HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who have defended our freedom since our nation was built.  I hope everyone remembered why they weren't typing away at their desks today.

Rahm Pins Sestak Bribe on Billy Bob

The White House finally formulated a strategy in case Congress appoints a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a job to stay out of the Senatorial primary race in PA - Bill Clinton did it. This was the case, according to President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel claims he used Clinton as an intermediary to see if Sestak would drop out of the primary if given a "prominent, but unpaid, advisory position." The White House argued that there was no impropriety in asking Clinton for a favor. The Justice Department is looking into whether the solicitation violated the Hatch Act, the act governing the political conduct of federal employees.

So much for cleaning up Washington.

Obama's BP Bungle

Journalists across the country are comparing Bush's Hurricane Katrina response to Obama's handling of his Louisiana problem - the British Petroleum oil spill:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-27-Spill-poll_N.htm?csp=hf

http://www.freep.com/article/20100527/NEWS07/5270453/1319/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/bp-oil-spill-political-headache-obama-democrats-slam/story?id=10746519

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/can_obama_do_more_about_the_bp.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

But, is the comparison fair? Well, obviously, in terms of loss of life, there isn't a correlation as 11 men lost their lives in the explosion compared with 1800 individuals in the hurricane, but aside from the number of casualties, there are striking similarities between the two events.

During Katrina, the White House pointed out that the federal response was governed by the Stafford Act, which says that in natural disasters states are in charge, not the feds. The federal obligation is only to support the states in their efforts. Similarly, Obama's team pointed to a 1990 law that requires oil companies to clean up their spills, and that they are only offering oversight in response to this mandate.

 

State officials in Louisiana during Katrina, said Bush's response was too slow, bogged down in red tape, and their people lacked the equipment and necessities they expected FEMA to provide immediately. Again, Louisiana residents are crying out that they have begged, but have not  been given necessary equipment, even as oil has invaded marshes and beaches. In fact, Governor Bobby Jindal said they haven't even received the oil-stopping boom they requested three weeks ago from the Coast Guard. Apparently, requests for more boom or other oil-fighting equipment are routed to a British Petroleum subcontractor for approval, then sent through two command centers, which delays the Coast Guard. So, not only does the Coast Guard have its own bureaucracy, but BP has set up a few stumbling blocks of its own. Brilliant.

In the wake of Katrina, people complained that Bush failed to issue an emergency plan to rescue, evacuate and house displaced residents. And now, Jindal and Louisiana are at a loss to understand how, when they came up with their own plan, Washington couldn't even manage to register its vote on their proposal to build a 94-mile-long string of sand berms across Louisiana's coast to keep the oil at bay. Louisiana requested an emergency permit for the plan from the Army Corps of Engineers that would bypass environmental impact reviews and the matter is still under review. As a result of the lack of decision-making, the oil has filled the marshlands.

After Katrina hit, Bush was lambasted for waiting four days to head to New Orleans. It took Obama 12 days to show up in the gulf.

So, doesn't it sound like the same finger-pointy, decisionless, inept response to you?  Apparently, Obama now understands the red tape and headaches inherent in dealing with an emergent crisis.

Republicans Demanding Special Prosecutor for Alleged Sestak Bribe

The seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally asked Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to bow out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter. The seven allege that the attempted White House arm twisting violated federal criminal laws forbidding the promise of a government position for a favor or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.” After all, Sestak is the one who told a reporter in February that the White House official committed a felony despite the fact that the White House lawyers denied it and judged everything “perfectly appropriate.”

Of course, the GOP will not take the word of the Obama lawyers regarding the people who hired them. They wrote that they “do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve ‘a serious breach of the law.’ The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.” Indeed.

Holder will resist this probe until it becomes politically unfeasible and then he will relent. As although I believe special prosecutors are only marginally more insightful than White House lawyers, I think that Sestak's allegations raise serious issues that merit an investigation. The White House may legally make deals to muscle through legislation, but this is an altogether different, illegal breed of strong arming.

One Cue We Should Take from the Brits

Most Americans, including me, have a hard time understanding how the Brits elect their Prime Minister. They operate under a very complicated parliamentary process that left the new Prime Minister, David Cameron, begging a minor party candidate to build a coalition government with him to defeat Gordon Brown. Due to this coalition, I thought Cameron, of the Conservative Party, would be hamstrung in cutting Britain's budget, and he may be, but he announced £6B worth of spending cuts today. Of course, a cut this small  normally would not make the headlines, but this one did, because of the character of the items that were slashed - namely, ministerial cars and chauffeurs. All high ranking government officials in jolly ole England will now have to huff it to work like the rest of us unless they occupy one of four offices: the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As Steyn so deftly comments, "This is gesture politics. But symbols are important. Citizen legislators in democratic societies are not a ruling class. They should walk among us, rather than be swanking about on the public dime. If you want a chauffeured limo, get a gig in the private sector and earn it. And that goes for Nancy Pelosi's ludicrous Botox One jet, too." How soon do you think Pelosi and American politicians will follow suit? I would put all my money on "never" even though their approval ratings are apocalyptic and November is around the corner, as I have never seen such an unapologetic and entitled bunch inhabit Washington. 

Obama's Approval Rating Hits New Low of 42%

I know I wrote about a poll yesterday, but I think this one is important to know about.  Today, the Rasmussen poll tracking President Obama's popularity showed that only 24% of the nation's voters strongly approve of the way that he is performing his role as president while 44% strongly disapprove. This gives him an approval rating of 42% (or -20), the lowest he's been since taking office. It seems that his score on the economy is bringing down his average as only 39% give him positive marks in that area, but his numbers are also sagging in the low 40s on national security and environmental issues. So, finally we see Obama starting to fall with the rest of his party, and frankly, with Washington, as voter sentiment toward politicians remains abysmal.

63% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law

According to the latest poll, the percentage of voters in favor of repealing the health care law has jumped to an all-time high of 63% while those opposing repeal stands at a low 32%. (Before this poll, support for repeal ranged from 54 to 58% and  never reached the 60s.) Those who strongly favor repeal number 46% and those that strongly oppose repeal stands at 25%.

However, 77% of the political class, otherwise known as the entitlement class, continues to support the plan in stark contrast to the 67% of mainstream voters that believe it will be bad for America.

Again, 63% of all voters expect the health care plan to increase the federal deficit, 12% expect the bill to decrease the deficit and 13% say it will have no impact. Fifty-five percent (55%) expect the health care plan to drive up the cost of health care rather than causing those costs to go down. Only 18% believe health care costs will indeed go down because of the plan’s passage and 16% expect costs to stay about the same.

The poll had a margin of error at + or - 3% and a 95% level of confidence.

Obama's Attempted Bribe

Congressman Darrell Issa is toying with the idea of filing an ethics complaint against fellow House member Joe Sestak, the winner of the Senatorial Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Issa claims that Sestak's refusal to respond to questions about an alleged quid pro quo wherein the White House offered Sestak a job within the administration in exchange for dropping out of the primary to allow White House buddy Arlen Specter to receive the nomination. Issa claims that the charges could amount to felony bribery and election interference.

Sestak admitted in February that the administration made the offer, but he refuses to elaborate on the details. At the time Sestak said he got quite a few calls and refused the offer as bowing out of the race would "hurt the democratic process." Sestak is now quietly trying to protect his frenemies in the White House since he'll need their support to win the election in November. Issa isn't standing for it and said that "either Congressman Sestak is lying, which would be an ethical violation, or he is covering up three felonies by members of the administration, which of course would be an ethical violation."

There it is again: "An Unexpected Rise in Jobless Claims"

Why do they continuously use the word "unexpected" to describe near constant rises in unemployment claims?  How about "unforeseen, unanticipated, unpredicted, surprising, startling, astonishing, sudden, out of the blue?"  Seriously, the alleged unexpected spikes have occurred more months than not, so I am dumbfounded by the verbiage.  Why are all the analysts predicting lower unemployment numbers when the economy is lagging at home and there are deepening fears about Europe's fiscal viability?

As a few economists have postulated, the economy is on target to take another serious dip as the market is overinflated and needs to readjust.  The S&P 500 is now in correction territory, down over 10% from its high and the Dow is down 9%.  As an analyst aptly stated, there are a "tremendous number of indicators" that suggest the whole market is oversold and "a sharp rally is at hand."  All of this will lead to expected increases in jobless claims.  I'm just waiting for someone to print it.

Anti-Establishment or Anti-Democrat?

As satisfying as it was to watch traitorous Specter's tear-filled speech and Lincoln's obvious trepidation as she faces certain defeat in the runoff, last night was not an altogether great night for Republicans. In the one actual election, the special election to replace the seat held by the late John Murtha in Pennsylvania’s 12th District, the Republican candidate, Tim Burns, lost by 8 points when many said he should have "run roughshod over" Mark Critz. Now, even the most optimistic folks are falling over themselves to change their prediction that Republicans will gain the 40 plus seats they need to take the House in November.

Specifically, the pundits say the voter approval rating of Obama there is 35%, and 58% disfavor Obamacare. So, what happened? Apparently, Critz, Murtha's aide, was successful in distancing himself from Obama and Pelosi by running a localized election. After all, he never voted for health care or stimulus and he told the voters he would keep bringing federal dollars back to their little district (to build more airports no one uses, perhaps). He also stated that he was pro-gun, anti-abortion and told the voters he opposed health care reform (although he also opposed repealing it).  

Clearly, Critz understood that he needed to distance himself from his party leaders and their platform in order to win and the voters bought it. To me, although disheartening, this is a local outlier and not an indication of what is to come in the fall if Republicans stick to a central message of repealing health care, cutting the budget drastically and reducing the deficit by more than just pennies. I agree that there is an anti-incumbent mood throughout America, as people are sick of politicians generally, but I also believe that voters understand that we cannot afford health care and all of the other programs Obama and his team would continue to promote. In those states that hold incumbent Democrats, the GOP needs to play on ties with Pelosi, Obama, health care and spending, and in those with outside candidates, they must hammer home a fiscally conservative message. If they do this, they can win the House and avoid the type of embarrassment involved in this as well as the House race in upstate New York which was also involved the failure of the GOP to run an effective campaign.

Senate Primary Predictions

Arlen Specter v. Joe Sestak - Sestak by 4%

Blanche Lincoln v. William Halter - Halter by 3%

Trey Grayson v. Rand Paul - Paul by 5%

Credit Card Stocks Tumble Due to Senate Bill

A day after the Senate passed an amendment to the financial reform bill (See 5/14/10 blog post) mandating that credit card companies reduce their fees on debit card purchases, all the major credit card stocks tumbled. Shares of Visa (V) dropped 10%, MasterCard (MA) was down 9%, American Express (AXP) declined 5% and Capital One Financial (COF) lost 5%. Like I said, this will cause hardship on the credit card industry as well as consumers as merchants will pocket savings (as they should) and card companies raise fees on cards and cut rewards programs and promotional offers.  Once again, nice work, Senate!

Pelosi Encourages "Creative Types" to Quit Jobs and Rely on Others to Fund Their Health Care

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the new health-care reform law will allow musicians and other creative types to quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health care coverage:

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

I hope this is quoted time and again by the Republicans as we approach November.  What a baffoon.

Senate Takes Another Swipe at Credit Card Companies

Yesterday, the Senate voted 64 to 33 to take another chunk of revenue from the credit card industry when it voted to force them to reduce fees for debit card transactions beneath those of credit cards. The "yes" votes claimed that they aimed to "ward off a repeat of the financial crisis," but we all know this was just another big government interventionist move. Amazingly, seventeen Republicans voted for the populist amendment patroned by Dick Durbin(!) and ten Democrats voted against it. It is truly amazing that after all that has happened this year, the Republican party still doesn't understand what small government means.

This amendment to the financial regulatory bill will not cut consumer costs at all. Retailers will simply pocket the profits from the extra percentages that congress shaves off. Worse than that, credit card companies will force consumers to pay more for their cards to offset their losses.

When will our elected officials stop tampering "on our behalf?"

Obama on a Supreme Court Nominee Without Judicial Experience

Listen to the audio in the title link and hear Obama telling us that because Harriet Miers has no judicial experience, she deserves "extreme scrutiny."  I wonder if he'll abandon this opinion?

Will Obama Abandon Meek?

Since Charlie Crist turned Independent and his numbers spiked, people have hypothesized that Kendrick Meek, the Democrat's candidate for Senate in Florida, may be about to get dissed by the White House. Will Obama come out and fully endorse Crist? No, because Meek is the only serious black candidate running for Senate in the United States this year, but some say he may be at the bottom of Obama's "things to do" list. By ignoring Meek, who by all accounts is a week candidate, Obama and his party could allegedly help Crist win the seat in return for his promise to caucus with the Democrats. However, I predict that regardless of Obama's level of support, if Meek stays in the race, Crist has no shot. But, if Obama sicks Rahm on Meek behind the scenes, and he drops out of the race, Crist stands a much better chance of besting Rubio as he would get 100% of the Democratic vote that turned out. Although possible, I think this scenario is unlikely and if I'm correct, I see Rubio taking 80% of the GOP vote, 50% of the Independent vote and even 15% of the Democratic vote.

Ivory Insider Kagan

Obama's "moderate" Supreme Court nominee will clear the Senate as it confirmed her as Solicitor General last year 61-31 and frankly, given her utter lack of judicial experience, I have no idea how any member could question her enough to warrant a legitimate "no" vote. This will likely disappoint her, as in a 1995 law review article, Ms. Kagan congratulated the Senate for its boisterousness in Robert Bork's confirmation hearing by saying it was "the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments." Too bad we have nothing to explore here. Honestly, I am sure she is a capable law school dean, but to appoint someone with zero judicial experience to the highest court in the country who has barely seen the inside of a courtroom (as she only worked for a firm for five years and as Solicitor General, has only argued a handful of cases like the one here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/10/kagan_botches_oral_argument_in_supreme_court_appearance_at_citizens_united_lawsuit.html)

is hugely irresponsible and proves that those on the inside of Obama's elite circle are rewarded handsomely whether they deserve it or not.

The Amateurishness of Al-Qaeda

It's only been a few days and already we hear more about the gulf oil spill than of Faisal Shahzad’s attempt to inflict mass casualties in Times Square. And if newscasters mention it, they do so mockingly, echoing silly politicians who deemed his attempt at mass murder as "amateurish," simply because it did not succeed. I, like many others, think this is a grave mistake. We mock instead of taking time to examine why not only poor, uneducated, cave-dwelling Muslim youth, but also wealthy, well-educated, "Westernized" Muslim men who could be productive members of any society, choose to foresake their lives and commit, or attempt to commit, the murder of Americans.

To attempt to prevent further Times Square scenarios, we have to understand why their Islamic identity trumps all esle and do everything we can to change the mentality. And as Steyn suggests, the idea that their anger is due in any part to American Islamophobia is laughable since we have done nothing to curtail Muslim immigration and as he points out, "America is so un-Islamophobic that at Ground Zero they’re building a 13-story mosque — on the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory damaged by airplane debris that Tuesday morning. So, in the ruins of a building reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, a temple to Islam will arise." Pretty ironic and un-Islamophobic.

Speaking more specifically, instead of demonizing Shahzad, the media built in a reason for his anger - he was behind on his mortgage payments, just like millions of Americans. As Steyn says, "one way of falling behind with your house payments is to take half a year off to go to Pakistan and train in a terrorist camp. Perhaps Congress could pass some sort of jihadist housing credit?" I wish they would stop. It is nothing we have "done," to Shahzad, but hopefully it's a mentality that we can prevent from taking over the minds of the next Muslim generation.

I can never convey Steyn's articles with the honesty, grit and biting humor they deserve, so click on the article title link and read this one. It's one of my favorites.

Waxman Gets Waxed

Remember when Henry Waxman ordered AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar to submit any and all interal company documentation to Congress regarding health care because someone caught wind of a memo about the bill's effect on retirement drug benefits?  Well, the companies submitted their documentation and instead of hailing them into Washington for hearings, Waxman ended up quietly dismissing the matter as the documentation showed that many large companies were weighing the option of dumping their employees' health care coverage in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government. Specifically,

AT&T produced a slide entitled "Medical Cost Versus No Coverage Penalty." A document prepared for Verizon by consulting firm Hewitt Resources stated, "Even though the proposed assessments [on companies that do not provide health care] are material, they are modest when compared to the average cost of health care," and that to avoid costs and regulations, "employers may consider exiting the health care market and send employees to the Exchanges."

A Deere labor relations officer sent in an email stating that the company should consider alternatives to providing health benefits, which "would amount to denying coverage and just paying the penalty." Caterpillar felt it would have to give "serious consideration" to the penalty option also. Their documentation also predicted certain increases as a direct result of the bill which made the penalty option even more attractive. Deere said, "We do expect double digit health care increases as most Americans will now have insurance and providers try to absorb the 15% uninsured into a practice." Both Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500) and Verizon stated that allowing dependents to remain on their parents' policies until age 26 would add expenses of $20 million a year.

Thirty-two African-Americans Running in '08 Republican Primaries

Throughout history, African-Americans have overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. However, with the backdrop of the Obama win, and wider support from the Republican party base, 32 African-Americans are running in the 2009 Republican primaries. This is significant as the House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma retired.

It is still unclear how well the candidates will fare in their individual races, but it is nonetheless encouraging for the party. Perhaps if the candidates are likeable and stick to a small government platform, they'll stand a chance in some districts despite the fact that in 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees who did not prove very sucessful overall.

BP Coffers

It seems Obama and the Dems can no longer claim that Republicans are the primary recipients of  "big oil money." Just as we discovered that the Democrats and their leader received almost 70% of Wall Street contributions in the last presidential election compared to the Republicans, we now learn that the Dems take a chunk of change from big oil, too. In 2000, British Petroleum gave almost 39% more to Republicans, but by 2008, the company was giving equally to the parties.

Interestingly, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the company and is "the top recipient of BP Political Action Committee and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records." Of course, Obama denied taking "big oil money" as his representative stated that he "didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign," "rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”

He can huff and puff as much as he wants, but financial disclosure records don't lie. After this oil spill and the administration's response, the green peacers and environmentalists of the world aren't buying his kabuki dance.

Independent Crist Takes the Lead

A Rasmussen poll shows that Crist could win the Florida Senate race if he can retain the bounce after switching from the Republican ticket. He now commands 38% support to Republican Marco Rubio’s 34% and Democrat Kendrick Meek’s 17%. (11% are undecided.) This erases a 7 point lead for Rubio and has the Dems, who dislike their candidate, thinking about offering Crist a deal if he promises to caucus with the Democrats.

If Crist pulls this off, it will signal to the GOP that it cannot promote true Tea Party candidates, as despite their real platform, they are viewed as too conservative by many. However, all of this remains to be seen as Crist's lead may be temporary, especially if he makes a deal with the Dems.

What Inflation?

Inflation is up 2% at March's end according to the Commerce Department's personal consumption expenditures index published on Monday, which is the maximum the central bank considers sustainable. Of course, if the Commerce Department hadn't deleted certain indicators from the equation, that number would prove higher.  Even so, energy and food costs rose 18.7%, up almost four percentage points compared with February.