Islamophobia.


Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," which was last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance. Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?


Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities - often lopsided majorities - oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage, and reject a mosque near ground zero.


What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.


The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the tea party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless, and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry, white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.


Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of goodwill could hold that: illegal immigration should be illegal; the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty; and every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.


As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of seven million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than hatred of gays - particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?


And now the mosque. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.


It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" - blacks, Hispanics, gays, and Muslims - a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?


The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November - not just because the economy is ailing, and not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left, but because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.


Charles Krauthammer is a Washington


Post columnist. He can be reached at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.


Pathetic Funnies:

"The Obummer"

Government Motor's car of the year

Obama: The people at Beck’s rally are filled with anxiety

posted at 12:23 pm on August 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

Seven minutes with The One on Glenn Beck’s rally, the Ground Zero mosque, and the endless conspiracizing about his faith and birthplace. (Wisely, he passed on Carville’s advice on what to say about that last subject.) Something for everyone here. For Birthers, agony when Williams declines to press him on the location of the holy grail, a.k.a. his long-form birth certificate. For mosque supporters/opponents, confusion when he suggests that he supports Park51 being built where it is (since we’d let a church or synagogue be built there), then hedges once again by emphasizing that he’s not endorsing any particular project. And for political junkies, shock when a question about Glenn Beck’s religious rally on the Mall leads him to repeat his single biggest mistake of the 2008 campaign. Here’s the money quote, which comes at the very end of the clip. Isn’t this his infamous bitter/clinger theory of small-town values voters dressed up in slightly more politic language?


I — I do think that it’s important for us to recognize that right now, the country’s going through a very difficult time, as a consequence of years of neglect in a whole range of areas. Our schools not working the way they need to, so we’ve slipped in terms of the number of college graduates, you know?


A financial system that was not, you know, operating in a way that maintained integrity and assured that the people who were investing or who were buying a home or were using a credit card weren’t getting in some way cheated. We had a health care system that was broken and that was bankrupting families and businesses. All those issues are big, tough, difficult issues. And those are just our domestic issues. That’s before we get to policy issues in two wars. And a continuing battle against terrorists who want to do us harm.


So, given all those anxieties — and given the fact that, you know, in none of these situations are you going to be fix things overnight. It’s not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country. That’s been true throughout our history. What I’m focused on is making sure that the decisions we’re making now are going to be be not good for the nightly news. Not good even necessarily for the next election. But are good for the next generation. And I’m very confident that those decisions are the ones that we’ve made.


He says he didn’t watch the rally so he may be under the impression that it was a three-hour “the socialists are coming!” Obama bash-fest. Not so; Weigel is closer to the mark in describing it as “the world’s largest megachurch.” I don’t know what The One was thinking, but dismissing what ended up being a big revival meeting as a byproduct of economic anxiety is not the way to ingratiate oneself with religious voters. And I’m not sure how to take the bit about America producing fewer college grads than it used to. Is he suggesting that that’s one of the things Beck’s audience is worried about? Or is he suggesting that it’s because they themselves are ill-educated that they follow Beck at all?


Update: I changed the headline to emphasize his comments about the rally instead of the Birther thing, which is actually tangential to the post.

Video of the week:


WWRRD?

Quote du Jour:
A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

Polls we can live by:
28% Strongly approve of the President's job performance
40% strongly disapprove
46% Somewhat approve
52% Somewhat disapprove
58% Favor the repeal the Obamacare

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 54

The Apportionment of Members Among the States


From the New York Packet.


Tuesday, February 12, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


The next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes. It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection.


In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives.


In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea?


Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands. "For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State, ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and richer States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes. "Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established. In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.foundingfathers.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Allahpundit
www.newsmax.com
www.rasmussenreports.com
www.jibjab.com

Sinking of the Steamer "Liberalism"

Opinion at large

It is rather amusing to see the liberals showing their true colors as we get closer the day of reckoning, November 2nd. It reminds me of the republicans making the headlines and losing their seats back in '06. The democrats seem to not have learned a thing. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I've been following Charlie (Tax thee but not me) Rangel, 13 violation by his congressional peers. Why doesn't he retire. As a conservative, I hope he fights this to the end. This would bad for the democrat incumbents who know they are in hot water without this paramount news debacle. The democrats are poised to lose the House, and possibly the Senate. Even if they retain control of the Senate, it will be close to equal. I fear this is what the anointed one wants, so when the state of affairs gets worse, he will conveniently blame the republicans. His administrations' modis operandi is to blame the economy on Bush. I know, it's only been 19 months since ObieWonKenobi took office, however, it is surely George W. Bush's fault, otherwise, he would have to blame himself. Let's face it, the democrats' Keynesian economic theory is a unequivocal failure. Imagine at night, when the liberals are sitting on their big cushiony couch, with a single malt scotch in their hand, wondering how their dream of a socialistic, western European government-run-everything has emerged as a huge disappointment and colossal nonacheivement. Take Maxine Waters, D-CA, has been charged with ethics violations and awaiting a public trial. It was a small conflict of interest, she solicited TARP funds for a bank where her husband sat on the board and owns thousands of shares. We, the American public can't allow Maxine to lose money if that bank failed. My Dad use to say, "don't do as I do, do as I say. He might have heard this from the democrats. "If I did this, I would be in jail. Anyway, I hope Rangel and Waters go on trial and appear on the front page of the state run media's newspapers. This will help the republicans stampede over the democrats. I got such a chuckle when Al 'Sharpie Sharp" Sharpton introduced the race card once again. He said since Rangel and Waters are black congress people, there has to be racism. Not that they broke the law, or anything like that. Pathetic! Where is Jesse Jackson, I'm surprised he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. Next, we have Pete Stark, D-CA, who inserts foot into mouth, weekly. He said at a townhall meeting in CA, that not hiring an illegal alien could be "unconstitutional." What? Also, he asked a constituent who was he going to kill today concerning the tea party. I think we can agree, the politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have forgotten who they work for. They are eletists who do not care what the American people want. I want to start a campaign for term limits in congress after the republicans take back the House. I realize we would need to win the Senate and Presidency along with the House to accomplish this enormous feat. When they leave their represented state and move to Washington, they become "inside the beltway" politicians. Cocktail and dinner parties influence their decisions. Two terms and out. I am so excited about the Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in DC on August 28th. Even though the state run media will report that 92 people showed up, I am confident that thousands will attend. We have attended other rallies like the 912 rally and different tea party afilliated protest and it is one of the best times we have ever had. I hope you get involved and join or participate in some type of conservative cause. Correction - the American Movement. If you don't, then don't complain. 

Speaking Stark:
   

Troubled Waters:
 

It was my staff's fault:


Obama's Immigration Power Play

By W. James Antle, III
8.2.10 @ 6:09AM


Last week, the Obama administration got Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Bolton to at least temporarily throw out key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Within 24 hours came more evidence that they weren't done eviscerating immigration enforcement yet.


That proof came in the form of an astonishing internal memo outlining ways the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) could effectively legalize at least tens of thousands of illegal immigrants even if Congress fails to enact amnesty. Some would be granted resident status with the USCIS simply giving them green cards. Others would be allowed to evade deportation, possibly indefinitely.


"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different parts of USCIS for the agency's director. Two of the memo's authors are Obama appointees, as is USCIS head Alejandro N. Mayorkas.


Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made the 11-page document public last Thursday, arguing in a public statement, "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan." In June, Grassley and six other senators sent President Obama a letter asking him to deny rumors that his underlings were contemplating amnesty by executive fiat.


Now we have good reason to believe the rumors were true. One proposal contained in the memo was that the USCIS grant "parole in place," which comes with a work permit and the right to apply for a green card, to various illegal immigrants. Another suggestion was to give "deferred action," delaying deportation indefinitely and preserving eligibility to apply for a work permit, to illegal aliens who would have benefited from the DREAM Act.


That would be the same DREAM Act, incidentally, that Congress has repeatedly failed to pass, much as it has shot down broader-based amnesty proposals.


Finally, the memos' authors suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could simply stop issuing the "notice to appear" letters that begin the deportation process. The only exception would be in cases where the illegal alien is found to have "significant negative immigration or criminal history."


The exposure of this memo understandably generated controversy, which the administration was eager to tamp down. A hastily issued USCIS statement insisted that the memos were just a draft and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."


"To be clear," the statement continued, "DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"


Even if the memo merely shows mid-level bureaucrats engaging in a brainstorming session about how to undermine the immigration laws they are being paid to uphold, it captures the essence of this administration's approach to immigration enforcement. Criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are down and worksite raids have virtually stopped. The DHS official running the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has admitted the administration is, as a matter of policy, trying to avoid arresting illegals.


According to one report, through May administrative arrests were down 81 percent from 2008, criminal arrests down 67 percent, indictments are down 73 percent, and convictions down 75 percent. "I think there have been very few operations that have generated arrests of undocumented workers," David Venturella, the acting director in charge of such operations, was quoted as saying at an Urban Institute event.


But what about reports that the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the Washington Post that they planned to deport 400,000 people this fiscal year, up 10 percent from 2008 and 25 percent from 2007.


Like their predecessors in the generally lax Bush administration, Obama's immigration henchmen can be counted on to periodically ratchet up enforcement when doing so will aid the call for "comprehensive immigration reform." Most of this uptick reflects a recent effort to identify illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.


Yet neither the deportations of criminal aliens nor the ballyhooed audits of companies that hire workers with bogus Social Security numbers really turn off the jobs magnet luring illegal immigrants into this country. Remember: as amnesty advocates are always fond of reminding us, we cannot deport every illegal immigrant in the United States. The main goal of attrition through enforcement is to entice large numbers of illegals to in effect deport themselves.


Focusing on the worst criminals among the illegal population -- and relatively light civil fines of employers who flunk their audits -- while giving de facto amnesty to everyone else will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants here to a manageable level. It will merely allow the Obama administration to appear tough while actually undermining attrition through enforcement.


States like Arizona have learned that serious immigration enforcement is a dirty job the federal government won't do -- and one that the Obama administration won't let anyone else perform, either. Even if they must rely on unaccountable federal judges and bureaucrats, it is amnesty or bust, the will of the people and their elected representatives be damned.

Polls we can live by:
Rasmussen Reports:
27% Stronglt agree of Presidential job performance
42% Strongly disagree
Presidential Approval Index Rating: -15
46% Somewhat agree of Presidential job performance
53% Somewhat disagree

Gallup:
41% Presidential approval rating (lowest ever)

Funny & Pathetic:

A Bleak Picture of Government Debt


By Thomas Sowell


August 3, 2010



Rumors of Congressional Democrats privately expressing disapproval of the Obama administration's actions and policies have been given more credence by such things as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public criticism of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. But when two long-time Democratic pollsters, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, called President Obama "cynical" and "racially divisive," that was a dramatic statement. It was like saying that the emperor has no clothes.


A much more rhetorically subdued but nevertheless devastating implicit criticism of current government spending policies came from an even more unlikely source: the Congressional Budget Office, whose director is a Democrat.


Without naming names or making political charges, the Congressional Budget Office last week issued a report titled "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis." The report's dry, measured words paint a painfully bleak picture of the long-run dangers from the current runaway government deficits.


The CBO report points out that the national debt, which was 36 percent of the Gross Domestic Product three years ago, is now projected to be 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010-- and rising in future years.


Tracing the history of the national debt back to the beginning of the country, the CBO finds that the national debt did not exceed 50 percent of GDP, even when the country was fighting the Civil War, the First World War or any other war except World War II. Moreover, a graph in the CBO report shows the national debt going down sharply after World War II, as the nation began paying off its wartime when the war was over.


By contrast, our current national debt is still going up and may end up in "unfamiliar territory," according to the CBO, reaching "unsustainable levels." They spell out the economic consequences-- and it is not a pretty picture.


Although Barack Obama and members of his administration constantly talk about the so-called "stimulus" spending as creating a demand for goods that is in turn "creating jobs," every dime they spend comes from somewhere else, which means that there is less money to create jobs somewhere else.


There is no reason to believe that all this runaway spending is creating jobs-- on net balance. The fact that the unemployment rate remains stuck at nearly 10 percent belies the idea that great numbers of jobs are being created-- again, on net balance.


White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs' recent rant against Rush Limbaugh for criticizing the bailout of General Motors went on and on about how this bailout had saved "a million jobs." But where does Gibbs think the bailout money came from? The Tooth Fairy?


When you take money from the taxpayers and spend it to rescue the jobs of one set of workers-- your union political supporters, in this case-- what does that do to the demand for the jobs of other workers, whose products taxpayers would have bought with the money you took away from them? There is no net economic gain to the country from this, though there may well be political gains for the administration from having rescued their UAW supporters.


The same principle applies to money that came from selling government bonds, thus adding to the national debt. People who bought those government bonds had other things they could have invested in, if those government bonds had not been issued.


As the Congressional Budget Office puts it, if the national debt continues to grow out of control, a "growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that 'crowding out' of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur."


Just paying the interest on a growing national debt can require higher tax rates, which "would discourage work and saving and further reduce output," according to the CBO.


It would probably do no good to send Robert Gibbs-- or Barack Obama, for that matter-- a copy of the government's own Congressional Budget Office report. Spending vast sums of money in politically strategic places helps the Obama administration politically, and that is obviously their bottom line.

I wish Thomas Sowell would run for President.

 

Quote du jour:

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."

Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Video of the week:
Anthony is a Weiner:

 
 

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 53


The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives


From the New York Packet.


Tuesday, February 12, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


I SHALL here, perhaps, be reminded of a current observation, "that where annual elections end, tyranny begins. " If it be true, as has often been remarked, that sayings which become proverbial are generally founded in reason, it is not less true, that when once established, they are often applied to cases to which the reason of them does not extend. I need not look for a proof beyond the case before us. What is the reason on which this proverbial observation is founded? No man will subject himself to the ridicule of pretending that any natural connection subsists between the sun or the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power. Happily for mankind, liberty is not, in this respect, confined to any single point of time; but lies within extremes, which afford sufficient latitude for all the variations which may be required by the various situations and circumstances of civil society. The election of magistrates might be, if it were found expedient, as in some instances it actually has been, daily, weekly, or monthly, as well as annual; and if circumstances may require a deviation from the rule on one side, why not also on the other side? Turning our attention to the periods established among ourselves, for the election of the most numerous branches of the State legislatures, we find them by no means coinciding any more in this instance, than in the elections of other civil magistrates. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, the periods are half-yearly. In the other States, South Carolina excepted, they are annual. In South Carolina they are biennial as is proposed in the federal government. Here is a difference, as four to one, between the longest and shortest periods; and yet it would be not easy to show, that Connecticut or Rhode Island is better governed, or enjoys a greater share of rational liberty, than South Carolina; or that either the one or the other of these States is distinguished in these respects, and by these causes, from the States whose elections are different from both. In searching for the grounds of this doctrine, I can discover but one, and that is wholly inapplicable to our case. The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also a full power to change the form of the government. Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government. They have in particular, on several occasions, changed the period of election; and, on the last occasion, not only introduced septennial in place of triennial elections, but by the same act, continued themselves in place four years beyond the term for which they were elected by the people. An attention to these dangerous practices has produced a very natural alarm in the votaries of free government, of which frequency of elections is the corner-stone; and has led them to seek for some security to liberty, against the danger to which it is exposed. Where no Constitution, paramount to the government, either existed or could be obtained, no constitutional security, similar to that established in the United States, was to be attempted. Some other security, therefore, was to be sought for; and what better security would the case admit, than that of selecting and appealing to some simple and familiar portion of time, as a standard for measuring the danger of innovations, for fixing the national sentiment, and for uniting the patriotic exertions? The most simple and familiar portion of time, applicable to the subject was that of a year; and hence the doctrine has been inculcated by a laudable zeal, to erect some barrier against the gradual innovations of an unlimited government, that the advance towards tyranny was to be calculated by the distance of departure from the fixed point of annual elections. But what necessity can there be of applying this expedient to a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution? Or who will pretend that the liberties of the people of America will not be more secure under biennial elections, unalterably fixed by such a Constitution, than those of any other nation would be, where elections were annual, or even more frequent, but subject to alterations by the ordinary power of the government? The second question stated is, whether biennial elections be necessary or useful. The propriety of answering this question in the affirmative will appear from several very obvious considerations. No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service, ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service. The period of legislative service established in most of the States for the more numerous branch is, as we have seen, one year. The question then may be put into this simple form: does the period of two years bear no greater proportion to the knowledge requisite for federal legislation than one year does to the knowledge requisite for State legislation? The very statement of the question, in this form, suggests the answer that ought to be given to it. In a single State, the requisite knowledge relates to the existing laws which are uniform throughout the State, and with which all the citizens are more or less conversant; and to the general affairs of the State, which lie within a small compass, are not very diversified, and occupy much of the attention and conversation of every class of people. The great theatre of the United States presents a very different scene. The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified by t e local affairs connected with them, and can with difficulty be correctly learnt in any other place than in the central councils to which a knowledge of them will be brought by the representatives of every part of the empire. Yet some knowledge of the affairs, and even of the laws, of all the States, ought to be possessed by the members from each of the States. How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulatious of the different States? How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated, without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other respects? How can taxes be judiciously imposed and effectually collected, if they be not accommodated to the different laws and local circumstances relating to these objects in the different States? How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided, without a similar knowledge of many internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation, and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. The other interior objects will require a proportional degree of information with regard to them. It is true that all these difficulties will, by degrees, be very much diminished. The most laborious task will be the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draughts will every year become both easier and fewer. Past transactions of the government will be a ready and accurate source of information to new members. The affairs of the Union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among the citizens at large. And the increased intercourse among those of different States will contribute not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge of their affairs, as this again will contribute to a general assimilation of their manners and laws. But with all these abatements, the business of federal legislation must continue so far to exceed, both in novelty and difficulty, the legislative business of a single State, as to justify the longer period of service assigned to those who are to transact it. A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government.


And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation. Some portion of this knowledge may, no doubt, be acquired in a man's closet; but some of it also can only be derived from the public sources of information; and all of it will be acquired to best effect by a practical attention to the subject during the period of actual service in the legislature.


There are other considerations, of less importance, perhaps, but which are not unworthy of notice. The distance which many of the representatives will be obliged to travel, and the arrangements rendered necessary by that circumstance, might be much more serious objections with fit men to this service, if limited to a single year, than if extended to two years. No argument can be drawn on this subject, from the case of the delegates to the existing Congress. They are elected annually, it is true; but their re-election is considered by the legislative assemblies almost as a matter of course. The election of the representatives by the people would not be governed by the same principle. A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is an inconvenience mingled with the advantages of our frequent elections even in single States, where they are large, and hold but one legislative session in a year, that spurious elections cannot be investigated and annulled in time for the decision to have its due effect. If a return can be obtained, no matter by what unlawful means, the irregular member, who takes his seat of course, is sure of holding it a sufficient time to answer his purposes. Hence, a very pernicious encouragement is given to the use of unlawful means, for obtaining irregular returns. Were elections for the federal legislature to be annual, this practice might become a very serious abuse, particularly in the more distant States. Each house is, as it necessarily must be, the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members; and whatever improvements may be suggested by experience, for simplifying and accelerating the process in disputed cases, so great a portion of a year would unavoidably elapse, before an illegitimate member could be dispossessed of his seat, that the prospect of such an event would be little check to unfair and illicit means of obtaining a seat. All these considerations taken together warrant us in affirming, that biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as we have seen that they will be safe to the liberty of the people.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
http://www.gallup.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.cancertutor.com/
http://www.nro,com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Thomas Sowell
W. James Antle, III
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.goldengateminuteman.org/
C Span