Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    March 2025
    S M T W T F S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

U.S., Europe on different paths

Posted by Richard on June 26, 2010

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told the BBC that the United States can "no longer drive global growth," and that the world "cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past." There's a good reason for that.

The administration of which Geithner is a part apparently has as its goal cutting the US down to size — hobbling our economy, reducing our standard of living, slashing the "disproportionate share of the world's resources" we consume, and driving us toward a stagnant society that's more egalitarian because the successful have been forcibly impoverished.

Geithner also said that Europe and the US are taking "different paths, at a different pace," and he's not kidding. As most other developed nations are moving away from socialism in an attempt to restore economic growth and fiscal responsibility, the Obama administration is moving the US as fast as it can in the opposite direction.

So now we have the ironic situation of European socialist countries defending their government spending cuts against attacks from Obama and arguing against Obama's calls for more government "stimulus" programs. For instance

Germany and the United States appear set for a heated showdown at this weekend's G20 summit in Canada after Chancellor Angela Merkel flatly rejected warnings from President Barack Obama that Europe's attempts to save its way out of the debt crisis could put fragile global economic growth in danger.

She added in a recent rebuttal of economic stimulus packages: "If we don't go for sustainable growth, but just create puffed-up growth, we will pay for that with another crisis." 

Merkel isn't alone. While the Obama administration embraces protectionism and fiscal profligacy, Britain's David Cameron calls for progress in the Doha free trade talks and embraces the fiscal conservatism that's becoming increasingly popular around the world:

"Delivering progress on Doha will not be easy. However, I’m also impatient for change and people in Britain, Canada, Asia, Africa and elsewhere can't wait for negotiators to come to agreement.

"World leaders have made previous commitments on Doha in good faith – but despite almost a decade of talks, there’s been no breakthrough."

The comments come as America noticeably distances itself from the economic agenda of most other world powers.

Once internationally isolated, Mr Cameron's fiscal conservatism now constitutes something akin to a consensus among world powers, and president Barack Obama is isolated in his desire for further spending – a plan he has been struggling to get through domestically.

Heck, even China has repeatedly chided the Obama administration about its fiscal irresponsibility. You know we're in trouble when the Chicoms are saying our government is getting too big.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liar and Bush puppet becomes “brilliant” choice

Posted by Richard on June 25, 2010

So, President Obama has accepted the resignation of (that's Washington-speak for fired) Gen. Stanley McChrystal. As a bazillion others have noted, that's interesting.

McChrystal is the man Obama hand-picked to replace the fired Gen. David McKiernan (do you have to have a Scottish surname to run the Afghan campaign?). McChrystal is that rarest of birds, a genuinely liberal military officer. He voted for Obama. He's implemented a "wage war without killing people, except by drone or CIA assassination" policy (it's unclear if that was his idea or the Commander in Chief's). It's characterized by rules of (mis)engagement guaranteed to increase Allied casualties and hinder the ability to engage the enemy. 

Sure, he had an unfortunate propensity for drinking with his staff and blowing off steam, even when a reporter was present. But otherwise, he sounds like the ideal Obama Era general.

Now, he's being replaced by Gen. David Petraeus. Pending Senate approval. This is the same Gen. Petraeus that, just 2-3 years ago, then-Sen. Biden, then-Sen. Clinton, then-Sen. Obama, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Kennedy, and countless other members of the Democratic Party and their shills in the MSM called a liar, a Bush puppet, and the architect of a misguided Iraq "surge" policy that couldn't possibly succeed.

Now, many of the very same people, along with their media sycophants, are calling the Petraeus nomination a "brilliant" choice. After all, the choice was made by one of the very same people.

So, the author of the much-reviled surge plan in Iraq has been chosen by one of the leading critics of that plan to carry out the surprisingly similar surge plan in Afghanistan.

Sure, that makes sense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

More doctors turning away Medicare patients

Posted by Richard on June 23, 2010

Remember that Presidential promise, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Well, if you’re a Medicare patient, that may not be true for long. Congress hasn’t acted to rescind a 21% reimbursement cut that took effect last week (they removed the so-called “doc fix” from the Obamacare bill in order to maintain the fiction that it would reduce health care spending). Since Medicare reimbursements averaged only 78% of private insurance payments before the 21% cut, more and more doctors are refusing to take new Medicare patients or opting out of Medicare entirely:

The number of U.S. doctors refusing new Medicare patients has increased to record levels as low government payment rates force them out, statistics show.

USA Today notes the doctors’ exodus comes just six months before millions of baby boomers begin enrolling in the federal government healthcare program.

“Physicians are saying, ‘I can’t afford to keep losing money,'” said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

AAFP reports 13 percent of doctors who responded to a survey said they didn’t participate in Medicare last year, up from 8 percent in 2008 and 6 percent in 2004.

The American Medical Association said 17 percent of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed said they restrict the number of Medicare cases, and the rate rises to 31 percent for primary care physicians.

Shortages of primary care physicians already alarm many experts, and the seniors group AARP says record numbers of doctors refusing Medicare will make matters worse.

So “you can keep your doctor” is just as false as “you can keep your health care plan” (emphasis added):

Employers would lose grandfathered status if they switch insurance companies — unless the plan is covered by a union contract or the employer pays claims out of its own funds and uses the insurer only to administer the plan.

It isn’t clear how much the restrictions on co-payments and deductibles will save consumers, because health plans can still raise premiums. The rules issued Monday say plans would relinquish grandfathered status if they reduce the percentage of the premium they pay by more than five percentage points. The broader health-care law includes checks on unreasonable increases, which have not been defined.

The administration estimated that by 2013, health plans covering as few as 39 percent and as many as 69 percent of employees could lose protected status. For small employers, the total could be as high as 80 percent; for large ones, it could reach 64 percent.

The picture isn’t actually as rosy as the Washington Post tries to paint it. The hundreds of pages of restrictions and regulations in the Obamacare bill, coupled with the implementation rules announced last week, coupled with the rules yet to come, will ensure that existing “grandfathered” plans become unprofitable and untenable, and they will go away. That, as I’ve argued before (for instance, here and here), is part of their plan to force everyone into a single-payer system.

If some insurance companies try to maintain their existing plans by emulating Medicare — cutting reimbursements for health care providers — they’ll find themselves between the same rock and hard place that Medicare is now in: providers will simply stop providing under those conditions. Unless the government steps in and forces them to do so.

And if the government forces health care providers to provide their services against their will — well, I recall something Ayn Rand said about socialized medicine decades ago (I’m paraphrasing): Do you want your life in the hands of a doctor who resents being forced to treat you? Do you want your life in the hands of a doctor who doesn’t?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

No road map and no destination

Posted by Richard on June 18, 2010

I only half-listened to the President's Oval Office address the other night, so I decided to take a look at the transcript and see if it still seemed as vacuous. A passage near the end that hadn't really registered while listening jumped out at me (emphasis added):

what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.

Um, wow. Did the guy driving the car really brag that he doesn't have a road map, doesn't know the destination, and won't be able to tell when we've arrived, but he's going to put the pedal to the metal anyway? Did he really think such inane blather would make us nod in agreement, swoon, or feel a tingle up our legs?

Well, first of all, I don't believe him. I think he knows exactly where he's driving the Car of State (to stick with that metaphor). He just thinks it's best not to reveal his destination to all us yahoos in flyover country because we might not like the idea of becoming a second-rate sclerotic socialist country. 

Secondly, that quote couldn't help but remind me of this oldie-but-goodie: "Why are we in this hand-basket, and where are we going?"

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Change! Dutch offer of help with oil spill accepted!

Posted by Richard on June 17, 2010

The Obama administration has now accepted one of the thirteen offers of help with the oil spill cleanup from foreign countries, a mere 54 days after the offer was made (emphasis added):

Three days after the Gulf oil rig explosion, the Netherlands offered to send in oil skimmers to pump oil off of the surface of the ocean. The Obama Administration turned them down because they were not 100% efficient and small amounts of oil would be pumped back into the Gulf with the excess water. EPA regulations do not allow for residue water to contain any oil. So rather than use equipment that was not 100% efficient the Obama Administration chose to let all of the oil run into the Gulf. This is not just bad policy, it is criminal.

Since the Obama Administration turned down assistance from The Netherlands at least 125 miles of Louisiana coastline has been ruined by the BP oil spill. Tar blobs began washing up on Florida’s white sand beaches near Pensacola days ago. And, crude oil has also been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi.

According to The Examiner, the Dutch offer was to fly in the skimmer arms for mounting on American ships, not to send Dutch ships. So apparently I was wrong to suggest that the administration refused the offer because of the Jones Act and the administration's ties to labor unions. The refusal was instead due to the administration's mindless adherence to dumb EPA regulations and its utter stupidity (emphasis added):

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one day’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

Turning down the Dutch skimmers just shows a total lack of leadership in the oil spill. To just leave the oil in the water because regulations do not allow you to pump slightly polluted oil back into the ocean is just plain stupid. The small amount of oil pumped back into the ocean with the Dutch system is tiny droplets of suspended oil that will be quickly broken down by naturally occurring bacteria.

Well, at least they've wised up. And it took them less than two months. 

Still, does the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" ring a bell? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The tingle is gone

Posted by Richard on June 17, 2010

The talking heads on the left seemed to be just as underwhelmed by the President's speech last night as those on the right. NewsBusters reported on MSNBC's post-speech panel discussion by Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman, and all three seem to have been pretty critical.

For sure, Chris Matthews didn't get that tingle up his leg this time:

Why does he continue to say that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We had Carol Browner do it again tonight. … I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas.

… We have a blue ribbon panel now that`s going to look into what went wrong. Can`t we move a little quicker than that, than to name a commission? That`s what they`ve done here. Another commission and another guy mentioned, they mentioned for having a Nobel Prize. …

I don`t sense executive command. And I thought that was the purpose of this speech tonight, command and control. I`m calling the shots. My name is Barack Obama. I`m the boss. I`m telling people what to do. I didn`t get that clarity. … He must be chief executive. He can no longer be Vatican observer or intellectual, or a guy calling in experts, or naming commissioners or whatever. I think he`s, or citing people for their Nobel prizes, I think he has to be the boss. …

The former Obama cheerleader is now surprised and disappointed by the President's lack of leadership and "executive command" skills. Back in 2008, there was no shortage of people pointing out that candidate Obama's background as an academic, community organizer, and part-time, present-voting legislator was sorely lacking in real-world job experience, much less any executive experience that might prepare him for the presidency. But Matthews pooh-poohed such concerns. He had that tingle running up in his leg. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refusing foreign help with oil spill cleanup

Posted by Richard on June 16, 2010

The President's first Oval Office address, on Day 57 of the Gulf oil spill, was mercifully brief. But it was also pretty light on content. Stephen Green summarized one of its main points nicely: "Hurricanes are easy. Leaks are hard."

The President insisted that his administration is in complete control and right on top of this thing, and that they've got the best scientists and experts advising them. But he failed to explain why the administration ignored the experts' advice — and in fact misrepresented it — regarding the offshore drilling moratorium announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

There was the predictable pitch for a "new energy economy" — the absurd argument that the government can create jobs for everyone and make us all better off by forcing families and businesses to switch to energy sources costing up to ten times as much as coal and oil.

The President also didn't explain why his administration has turned down a baker's dozen offers of help from foreign governments that have the equipment and expertise to greatly speed the oil cleanup. But the Heritage Foundation has an explanation: 

… Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. Thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.

According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill cleanup by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go at it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But, in an emergency, this law can be temporarily waived, as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the cleanup is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.

Now, why do you suppose such an internationalist would blow off all those offers of help from our European allies and insist on us going it alone? Why would he refuse to temporarily suspend a stupid 90-year-old protectionist law at the cost of greatly increasing the damage to the Gulf Coast environment and the livelihoods of its residents? Two words: labor unions. 

Or maybe Rush Limbaugh is right, and the Obama administration doesn't want a quick resolution to the problem. Maybe this is another one of those fortuitous (for them) crises that Rahm Emanuel doesn't want going to waste. It's an opportunity to further extend the reach of the federal government, to tightly regulate and control another significant sector of the economy, to ram through "cap-and-tax" or something similar.

Or maybe it's just incompetence and ineptness.

Stupid? Evil? Or simply in the pocket of the labor unions? I don't know. But I can't think of a fourth alternative. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama was following Matt Lauer’s instructions

Posted by Richard on June 11, 2010

I don't usually watch any of the nightly network newscasts (bad for my blood pressure), so I didn't realize that President Obama's much-ballyhooed "kick ass" remark was apparently made at the urging of NBC's Matt Lauer. Media Research Center put it this way (via email; emphasis in original):

Lauer’s bizarre take on the Gulf oil spill was that the administration should continue to search for someone to blame, rather than to show some the desperately needed leadership that has been missing from the White House during this horrible situation.

More than 24 hours after Lauer prompted Obama to kick some a## over the oil spill disaster, Obama obliged, saying in an interview with Lauer that he was gathering information on the oil leak “so I know whose a## to kick.”

Network news outlets all salivated over the soundbite, airing it multiple times to show the world how angry Obama was over the disaster. Just days before, news anchors reported that Obama was being criticized for not conveying his anger over the nation’s greatest environmental disaster.

But with the perfect soundbite squarely in his mouth by the so-called “news” media, Obama fired back at his “critics.”

 

Hmm, if only President Bush had known that he needed only to drop the “A-word” to get the media’s support in the Katrina disaster …

NewsBusters noted the Lauer-Obama connection, too, as well as the eagerness of competitors like CBS to promote the NBC interview and kick-ass sound bite. I can just imagine the scene in MSM newsrooms everywhere: "Woohoo! Our guy is finally sounding tough and in control! It's about damned time!"

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Heads in the sand

Posted by Richard on May 14, 2010

If you think I was too harsh in Naming the enemy, you need to watch Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, respond to a simple, direct, and non-confrontational question by Rep. Lamar Smith. It's an amazing two minutes of video, at once infuriating and hilarious.


[YouTube link]

This pathological unwillingness to identify the root cause of the problem, to name our enemies, and to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat we face is going to get a lot more people killed. Depending on blind luck and inept bomb-making to keep us safe is a losing strategy. Pretending that the real terrorist threat comes from anti-government right-wing extremists, tea partiers, and opponents of Obamacare is … well, I don't know if it's contemptibly cynical or just self-delusional.

Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn explore this issue in depth in the May 17 issue of The Weekly Standard, noting that "success in the war on terror is not apprehending terrorists after their attacks fail. Success is preventing them from attempting the attack in the first place." I strongly suggest reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt (emphasis added): 

So, three attacks in six months, by attackers with connections to the global jihadist network—connections that administration officials have gone out of their way to diminish.

The most striking thing about all three attacks is not what we heard, but what we haven’t heard. There has been very little talk about the global war that the Obama administration sometimes acknowledges we are fighting and virtually nothing about what motivates our enemy: radical Islam. 

This is no accident. Janet Napolitano never used the word “terrorism” in her first appearance before Congress as secretary-designate of Homeland Security on January 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favor of “Overseas Contingency Operations.” And just last month, we learned that the White House’s forthcoming National Security Strategy would not use religious words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism.”

When asked why she did not utter the word “terrorism” in the course of her testimony, Napolitano explained that she used “man-caused disaster” instead to avoid “the politics of fear.” 

The Department of Homeland Security was created after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And the head of that department is worried that using the word “terrorism” is playing the politics of fear.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Do as they say, not as they do

Posted by Richard on May 14, 2010

Let me see if I've got this right: the administration that vociferously condemned Arizona for telling its cops to inquire into the immigration status of people whom they have reason to believe have committed a crime has taken into custody three men whom they believe may have some peripheral connection to a crime … for "immigration violations."

Wow. My irony meter is pegged. 

I'm sure that in the next few days, various administration officials will once again be congratulating each other and crowing about what a great job they're doing protecting us from terrorists. Like they did after they cleverly prevented that bomb in Times Square from exploding. And when they brilliantly stopped that airliner from being blown up at Christmas. And when they bravely saved all those soldiers at Ft. Hood from being gunned down … Oops, that last one didn't end so well — but that wasn't a terrorist attack, it was just some lone nut.

Oh, wait. Those other two were just lone nuts, too, weren't they? Tea partiers disgruntled about taxes or something? 

I'm so confused. Too many narratives! What's the narrative today? I can't keep all the narratives straight.

I know — today's narrative is that ICE is doing a great job and this administration is right on top of that big illegal Pakistani immigrant problem in the Northeast. I wonder if those three Pakistani guys were Mirandized

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kiss your health care plan goodbye

Posted by Richard on May 8, 2010

After Obamacare was signed into law, several major corporations took well-publicized charges (as required by SEC rules) because of the anticipated revenue loss due to elimination of a tax deduction. This angered Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and other Socialist Democrats. They demanded that the companies turn over all Obamacare-related internal documents and explain themselves at Congressional hearings.

Oddly enough, however, after the Socialist Democrats received the documents, they promptly canceled the hearings and declared that there was nothing to see. Why? 

According to Fortune, it's because the internal documents from AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere, and Verizon revealed the dirty secret of Obamacare — "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" was a lie (emphasis added): 

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.

In 2009, it cost AT&T $2.4 billion to provide health care coverage for its active employees. The alternative cost of paying the penalties for not providing coverage: $0.6 billion. It's hard to ignore math like that. AT&T could give its workers a nice raise to compensate them for dropping health care and still come out ahead.

And the numbers will likely get worse, as all four companies predicted significantly higher costs in the future due to Obamacare's new taxes, the expansion of coverage to "children" up to age 26, and other new mandates. 

Instead of dumping their health care benefits completely, many companies may find it economically and politically more palatable to offer only the basic government "pool" plan.

In any case, as many of us insisted at the time, you can kiss your current health care plan goodbye. And as at least some of us have argued all along, that's not going to be an unintended consequence — it's by design. The ultimate goal of the Socialist Democrats has always been "single payer," and Obamacare implements their stealth plan to destroy the private health care industry and eventually leave us with a "public option" as the only option.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not personal this time

Posted by Richard on April 22, 2010

On the way home this evening, I heard Hugh Hewitt talking with National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Ponnuru made an interesting point that I hadn't thought about, but which strikes me as quite valid: the opposition to the Obama administration is much more programmatic and policy-driven, and much less personal, than the opposition to the Clinton administration was.

Think back — the right's dislike of both Bill and Hillary was quite intense, personal, and visceral. Yes, there are a few whose reaction to Obama is similar — but they're mostly marginalized fringe people like the birthers. The Tea Party people, who are the opposition mainstream, are thoroughly focused on issues: out-of-control spending, out-of-control growth of government, out-of-control deficits, "stimulus" pork, cap-and-tax, health care takeover, etc.

When Clinton was called names, they tended to focus on his character and were quite personal. When Obama is called names, they tend to focus on his agenda — ends and means — and are quite ideological: socialist, radical, Alinskyite, etc. 

To the extent that this comparison is valid, it seems to further discredit the spurious claim that opposition to Obama is racially motivated.

Although I'm sure someone will point out that Bill Clinton was proclaimed our nation's first black president, so the opposition to him must have been racist, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Offshore drilling sleight of hand

Posted by Richard on April 1, 2010

Don't get too excited about the news that President Obama has embraced "Drill here, drill now." The initial MSM reports sounded good, but just a bit of digging reveals this to be the administration's April fool's joke. Or, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute put it, "sleight of hand":

Most of Alaska, all of the Pacific coast, and other areas that could yield affordable energy for American consumers are still closed off from any development. Rather than a painful compromise, this is therefore actually a step back from what the American people thought had been achieved in 2008.

"When gas reached four dollars a gallon, the American people were shocked to discover that most of our domestic oil reserves were locked up by the federal government. They demanded change," said Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy Policy Myron Ebell.

In 2008, President George W. Bush revoked his father's executive order barring new offshore energy development and the Department of the Interior prepared a five year offshore leasing plan. The Democratic Congress co-operated by dropping the long-time moratorium which banned offshore oil production everywhere except in the western Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean off Alaska. The Obama administration, however, suspended the Interior plan and delayed a planned lease auction scheduled for 2011. It is now proposing a new plan that is much more limited.

So in a nutshell, the areas they're bragging about opening up were already open (pre-Obama). And some of the areas they're closing down were already open, too. The net effect is to reduce access to domestic reserves, not increase it. 

The editors of National Review Online think they know the true purpose of this new plan:

The limited drilling is clearly being offered as a bargaining chip, a way to give soft Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and oil-state Democrats such as Mary Landrieu (D., La.) cover in exchange for their votes on legislation that caps or taxes emissions. Graham and Landrieu were members of the Gang of Ten, the senators who proposed limited drilling in exchange for lots of new subsidies for green-energy companies and, in the process, nearly derailed the effort that undid the congressional ban. Unsurprisingly, the Obama's drilling proposal looks a lot like the one the Gang of Ten put on the table. … We argued at the time that the amount of oil that the Gang's proposal might yield wouldn't be worth the cost to taxpayers of even more subsidies for politically influential but commerically lame green industries. It certainly wouldn't be worth it now that carbon caps have been added to the broader policy mix.

Just like "no middle-class tax increase," "reducing the deficit," "shovel-ready jobs," and "transparency," the claim of "opening coastal waters" deserves a Joe Wilson type of response. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sowell and Williams on the health care vote

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2010

Two of my favorite living economists have slightly different takes on the House vote for government-controlled health care. Dr. Thomas Sowell, as I would have guessed, has a somewhat pessimistic take:

With the passage of the legislation letting the federal government take control of the country's medical care system, a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of America's values and institutions.

Even the massive transfer of crucial decisions from millions of doctors and patients to Washington bureaucrats and advisory panels — as momentous as that is — does not measure the full impact of this largely unread and certainly unscrutinized legislation.

With politicians now having access to our most confidential records and having the power of granting or withholding medical care needed to sustain ourselves or our loved ones, how many people will be bold enough to criticize our public servants, who will in fact have become our public masters?

The corrupt manner in which this massive legislation was rammed through Congress, without any of the committee hearings or extended debates that most landmark legislation has had, has provided a road map for pushing through more such sweeping legislation in utter defiance of what the public wants.

Too many critics of the Obama administration have assumed that its arrogant disregard of the voting public will spell political suicide for congressional Democrats and for the president himself. But that is far from certain.

Dr. Walter Williams, predictably, is somewhat more optimistic: 

If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long.

Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the Tea Party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings.

Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.

 Read both columns, please. I think both make valuable points. I agree with Sowell that this is a terrible turning point, and one that could usher in a new era in which this country permanently abandons the ideals and principles that have made it unique among nations.

I also agree with Williams that there are reasons for optimism — that the brazen and outrageous nature of this bill's passage and the contempt Democrats have shown for the will of the people will serve to awaken the populace and lead to a wide-spread public reaction and "Constitutional reawakening." 

Of course, I hope Dr. Williams is right. But I won't just hope. I'll do what I can to help make it come to pass. 

I hope you will, too. 

And keep an eye out for that new Reagan or Thatcher, too. We could really use one. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

House passes socialist health care takeover

Posted by Richard on March 22, 2010

Concluding the most corrupt and sleazy legislative process of my lifetime, the House moments ago passed a 2700-page bill enacting the complete government takeover of the health care industry. A bill that will lead inexorably to America's decline.

Tonight, I weep for my country. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »