Crist on a Cracker

Despite my complete lack of optimism when it comes to politicians doing the right thing, I was really hoping he wouldn't do it, but he did. Knowing there is no way for him to beat Marco Rubio in the Republican primary, Florida Governor Charlie Crist is running as an Independent in the November senate election. I know I shouldn't be surprised that instead of admitting his mistakes (endorsing Obama's stimulus and literally embracing him) and licking his wounds, he's set his sights on worsening his own party's chances of winning the senate seat.

To be clear, many are saying that there is no  way he can win the election as he would have to recover 27% of Republicans, 27% of Democrats and 60% of Independents. While that's a tall order, as his overall support is only at 30%, it could be done. Crist could grab more than the 27% from Democrats that he needs as he currently has 37% support amongst the party, compared to the Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek, who is at 46%. This isn't impossible, especially since he could pick up steam within this group as a result of his defection since Meek is not well liked. That, coupled with the fact that some unaffiliated voters, believing that Rubio may be too conservative, could vote for Crist in large numbers, could tip the scale narrowly in his favor. If that happens, Florida will have much to fear as he's already proven vindictive when vetoing a Republican education initiative earlier this week.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/florida/election_2010_florida_senate

Arizona Governor Gains Popularity After Signing Immigration Law

Rasmussen Reports published a survey of voters in Arizona which shows that 56% approve of the way Governor Jan Brewer is performing as governor, compared to just 40% two weeks ago, before she signed and defended a controversial immigration law allowing police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.  This new bump also has her beating her Democratic opponent, who opposes the law, 48% to 40%, which is four points higher than she polled against him two weeks ago. This bump makes sense as the new law holds favor with 64% of Arizonans.

National Draw Mohammed Day...PSYCH

As I wrote on Monday, even the left was offended and outraged at Comedy Central's censorship in response to a Muslim extremist's threats. One such lefty, a cartoonist named Sarah Norris of Seattle, told a radio host that she proposed National Draw Muhammed Day because "as a cartoonist, I just felt so much passion about what had happened..." noting that "it's a cartoonist's job to be non-PC." Good for her...right?  Unfortunately, her spine is as squishy as those of the producers of South Park. She drew no such cartoons and her website states: "I am NOT involved in Everybody Draw Mohammd [sic] Day!" Won't someone get a backbone and stand up to these threats?

Hypocrisy is Sh*tty

I'm fed up with these self-righteous, hypocritical, demagogic politicians.  Listening to the members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations question Goldman Sachs executives today made me feel the utmost sympathy for the Wall Street titans, and given the nature of the emails authored by those on the hot seat, that is some feat. Specifically, subcommittee members continuously referred to an email where a Goldman executive referred to the securities he was selling as "sh*tty." 

So, what does that email prove?  It proves that, like all the other guys at all the other banks, Goldman executives knew they were selling a product that had a high likelihood of imploding. What does that have to do with the fraud case against Goldman, which they were hailed in to discuss? NOTHING. In fact, to be sure, the actual litigation claims Goldman Sachs misled investors by failing to disclose that a hedge fund named Paulson & Co., which was shorting the U.S. mortgage market, helped the CDO manager select securities to include in the portfolio involved in the SEC suit. To that end, the self-nicknamed "Fabulous Fab"

Tourre, the 31-year-old at the heart of this mess, stated that he indicated to investors that Paulson was interested in taking a short position on the deal. 

So, as everyone knew from the beginning, this suit was about political grandstanding and not punishing law-breakers. No one would argue that these guys, or any others that were involved in the CDO mess, have great character, but at least they're not devoid of character and hypocritical. As the clown court was attending to its fake business today, Reid was counting the money he received Sunday night at a dinner in New York sponsored by Roger Altman, who is now chairman of Evercore Partners, the “most active investment banking boutique in the world.” (See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36389_Page3.html ). And everyone knows Obama received $1 million directly from Goldman Sachs during his campaign. And I'm not saying it's a partisan thing.  In the 2008 election cycle, $89,221,944 was given to Democrats and $68,022,536 to Republicans and so far for the midterm election season, Democrats have received $21,513,828 and $12,867,315 has gone to Republicans. (See http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/democrats.wall.street/index.html?hpt=Sbin). It must be infuriating to be ignorantly and indignantly questioned  by people after you line their pockets and send them on their way to do your bidding in Washington.

The Censorship of Cowards

Since its foray into television, South Park has held nothing sacred. In a single episode in 2001 it poked fun at Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Lao-tse and Muhammad.  But in 2006, the show's host, Comedy Central, refused to depict Muhammed and last week, in a follow up episode to the show featuring the religious brat pack, the producers refused to even allow Muhammed's name to be uttered. This most recent act of cowardice came after a Muslim extremist and writer of revolutionmuslim.com suggested the show's writers may be killed for their portrayal of the prophet.

Conservatives and liberals    (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html) are extremely disappointed and they should be. Why is it ok to widely mock every other religion, cult or fetish but Islam? What have the practitioners of that religion done to entitle themselves to immunity from mockery?  I wish just once, Comedy Central, or any other wimpy media organization would get their heads out of their a**es and call these people's bluff.  You expect this kind of cowering in Europe, but not in America.

Insurers Soon to Become Public Utilities

Just as many Republican pundits predicted, Democrats are already trying to concoct legislation to regulate insurance premiums now as they know costs will increase once ObamaCare takes effect. Senator Feinstein is proposing that the government regulate premium adjustments as it regulates public utility "companies." Basically, utilities must ask for Congress's blessing whenever they seek to raise rates, making them completely beholden to Washington.

How did the insurance companies, who acquiesced in this horrendous legislation, not see this coming? They agreed to allow the imposition of mandates on the type of benefits they must offer on top of agreeing to cover preexisting conditions despite knowing premiums would be driven higher because they believed their increased risk would be offset by government subsidies and the mandate forcing individuals to obtain insurance.

So, to make sure the insurers are completely under their thumbs, Feinstein wants to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to reject rate increases effective immediately. She even said that she believed that health insurers should be regulated like a public utility. At least they're not blatantly lying anymore about their intentions to create government-run healthcare. The problem is, their controls will cause a decrease in the standard of care which will be felt by all. They will, of course, introduce more government intervention to correct those problems, and so on. This bill is more evidence (as if we needed it) that congress must repeal the legislation before 2014.

More Evidence Christie is Committed to Making New Jersey Flush with Cash

It seems Governor Christie is determined to continue cutting wasteful spending. His staff announced that it will shut the last two rest-stop bathrooms on non-toll roads in 2011 to save $270,000. Apparently the transportation department has a $1.24 billion budget for the fiscal year and must make cuts. The closings will eliminate 18 maintenance positions on the state’s non-toll roadways. Christie proposed a $29.3 billion budget that included $10 billion in cuts to close a $10.7 billion deficit in the garden state.

México no le Gusta la Ley de Arizona

Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said a law passed this week by the Arizona legislature making it a state crime for undocumented migrants to be within its borders "could have potentially serious effects on the civil rights" of Mexican nationals. It seems they are worried about the potential law's effects on their reltionship with Arizona as it allegedly "opens the door to the inappropriate use of racial profiling." Presumably, the Arizona legislature, recognizing the urgency for immigration reform in their state, is tired of waiting for Washington to protect its borders. After all, 11 million Mexicans live in the US and many of them are without documentation and living in Arizona. I credit Arizona for taking action to protect its borders and stave the growing tide of illegal immigration and all the fiscal and social burdens that come with it. After all, all the law requires is that state and local police determine if there is "reasonable suspicion" that people are illegal immigrants and if so, that they arrest them if they are within Airzona illegally. To be honest, I thought police officers could already do this. And, it also punishes those businesses who transport illegal immigrants or hire day laborers off the street.

Iranian Nuke Could Hit US by 2015

An unclassified Defense Department document stated that, "with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015." This estimate is nothing new, just like our insistence on imposing repeatedly ignored sanctions. To make matters worse, our military spent $150 million attempting and failing to shoot down a simulated Iranian missile strike on the United States in January. Apparently our radar malfunctioned. Great. Supposedly, President Obama's national security advisers are keeping many options on the table in an effort to curb Iran's nuclear program, including military intervention, if his famous "diplomacy" and the ever-increasing, impotent sanctions fail. However, they have stated that it is their "last option" as any strike could have unintended consequences. You think? In a nation that believes promiscuous women cause earthquakes, anything is possible. (See http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/20/iran.promiscuity.earthquakes/index.html?hpt=T2).

33% Say Freedoms Threatened by Government and 80% Do Not Trust Government to Problem-Solve

A third of Americans believe their government is a real threat to their freedoms and an overwhelming 80% of people say they don't trust Washington to solve America's problems. Just 22% said they trusted our federal government. This figure is similar to pre-election sentiment in mid-1994, when 17% said the same. Republicans should capitalize on these numbers and put forth a common sense approach to reducing the deficit, repealing health care and stimulating job growth leading up to November. Their approach must be clear and specific without being complex, as they enjoy an alltime 10% generic ballot lead over Democrats (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot), but are almost as distrusted as their opponents as only 25% of people view Congress favorably. This approach cannot include any populist legislation, economic or otherwise, despite the fact that 61% say they want tougher rules for Wall Street, as any initiative can be easily attributed to big government philosophy. Instead, they must steer clear of any further regulation or involvement in the private economy that will not stimulate job growth.

Biden Committed to Cheapness

The Vice President and his wife earned $333,000 in 2009, but gave only $4,820, or 1.44%, to charity. Biden has been notoriously cheap with charities, always giving below the national average of givers who donate between 3 and 5% of their income. It's a sad commentary on potty-mouthed Joe, but then again, what can you expect from an ex-used car salesman?

Congressional Budget Resolution Optional?

It's IRS Day and all Americans must file their taxes with Uncle Sam by midnight or risk dire consequences. However, as we speak, our Congress is considering intentionally missing its deadline to pass a budget resolution for next year. We are no longer shocked by the hypocrisy and arrogance, but we better get angry about it and insist they act, as they have every year since 1974, to pass a resolultion pursuant to budgetary laws. Apparently, Pelosi is considering bucking the system because she doesn't want her Democratic members to have to go on the record on spending, deficits and taxes so close to the November elections. Once again, politicians are demanding of us what they refuse to do, to our detriment, and betting that we won't infer their position from their lack of action. Even the most naive, liberal taxpayer knows that politicians are the worst stewards of the money they force us to send them. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/taxpayers-foot-state-departments-stiff-liquor-bill/

Unemployment Extension Extension Extension

Another bill to extend unemployment benefits of up to 99 weeks for people that have not found work is in the Senate. Republicans voted it down due to objections about the deficit but it is likely to pass when put to a second vote. On Monday, four Republicans helped Democrats defeat a filibuster by other Republicans seeking to block the Senate from taking up the bill: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Voinovich and Scott Brown of Massachusetts. "Specifically at issue in Wednesday's vote was whether to permit the measure to be financed by adding to the $12.8 trillion national debt. Under Senate rules, a successful GOP challenge could require the chamber to come up with ways to pay for the measure." However, we've seen this before and it is not likely to force the Democrats' hand.

Taking the Nuc Out of Nuclear Deterrence

When a colleague asked me last week how I felt about the US-Russia nuclear disarmament treaty, I said I had to read more about it before drawing any conclusions. He didn't seem to comprehend my answer, so I told him that on its face it seemed logical, but I wanted to know what else was at stake, if anything. As I initially understood it, a 30% decrease in US nuclear weapons, of which there are 9,000, and a similar Soviet decrease in an arsenal of 12,000 weapons sounded like a good idea. Of course I was right, as is always the case with Obama, there was more to it. As Krauthammer explained in the linked article, while signing the treaty during the nuclear summit that just ended today, Obama was simultaneously editing the country's Nuclear Posture Review, which had not been amended by any previous president. What did he change? Most glaringly, he changed our posture from one of deterrence to discouragement. Prior to its amendment, the old posture stated that any aggressor nation using any means of aggression "ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response" that would leave a country's cities in shambles. This policy, whether credible or not after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was understood by our enemies and deterred their use of nuclear weapons. Under Obama's new policy, if an aggressor nation that attacked us with biological or chemical weapons was “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” the U.S. would "not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” As Krauthammer said, "Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve-gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs, and other conventional munitions." Further, Obama pledged not to develop replacements for outdated nuclear warheads, rendering our nuclear program handicapped and eventually ineffective. How naive and destructive can this man be? Does he really believe that our enemies will forestall their quest for nuclear weapons in favor of using biological or chemical weapons against us as they would no longer fear nuclear retaliation? Obviously, Obama believes there is no provacation worthy of a nuclear response. Of course, no American wants to again witness our use of such destructive weapons, but creating a blanket policy against it weighs heavily against our self preservation.

From Rhetoric to Reality

As we watch the political landscape take shape leading up to the November elections, I don't think anyone, but hardcore leftists, would disagree that for the first time in history, the United States has "an authentic leftist as president — one who unabashedly believes that the role of the U.S. government at home is to redistribute income in order to ensure equality of results through high taxes on a few and increased entitlements for many." Certainly, as one associates leftists with big government, Obama more than fits the bill. Although Bush started the government takeover movement when the economy plummeted, with the passage of Obamacare, the federal government now owns and/or controls 51% of the U.S. economy from mortgage lenders,car makers and now health care providers. The passage of Obamacare is leading many pundits to closely scrutinize the Massachusetts health care system, which is a microcosm of Obamacare, as both contain a mandate that individuals buy insurance, fines on businesses for not offering coverage, heavily regulated insurance exchanges, large-scale insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion. As Rich Lowry Points out, (http://article.nationalreview.com/430842/obamacares-disastrous-preview/rich-lowry) Massachusetts premiums in the individual market have grown at a 30% annual rate since the program's inception and government spending in Massachusetts on the program has grown by about 40% from 2006 to 2009. However, Americans don't need the Massachusetts data to surmise what is obvious - adding 30 million individuals to Medicare will increase premiums, overall costs and the deficit. In fact, it seems more and more Americans are refusing to accept the deficit-reducing rhetoric, as a week after its passage, Obamacare's popularity fell 10% in the polls (53% to 32%) as reality settled in: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/can-republicans-read-polls-obamacare

Democrat's Unfavorability Ratings Highest Ever

As the article points out, even in the 1994 elections when the Republicans walloped them, the Democrats were viewed more favorably (about 51%) than unfavorably (about 41%). As it stands now, the public views have flip-flopped and then some, as only 41% of the public views them favorably and 54% view them unfavorably. These numbers seem to lend a lot of credence to predictions that the GOP will take both houses of Congress in the fall. See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/04/07/dem-strategists-have-it-wrong/#more-766 : "Republicans will gain more than fifty House seats and at least ten in the Senate, enough to take control in both Houses. That’s reality."

Once Again, Initial Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise

This is at least the third time I've seen the headline - "Unexpected Rise in Jobless Claims." I may even be underestimating. We understand that economists have often predicted monthly declines, which did not occur, but why do journalists insist on using the word "unexpected" when no one really knows how and when our economy will recover? Regardless, initial jobless claims rose by 18,000 to 460,000, but the total number of Americans with continuing benefits fell by 131,000 to 4.55 million. The decline in continuing claims is due to increased hiring and the expiration of benefits. Unfortunately, economists claim that initial unemployment claims must fall to 400,000 before the economy can begin to consistently add jobs. We're all rooting for that, but not many are forecasting it anytime soon.

Only 50% to Pay Federal Taxes This Year Due to Poor Economy

Forty-seven percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes for 2009 because either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. In fact, credits for low- and middle-income families expanded to the point that a family of four making $50,000 will owe no federal income tax, as long as there are two dependent children in the house, even as the top 10% of earners making over about $350,000 paid 73% of income taxes. Even more disconcerting, while the top earners make up almost three quarters of the tax base, the bottom 40% makes a profit as their credits exceed the amount they owe. Of course, they still pay federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and state and local taxes on sales, income and property. That said, the federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, and the fact that this year, 50% rather than 39% of people won't pay it and may even be owed money, is alarming considering the amount of debt and continued spending.

Double Decade Teens

One of the provisions in the health care bill that takes effect initially allows parents to keep their "children" on their insurance policies until they reach the age of 27, which sounds relatively harmless since it would be unlikely to increase premiums drastically as health issues in twenty-somethings aren't generally plentiful. But, as Steyn points out in this article, "the impact of an endlessly deferred adulthood is...psychological. Even as the western world atrophies, not merely its pop culture but its entire societal aesthetic seems mired in arrested development."

Congressional Dunces

The fact that Congress isn't aware of, and doesn't understand the content of the health care bill is scary enough, but what this author explains is that they also don't understand the regulatory implications of what they have drafted. If they don't understand their own regulatory language and its consequences in the health care industry, God help them as they attempt to re-regulate the complexities of the securities industry. Read the full article at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Progressives-can_t-get-past-the-Knowledge-Problem-89780997.html#ixzz0kLovbZgS

Health Care Law not Unrepealable Like Social Security and Medicare

The linked article (click on the blog title, as always), discusses some very salient reasons why attempting to repeal the health care law is not akin to attempting a repeal other entitlement programs. Here are the Cliffs Notes: 1. Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs that benefit those that pay for them. The health care bill, on the other hand, is paid for by Medicare beneficiaries and the wealthy, neither of whom are likely to receive the benefits. 2. The health care bill is perceived as a redistributive mechanism and is more similar to government programs that have been repealed such as the WPA, CCC and OEO. 3. The health care bill started on different footing than Social Security or Medicare. (This is my favorite point because everyone misrepresents this and claims that those programs received opposition similar to the health care bill.) The fact is, Social Security and Medicare did not start out as controversial programs and passed with significant support from the minority party. 4. It is not unthinkable for the GOP to win back both houses of Congress in November and gain a Senate supermajority and the Presidency in 2012.