07/10/2009

Ohio's solution to deficits!

I have been posting for a while that there are 3 choices the electorate (through their representatives) has to close a budget deficit.

1. Cut Spending
2. Raise Taxes
3. Neither A or B - just borrow.

Well, the great state of Ohio - birthplace to Presidents has come up with #4.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/07/06/daily66.html

Legalize gambling.

I am from NJ - and am here to tell you we've had gambling since 1976 - it doesn't work. If anything, it encourages spending - and therefore deficits!

Also - with states like PA, CT, DE and NY now having casinos of one form or another, how much of this can the public absorb, especially in the current economy?

Brian

I have been posting for a while that there are 3 choices the electorate (through their representatives) has to close a budget deficit.

1. Cut Spending
2. Raise Taxes
3. Neither A or B - just borrow.

Well, the great state of Ohio - birthplace to Presidents has come up with #4.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/07/06/daily66.html

Legalize gambling.

I am from NJ - and am here to tell you we've had gambling since 1976 - it doesn't work. If anything, it encourages spending - and therefore deficits!

Also - with states like PA, CT, DE and NY now having casinos of one form or another, how much of this can the public absorb, especially in the current economy?

Brian

More Obama spin - this time from the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/jul/09/obama-approval-rating-drop-economy

"Everyone knew it would be next year before the economy started turning around?"

Really? Just a month ago, with the Dow gaining, brokers were calling, Obama was seeing "little green shoots", Chris Matthews was getting the tingle up his leg... and all of a sudden - 10% unemployment - Oops - my bad. In an economy that depends on spending, no job is no good.

So now, the bar is being lowered by good soldiers in the press. Hey - we knew all the time it would be next year. We know that in the minds of the commoners that this will no longer be "Bush's economy" - that Obama "owns it.<WINK, WINK>" (Even though all smart people know that isn't true.)

Here is the simple - really simple - truth.
Business in the US is at a standstill now in terms of hiring. Why? Simple - they read the papers and watch the news. They KNOW as we all do that a monumental tax increase is coming - likely right after those pesky mid term elections. They KNOW what cap and trade would do to US competitiveness and to the economy. They KNOW how much interest we're paying on the debt. And they KNOW that states like California, NJ and NY are ALL very, very close to insolvency - so the federal tax increase will be made larger by similar increases on investors / high earners at the state level. And they KNOW - they do not want to be saddled with higher operating costs (read - new employees) given the new reality of expensive energy, slower business cycles and huge taxes...

So how does adding employees become good business? Through Stimulus 2,3,4...? Nope. Let's face it - the first "Stimulus" was an omnibus spending bill designed as a "thank you" for the election. It did not stimulate the economy because there was nothing in there to stimulate anything, other than pressing the Democrat lever in a voting booth.

There is nervousness in Washington - and more in the media - these days. Here is why. The Democrats, led by Obama can pass anything they want. They have large majorities in the House and Senate - plus a willing signee in the White House. Problem is, many in those majorities don't run in California, New York and New Jersey. They run in the depressed midwest, the South and other places - and they don't want to run for re-election on Cap & Trade... Can you imagine running on someone elses' legislation that was passed even though no one actually read the bill? This is true of Cap & Trade, the AIG bailout, the bank bailout, GM and Chrysler and on and on.

At the end of the day this will be a voters choice. Will they vote for symbolism? The "change" posters, staged media events and other silly bromides - or will they grade on performance. The stimulus is a disaster that our kids and their kids will be paying for their entire lives. Performance is why they threw Bush and his party out. The media will fight this one to the end. Let's see if there is anything at all different about the American voter.

Brian

Levi Johnston on Palin's resignation

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/07/10/2009-07-10_levi_johnston_has_theory_on_alaska_gov_sarah_palins_resignation__she_needs_money.html

Will this guy please sit down and stop talking? Will the media stop interviewing him? Will he go finish high school? Will I stop blogging about Palin?

Levi is honing his "acting skills"? Oh boy - I am sure he has a big career in front of him... Maybe he's right - Palin quit for the cash - likely to help raise Levi's son.

07/09/2009

LA Times on Race Relations in 2009 - in essence about Sotomayor and the SC

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-race9-2009jul09,0,4245982.story

According to this article, things might be better, but "the work is not finished."

A subtler form of racism has emerged, according to the LA Times, one where black men for example, are far more likely to go to prison than their white or Latin counterparts... Could it be because they actually committed crimes? Nah. It's got to be racism...

The Times goes on to discuss the recent CT and TX cases on discrimination. Even in this "Age of Obama." Even with a "wise Latina" deciding the CT case - without commenting on the actual arguments or circumstances. Bias? Depends on which side you're on. Hasn't it always been that way?

See, what is never identified here is what is the end game? When are we all completely equal? The answer is never. But the answer is not grouped, it is individual.

Government policies and court decisions seek to group people. Quota systems work by reversing the direction of discrimination. So, the "right mix" is so many of this race, so many of that religion and so on...

Unfortunately, the longer liberal laws identify people - and in fact segregate them - by group, the less likely true equality will ever exist.

The headline of this editorial paraphrases the old hymn, "we shall overcome." It fails to account for the dream that Martin Luther King talked about 40 years ago "about judging by the content of character,not by the color of their skin..." As long as you group people in laws, in court decisions and in thought, this will never be. Discrimination produces resentment regardless of direction.

Brian


Green and the free market

Want a concrete example of why government is in the "green" business?

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-07/turkish-students-create-hydrogen-powered-car-gets-1300-mpg

Here is a car, developed by students in Turkey. It runs on hydrogen (NO EMMISSIONS - Mr. Gore - NO NEED FOR WINDMILLS - MR. CHRISTIE), gets over 1300 MPG!

Aye - here' s the rub. Price $170,000 USD...

Yup - let's get 2. Oh... I get it.

Brian

NJ GOP Gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie on Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNQWSsHswHU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nj.com%2Fnjv_paul_mulshine%2F&feature=player_embedded

This is Christie's plan for energy in NJ... fighting for those 6,000 manufacturing jobs against states like Arkansas and Oklahoma... - allocating solar panels as appropriate use for farmland...

Yup - he's our guy! Can't you hear the stampede of middle managers and workers running to a state with the highest property taxes in the nation?

For once, couldn't we actually have a choice between someone who wants to make government bigger and someone who wants to make government smaller? Instead - at federal and state levels, all we ever get is two people running who both want large government, but disagree on what to increase and how to finance it...

Solar panels in NJ... I don't think the sun's been out in a month. Perfect together.

Brian

Wonder why Time magazine is irrelevant?

Here is Joe Klein ( or should we say, "Anonymous") on Obama and his "hard choices." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1909308,00.html

Obama is a "c"onservative??? Can you say - DELUSIONAL?

Read on.  By the way Mr. Kissinger, how is that detente thing going? That worked really well - chess player.

Just for laughs, click on who Time blames for the financial crisis. There are 2 people to blame - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Without them, Franklin Raines isn't relevant. Neither is Countrywide Mortgage and all the others.

Time is losing readership? Really - why?



"Barack Obama has been President for six months now, and we are beginning to learn a few things about how he does business. The most surprising of these is that he is a vehement traditionalist, a small-c conservative, despite his opponents' best efforts to paint him as a radical. In foreign policy, this has meant a return to traditional diplomatic devices — treaties, alliances, negotiation, a global strategic vision — after the ad hoc, go-it-alone bellicosity of his predecessor. No less a high priest than Henry Kissinger recently called Obama a "chess player," which is high praise in the world of diplomacy. In domestic policy, however, it has meant an undue respect for the institution of Congress, a sclerotic body badly in need of creative leadership. This is leading Obama into trouble.


It is likely to be an ugly summer of sausage-grinding in Washington. Obama's two biggest domestic-policy proposals — health-care reform and alternative energy — will be pulverized and reshaped by the Senate. The end products may be unsightly and counterproductive, if passed. A third initiative — a relatively modest regulatory reform of the financial system — is being chewed to dust by the termite lobbyists of the banking industry. A fourth initiative — the effort to buy off the banking system's "toxic" assets — is languishing, near comatose, because of the bankers' intransigence. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

The fact is, Obama may be blowing a major opportunity for reform with his domestic-policy diffidence. He came to office faced with an unprecedented economic crisis, and he focused on it successfully during his first 100 days, giving two excellent speeches about the need for a stimulus plan and general economic reform. He has lost that focus as his other initiatives have come online; he has failed to speak with precision or clarity about the bills wandering through Congress. He has failed to make clear what needs to be in those bills — and what can't be — if he is going to sign them. He also needs to update the public on his stimulus plan, especially now that his Vice President inadvertently dissed it. And he needs to make a direct assault on the greedheads who created the Ponzi economy and are now trying to gut his plan to make them do business honestly. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)"


07/08/2009

Tucker Carlson on Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush for President?
Tucker Carlson thinks so. I disagree.

http://www.esquire.com/features/jeb-bush-interview-0809?click=pp

While Jeb certainly sounds more conservative than his brother or father, nominating him is absolute political suicide. There is no way the country would elect another member of that family. And frankly, after the abject disasters that his dad and brother each were as President, I would paint him with that same brush.

Just this type of article - and a discussion of people like Jindal, Pawlenty, Huckabee and Palin with the word "President" in the same sentence shows how desperate the GOP is right now.

Brian

Why can't they let Palin go?

Maureen Dowd is obviously full of hate for this woman. What else explains why she can't let go? Why did Andrea Mitchell et. al. fly all the way to Alaska to watch her fish? Because she asked her to? I doubt it...

Dowd really is over... The media bias in this country is breathtaking to watch because it isn't even hidden anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1

What's in tomorrow's column? A scathing review of Dan Quayle or just back to the tried and true article about Dick Cheney?

Palin is done as an elective politician - let it die. And I thought newspapers covered news.

Brian

While we're on the topic of media bias...

I was thinking over the weekend about all those stories the media ran about soup kitchens, rampant homelessness - we were told the number was over 40MM - children going hungry and so on... All due to the evil policies of the Bush / Bush / Reagan policies...

With unemployment reaching 10% - and unprecedented level in America - and home foreclosures at an all-time high - I have not seen or read a story on the homeless problem in a very long time... Are we to assume that these folks were so inspired by the Obama presidency that they went out and found a home?

How about the rampant drug problems / gang problems / Colombian cartels, etc.? How about all the damage NAFTA / GATT have done to employment in the upper midwest? How about that "tax cut for 95% of us", and all the other "issues"? You just never hear about them anymore... I guess the problems were all solved - interestingly, just like the soup kitchens that stopped being covered once Clinton took office in 1993. Funny coincidence.

Now it is all about health care and "climate change."

Do you think reporting is done by reading position papers put out by the parties or other groups - then discussed over a Washington dinner?

Just asking?

Brian