Obama gets the GWB treatment that so enamored the Left and the MSM...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025755.php
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
ObamaCare Weekend -- Onward into the Abyss
http://article.nationalreview.com/427015/onward-he-said-regardless/charles-krauthammer
Read the whole thing, by Dr. Charles.
An excerpt:
Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.
Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?
Allow me to demystify.
Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.
However — life is a vale of howevers — suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak, and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked.
How do you think this would poll?
Read the whole thing, by Dr. Charles.
An excerpt:
Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.
Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?
Allow me to demystify.
Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.
However — life is a vale of howevers — suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak, and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked.
How do you think this would poll?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Hamas: Jordan or Egypt Likely behind Dubai Hit, Not Israel
Well, kudos to whoever did it !
Hamas: Jordan or Egypt Likely behind Dubai Hit, Not Israel [Tom Gross]
Over the past two weeks, much of the world media has been engrossed with the story of the assassination of a senior Hamas terrorist in Dubai. (See here, here, and here for background.)
Almost all western media have rushed to blame Israel (without concrete evidence), resulting in Israeli ambassadors being summoned by the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, and Australia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the killing an “outrage.”Yesterday Dubai authorities even went so far as to announce they will ban persons with Israeli (by which they presumably mean Jewish) features, whatever that means, from entering the country.But today the daily Al-Quds Al-Araby reported, according to Reuters, that Hamas suspects the security forces of Jordan or Egypt of being behind the assassination. Mahmoud Nasser, a member of Hamas’s bureau, told the newspaper that slain commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was in possession of information “dangerous” to the Jordanian and Egyptian regimes.
So much for the hysterical way many western journalists and governments rushed to blame Israel.
Hamas: Jordan or Egypt Likely behind Dubai Hit, Not Israel [Tom Gross]
Over the past two weeks, much of the world media has been engrossed with the story of the assassination of a senior Hamas terrorist in Dubai. (See here, here, and here for background.)
Almost all western media have rushed to blame Israel (without concrete evidence), resulting in Israeli ambassadors being summoned by the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, and Australia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the killing an “outrage.”Yesterday Dubai authorities even went so far as to announce they will ban persons with Israeli (by which they presumably mean Jewish) features, whatever that means, from entering the country.But today the daily Al-Quds Al-Araby reported, according to Reuters, that Hamas suspects the security forces of Jordan or Egypt of being behind the assassination. Mahmoud Nasser, a member of Hamas’s bureau, told the newspaper that slain commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was in possession of information “dangerous” to the Jordanian and Egyptian regimes.
So much for the hysterical way many western journalists and governments rushed to blame Israel.
ObamaCare Update -- some kind of train wreck is coming
Reconciliation ? or Scrap Heap ?
Andy McCarthy: http://article.nationalreview.com/426738/awol-in-the-bunning-battle/andrew-c-mccarthy
Scott Brown vs. Reconciliation: 'I'm Challenging the President to Do Better'
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDE3N2E1ZWJmN2Q2ZmQ1OGExYzQ0ZWRlNjdkNWU0NTU=
Dems to Ryan: 'Get Ready, We're Reconciling' [Robert Costa]
“Get ready, we’re reconciling”— that’s what House Democrats are telling Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. Ryan says Democrats are planning to “mark up a budget-reconciliation package as early as next Wednesday, which is probably a week before reconciliation will actually occur.” For now, he says, “they’re in the middle of trying to cut their deals,” all while “public outrage is building, not waning.”
In the Democratic caucus, “there are two pools,” Ryan says. “There are progressive ideologues in moderate districts who think they are going to lose anyway, so they might as well vote for what they believe in. Then there are the ‘no’ votes who are being twisted and turned with the carrot and the stick to vote for this thing.” Democrats, he says, are straining to make any deals “a little more opaque” to avoid bad press (see Kickback, Cornhusker).
Is repeal possible? “Think about it,” Ryan says. “This will be a new entitlement that says that just about everybody making less than $100,000 will have their out-of-pocket health-care costs capped by the government — no more than 2 percent to 9.8 percent of your income will go toward health care, and the taxpayers will pay for the rest. And it will take 60 votes to turn that off. It’ll take a big rift to turn that off. It’s ominous.” Nonetheless, Ryan says he has been “strategizing” with his legislative team to see how “we could do a reconciliation package to peel this thing back,” but admits that such a measure would be “very, very tough.”
Repeal or not, Ryan worries that the “collateral damage to the insurance markets and health-care sector will be devastating” if Obamacare passes later this month. “Insurance companies will have to immediately lay off workers to comply with the new regulations. . . . Even if we’re able to eventually turn this thing off, it will be a different-looking world.”
Ignore and Lie About This at Your Own Risk, Speaker Pelosi, President Obama . . . [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I mentioned this on the radio this morning. It's powerful stuff, from ABC this morning, via Mike Allen:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), author of anti-abortion language in the House health-care bill, tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" that he's willing to bring down the final bill if abortion language isn't changed: "[T]he bill that they are using as a vehicle is the Senate bill. If you go to page 2069 through page 2078, you would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion. . . . [W]e’re not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language in there." . . .
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Let me be clear here. If the president doesn’t change the language, if your language is not accepted, you and your 11 colleagues who voted yes the last time will vote no this time. Does that mean you’re prepared to take responsibility for bringing down this whole bill?"
STUPAK: "Yes, we’re prepared to take responsibility. I mean, I’ve been catching it ever since last fall. Let’s face it, I want to see health care. But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."
Yes, Bart Stupak will vote for Obamacare if abortion is nixed. But considering the White House and co. is lying about abortion in the legislation at the moment, they don't seem to be positioning to give in to Stupak.
UPDATE: Here is video of Stupak appearing on Fox News, calling the legislative process on Obamacare "tainted" and predicting that the Senate bill "won't even come close" to passing in the House unchanged.
Bunning's Stand [Jonah Goldberg]
He explains himself in USA Today. An excerpt:
Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.
Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.
America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.
Re: Only the House Vote Matters [Daniel Foster]
Rich, Senator Gregg agrees with you:
The White House may renege on passing fixes to the Senate's healthcare bill once the House has passed it, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) claimed Thursday.Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that President Barack Obama may back off making changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process, which the White House and the Senate have said they would use to make changes to the Senate bill in order to placate House members.
"They're using reconciliation to pass the great big bill," Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. "Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House didn't care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?" . . .
"If you're in the House and you're saying, 'Well, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to get a reconcilation bill,' I would think twice about that," Gregg said. "First because, procedurally, it's going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people.""In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don't need it," he said.
Something's Gotta Gibbs [Daniel Foster]
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared on MSNBC's Daily Rundown this morning and said he expects Congress to act on Obamacare before the president leaves for Australia and Indonesia on March 18.
Gibbs also hit on all the Democratic end-game talking points: We incorporated a bunch of Republican ideas and they still won't budge; we already passed health-care with 60 votes in the Senate, but even if we didn't, reconciliation means nothing more than majority rule; and, most bizarrely, health-care reform means jobs. (Stay tuned for more on the first two points. I don't even know where to start on the third.)
There is also a great bit of circular logic thrown in when Savannah Stern asks Gibbs whether there are enough votes in the House to pass Obamacare today. Gibbs responds that if the vote were scheduled for today, it would be because they had enough votes. Gotcha
Krauthammer's Take On President Obama’s speech yesterday:
The process is exactly what we predicted a week ago.
The president and the leaders in the House and the Senate had decided they are going to go to reconciliation, which is, essentially, we are going to do it one-party, a party-line vote. That's what they are going for.
But they wanted to present it to the American citizenry as having tried to reach out. That's why you had the charade of the summit last week, seven hours of discussion when it was already pre-cooked that that wouldn't change anything.
That's why you had yesterday, the release of the changes that Obama was heralding as leaning over towards Republicans. For example, tort reform, which are absolutely insignificant and almost comical. With tort reform he is offering for a problem that we heard earlier in the program costs the American medical system $100 billion, $200 billion a year — he is offering a few pilot programs which are utterly meaningless and will amount to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obamacare.
But that's part of the deal. He wants to appear to be offering to incorporate Republican proposals. And now the pivot, which we had today. Obama says I tried, I reached out, Republicans are stubborn, oppositionists and nihilistic. I'm going to go for on a party-line vote.
For a man who campaigned as the man who would transcend partisanship, it's rather ironic that this is what he has decided to do.
Re: Only the House Vote Matters [Yuval Levin]
It's worth reiterating something Rich and Jeff Anderson have pointed out: The focus on reconciliation in the past few days confuses things a bit. The question in the health-care debate at the moment is whether Nancy Pelosi can get enough of her members to vote for the version of Obamacare that passed the Senate late last year. If the House passes that bill, it will have passed both houses, will go to the president, and will become law.
Some liberal House Democrats have problems with that bill — especially with some of its tax provisions, though also a few other things. So to get some of their votes, the leadership is now telling them that if they vote for the Senate bill, the House could then pass another bill that amends the Senate bill to fix some of what they don’t like about it. The Senate could then pass that amendment bill by reconciliation and it would also become law, and so the sum of the two laws would be closer to what they want.
But that amending bill wouldn’t change the basic character of what would be enacted (and to the extent it would change it at the edges, it would be mostly for the worse): Either way, if the House passes the Senate bill then Obamacare would become law, complete with its massive, overbearing, costly, intrusive, inefficient, and clumsy combination of mandates, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and new government programs intended to replace the American health-insurance industry with an enormous federal entitlement while failing to address the problem of costs. Just about everything the public hates about the bill is in both versions. The prospect of reconciliation is just one of the means that the Democratic leadership is employing to persuade members of the House to ignore the public’s wishes and their own political future and enact Obamacare.
The fate of Obamacre therefore now rests not in the Senate but in the House. It is members of the House who must decide if it will be enacted, and it needs to be clear to voters exactly where their opposition to the Democrats’ approach to health care should be focused now.
One More No Vote [Yuval Levin]
Republican Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia announced last week that he would resign from the House on March 8, to devote his time to running for governor. His departure would have meant that House Democrats only needed 216 votes, rather than 217, to pass their health-care bill.
But Deal has just announced that he has decided to stay in Congress until the end of the month, which would be after the Democrats’ self-imposed deadline for passing the bill (and would take them into the Easter recess, when members must again confront constituents, and which Speaker Pelosi therefore very much wants to avoid).
He was not coy about the reason for his decision:
“Yesterday, as I listened to President Obama’s aggressive push for a quick vote on ‘Obama-Care,’ it was clear that I must stay in Congress and continue to fight against the most liberal health care agenda ever proposed.”
That makes Pelosi’s job just a little bit harder.
Re: The Count [Daniel Foster]
More bad news for Pelosi. Greg Sargent reports that Rep. Frank Kratovil (D., Md.), who voted 'no' on the first bill and was hitherto thought of as undecided on the Senate bill, has confirmed he will now vote no.
Also, freshman Rep. Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.), another 'yes' on the first bill, is now undecided.
Andy McCarthy: http://article.nationalreview.com/426738/awol-in-the-bunning-battle/andrew-c-mccarthy
Scott Brown vs. Reconciliation: 'I'm Challenging the President to Do Better'
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDE3N2E1ZWJmN2Q2ZmQ1OGExYzQ0ZWRlNjdkNWU0NTU=
Dems to Ryan: 'Get Ready, We're Reconciling' [Robert Costa]
“Get ready, we’re reconciling”— that’s what House Democrats are telling Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. Ryan says Democrats are planning to “mark up a budget-reconciliation package as early as next Wednesday, which is probably a week before reconciliation will actually occur.” For now, he says, “they’re in the middle of trying to cut their deals,” all while “public outrage is building, not waning.”
In the Democratic caucus, “there are two pools,” Ryan says. “There are progressive ideologues in moderate districts who think they are going to lose anyway, so they might as well vote for what they believe in. Then there are the ‘no’ votes who are being twisted and turned with the carrot and the stick to vote for this thing.” Democrats, he says, are straining to make any deals “a little more opaque” to avoid bad press (see Kickback, Cornhusker).
Is repeal possible? “Think about it,” Ryan says. “This will be a new entitlement that says that just about everybody making less than $100,000 will have their out-of-pocket health-care costs capped by the government — no more than 2 percent to 9.8 percent of your income will go toward health care, and the taxpayers will pay for the rest. And it will take 60 votes to turn that off. It’ll take a big rift to turn that off. It’s ominous.” Nonetheless, Ryan says he has been “strategizing” with his legislative team to see how “we could do a reconciliation package to peel this thing back,” but admits that such a measure would be “very, very tough.”
Repeal or not, Ryan worries that the “collateral damage to the insurance markets and health-care sector will be devastating” if Obamacare passes later this month. “Insurance companies will have to immediately lay off workers to comply with the new regulations. . . . Even if we’re able to eventually turn this thing off, it will be a different-looking world.”
Ignore and Lie About This at Your Own Risk, Speaker Pelosi, President Obama . . . [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I mentioned this on the radio this morning. It's powerful stuff, from ABC this morning, via Mike Allen:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), author of anti-abortion language in the House health-care bill, tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" that he's willing to bring down the final bill if abortion language isn't changed: "[T]he bill that they are using as a vehicle is the Senate bill. If you go to page 2069 through page 2078, you would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion. . . . [W]e’re not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language in there." . . .
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Let me be clear here. If the president doesn’t change the language, if your language is not accepted, you and your 11 colleagues who voted yes the last time will vote no this time. Does that mean you’re prepared to take responsibility for bringing down this whole bill?"
STUPAK: "Yes, we’re prepared to take responsibility. I mean, I’ve been catching it ever since last fall. Let’s face it, I want to see health care. But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."
Yes, Bart Stupak will vote for Obamacare if abortion is nixed. But considering the White House and co. is lying about abortion in the legislation at the moment, they don't seem to be positioning to give in to Stupak.
UPDATE: Here is video of Stupak appearing on Fox News, calling the legislative process on Obamacare "tainted" and predicting that the Senate bill "won't even come close" to passing in the House unchanged.
Bunning's Stand [Jonah Goldberg]
He explains himself in USA Today. An excerpt:
Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.
Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.
America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.
Re: Only the House Vote Matters [Daniel Foster]
Rich, Senator Gregg agrees with you:
The White House may renege on passing fixes to the Senate's healthcare bill once the House has passed it, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) claimed Thursday.Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that President Barack Obama may back off making changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process, which the White House and the Senate have said they would use to make changes to the Senate bill in order to placate House members.
"They're using reconciliation to pass the great big bill," Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. "Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House didn't care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?" . . .
"If you're in the House and you're saying, 'Well, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to get a reconcilation bill,' I would think twice about that," Gregg said. "First because, procedurally, it's going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people.""In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don't need it," he said.
Something's Gotta Gibbs [Daniel Foster]
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared on MSNBC's Daily Rundown this morning and said he expects Congress to act on Obamacare before the president leaves for Australia and Indonesia on March 18.
Gibbs also hit on all the Democratic end-game talking points: We incorporated a bunch of Republican ideas and they still won't budge; we already passed health-care with 60 votes in the Senate, but even if we didn't, reconciliation means nothing more than majority rule; and, most bizarrely, health-care reform means jobs. (Stay tuned for more on the first two points. I don't even know where to start on the third.)
There is also a great bit of circular logic thrown in when Savannah Stern asks Gibbs whether there are enough votes in the House to pass Obamacare today. Gibbs responds that if the vote were scheduled for today, it would be because they had enough votes. Gotcha
Krauthammer's Take On President Obama’s speech yesterday:
The process is exactly what we predicted a week ago.
The president and the leaders in the House and the Senate had decided they are going to go to reconciliation, which is, essentially, we are going to do it one-party, a party-line vote. That's what they are going for.
But they wanted to present it to the American citizenry as having tried to reach out. That's why you had the charade of the summit last week, seven hours of discussion when it was already pre-cooked that that wouldn't change anything.
That's why you had yesterday, the release of the changes that Obama was heralding as leaning over towards Republicans. For example, tort reform, which are absolutely insignificant and almost comical. With tort reform he is offering for a problem that we heard earlier in the program costs the American medical system $100 billion, $200 billion a year — he is offering a few pilot programs which are utterly meaningless and will amount to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obamacare.
But that's part of the deal. He wants to appear to be offering to incorporate Republican proposals. And now the pivot, which we had today. Obama says I tried, I reached out, Republicans are stubborn, oppositionists and nihilistic. I'm going to go for on a party-line vote.
For a man who campaigned as the man who would transcend partisanship, it's rather ironic that this is what he has decided to do.
Re: Only the House Vote Matters [Yuval Levin]
It's worth reiterating something Rich and Jeff Anderson have pointed out: The focus on reconciliation in the past few days confuses things a bit. The question in the health-care debate at the moment is whether Nancy Pelosi can get enough of her members to vote for the version of Obamacare that passed the Senate late last year. If the House passes that bill, it will have passed both houses, will go to the president, and will become law.
Some liberal House Democrats have problems with that bill — especially with some of its tax provisions, though also a few other things. So to get some of their votes, the leadership is now telling them that if they vote for the Senate bill, the House could then pass another bill that amends the Senate bill to fix some of what they don’t like about it. The Senate could then pass that amendment bill by reconciliation and it would also become law, and so the sum of the two laws would be closer to what they want.
But that amending bill wouldn’t change the basic character of what would be enacted (and to the extent it would change it at the edges, it would be mostly for the worse): Either way, if the House passes the Senate bill then Obamacare would become law, complete with its massive, overbearing, costly, intrusive, inefficient, and clumsy combination of mandates, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and new government programs intended to replace the American health-insurance industry with an enormous federal entitlement while failing to address the problem of costs. Just about everything the public hates about the bill is in both versions. The prospect of reconciliation is just one of the means that the Democratic leadership is employing to persuade members of the House to ignore the public’s wishes and their own political future and enact Obamacare.
The fate of Obamacre therefore now rests not in the Senate but in the House. It is members of the House who must decide if it will be enacted, and it needs to be clear to voters exactly where their opposition to the Democrats’ approach to health care should be focused now.
One More No Vote [Yuval Levin]
Republican Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia announced last week that he would resign from the House on March 8, to devote his time to running for governor. His departure would have meant that House Democrats only needed 216 votes, rather than 217, to pass their health-care bill.
But Deal has just announced that he has decided to stay in Congress until the end of the month, which would be after the Democrats’ self-imposed deadline for passing the bill (and would take them into the Easter recess, when members must again confront constituents, and which Speaker Pelosi therefore very much wants to avoid).
He was not coy about the reason for his decision:
“Yesterday, as I listened to President Obama’s aggressive push for a quick vote on ‘Obama-Care,’ it was clear that I must stay in Congress and continue to fight against the most liberal health care agenda ever proposed.”
That makes Pelosi’s job just a little bit harder.
Re: The Count [Daniel Foster]
More bad news for Pelosi. Greg Sargent reports that Rep. Frank Kratovil (D., Md.), who voted 'no' on the first bill and was hitherto thought of as undecided on the Senate bill, has confirmed he will now vote no.
Also, freshman Rep. Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.), another 'yes' on the first bill, is now undecided.
This Week in Democratic Party Ethical Challenges
Ethics -- as in lack thereof.
NY Gov. David Patterson ... being pressured to resign due to various troubles ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/paterson_ChtWm5k3KQUwUXN6EwdK6N
NY Congressman Charles Rangel ..... steps down from Ways & Means chairmanship "temporarily" due to numerous bad acts ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/just_don_o4LUuhrmDip5pcpADAecPK
and now, Congressman Eric Massa (sexual harrassment of staffer)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/dem_rep_quits_amid_sex_claim_SXSdel6W398BUB1GOTVCII
Massa-gate? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
This could be very bad news for the Dems — Hoyer knew and it seems made some unleader-like presumptions:
First-term Rep. Eric Massa announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection, saying his doctors have told him that he can’t continue to “run at 100 miles an hour.” But several House aides told POLITICO that the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that the New York Democrat, who is married with two children, made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer. A more senior staffer — Ronald Hikel, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director — took the complaints to the ethics committee and was interviewed about them twice. Hikel declined to comment about the situation, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed that the Democratic leadership had been informed of the allegations before the news broke. “I’ve heard of that allegation before,” he said. “I had some indication, yes, but I don’t want to go beyond that. And my presumption [is] it’s being pursued in the course of business.”
Who's next ??
NY Gov. David Patterson ... being pressured to resign due to various troubles ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/paterson_ChtWm5k3KQUwUXN6EwdK6N
NY Congressman Charles Rangel ..... steps down from Ways & Means chairmanship "temporarily" due to numerous bad acts ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/just_don_o4LUuhrmDip5pcpADAecPK
and now, Congressman Eric Massa (sexual harrassment of staffer)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/dem_rep_quits_amid_sex_claim_SXSdel6W398BUB1GOTVCII
Massa-gate? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
This could be very bad news for the Dems — Hoyer knew and it seems made some unleader-like presumptions:
First-term Rep. Eric Massa announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection, saying his doctors have told him that he can’t continue to “run at 100 miles an hour.” But several House aides told POLITICO that the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that the New York Democrat, who is married with two children, made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer. A more senior staffer — Ronald Hikel, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director — took the complaints to the ethics committee and was interviewed about them twice. Hikel declined to comment about the situation, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed that the Democratic leadership had been informed of the allegations before the news broke. “I’ve heard of that allegation before,” he said. “I had some indication, yes, but I don’t want to go beyond that. And my presumption [is] it’s being pursued in the course of business.”
Who's next ??
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
China Envy
What Tom Friedman Left Out [Rich Lowry]
Why is it that I have read countless Tom Friedman columns on clean energy in China, and never learned any of this? From an excellent piece in the Washington Post "Outlook" section on Sunday on how everyone is over-estimating China's economic prowess:
Take green technology. China does make huge numbers of solar devices, but the most common are low-tech rooftop water-heaters or cheap, low-efficiency photovoltaic panels. For its new showcase of high-tech renewable energy in the western town of Ordos, China is planning to import photovoltaic panels made by U.S.-based First Solar and is hoping the company will set up manufacturing in China. Even if government subsidies allow China to more than triple its photovoltaic installations this year, it will still trail Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan, according to iSuppli, a market research firm.
China does have dozens of wind-turbine manufacturers, but their quality lags far behind that of General Electric, not to mention Europe's Vestas and Siemens. And although a Chinese power company has some technology that might be useful for carbon capture and storage, which many companies see as the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, it has built only a tiny version to capture carbon dioxide for making soda, rather than exploring needed innovations in storage.
More things that elitist and authoritarian govt lover Friedman leaves out here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTBjNGJkOTc4NjdjOTUxMmRlYzhhYzg0OWE0MDA0ZDA=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNhNDc5YmI1MjBiYWU1MTBiMDU3YTNjN2UwZTY1MTY=
Why is it that I have read countless Tom Friedman columns on clean energy in China, and never learned any of this? From an excellent piece in the Washington Post "Outlook" section on Sunday on how everyone is over-estimating China's economic prowess:
Take green technology. China does make huge numbers of solar devices, but the most common are low-tech rooftop water-heaters or cheap, low-efficiency photovoltaic panels. For its new showcase of high-tech renewable energy in the western town of Ordos, China is planning to import photovoltaic panels made by U.S.-based First Solar and is hoping the company will set up manufacturing in China. Even if government subsidies allow China to more than triple its photovoltaic installations this year, it will still trail Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan, according to iSuppli, a market research firm.
China does have dozens of wind-turbine manufacturers, but their quality lags far behind that of General Electric, not to mention Europe's Vestas and Siemens. And although a Chinese power company has some technology that might be useful for carbon capture and storage, which many companies see as the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, it has built only a tiny version to capture carbon dioxide for making soda, rather than exploring needed innovations in storage.
More things that elitist and authoritarian govt lover Friedman leaves out here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTBjNGJkOTc4NjdjOTUxMmRlYzhhYzg0OWE0MDA0ZDA=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNhNDc5YmI1MjBiYWU1MTBiMDU3YTNjN2UwZTY1MTY=
What the Obama & the Radical Left are up to w/ ObamaCare
From Citizens to Clients [Jonah Goldberg]
Andy McCarthy had a much cited post here the other day about how the Democrats are pressing ahead with healthcare out of deep-seated desire to fundamentally transform the relationship between citizens and government. This is a longstanding theme around here (and of LF). The aim of progressivism since at least FDR has been to turn citizens into clients. Under the conservative vision, governments depend on citizens to maintain their legitimacy, not to mention their revenue. Under the progressive vision, clients depend on the state for legitimacy and, increasingly, revenue.
Anyway, I thought of all this when I saw this from the Washington Times. The highlighted part has to be one of the most depressing sentences of the year:
Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.
Andy McCarthy had a much cited post here the other day about how the Democrats are pressing ahead with healthcare out of deep-seated desire to fundamentally transform the relationship between citizens and government. This is a longstanding theme around here (and of LF). The aim of progressivism since at least FDR has been to turn citizens into clients. Under the conservative vision, governments depend on citizens to maintain their legitimacy, not to mention their revenue. Under the progressive vision, clients depend on the state for legitimacy and, increasingly, revenue.
Anyway, I thought of all this when I saw this from the Washington Times. The highlighted part has to be one of the most depressing sentences of the year:
Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.
Newsweek on Iraq: Hell Freezes Over
Better late than never I suppose:
Mission Accomplished! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Newsweek's cover this week is a double-taker.
So is the accompanying story, which includes:
Bush's rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood — now, almost seven hellish years later — that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.
Independent journalist Michael Yon remembers writing something along these lines in the summer of 2008. He e-mails from Afghanistan: "As per normal, MSM is lagging behind the obvious . . . . You might recall that in 2008 I said the war is over, and we won. (I remember because like with all such statements, people throw stones and only later does it bear out.)"Yon's not looking for credit there. He explains: "This isn't rocket science, Kathryn. It's just a matter of paying attention and disregarding what others think about your report, and waiting patiently for history to vindicate."
He adds: "Newsweek might consider renaming itself to Historyweek."
Mission Accomplished! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Newsweek's cover this week is a double-taker.
So is the accompanying story, which includes:
Bush's rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood — now, almost seven hellish years later — that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.
Independent journalist Michael Yon remembers writing something along these lines in the summer of 2008. He e-mails from Afghanistan: "As per normal, MSM is lagging behind the obvious . . . . You might recall that in 2008 I said the war is over, and we won. (I remember because like with all such statements, people throw stones and only later does it bear out.)"Yon's not looking for credit there. He explains: "This isn't rocket science, Kathryn. It's just a matter of paying attention and disregarding what others think about your report, and waiting patiently for history to vindicate."
He adds: "Newsweek might consider renaming itself to Historyweek."
Pols & Spending: Follow NJ Gov. Christie's example
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/governor-christie-time-to-hold-hands.html
Governor Christie: "Time to Hold Hands and Jump Off the Cliff" - Chris Christie For President?
In an amazingly candid appraisal of the sorry state of affairs in New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie laid it on the line in a speech to about 200 mayors at the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
The speech is 24 minutes long and well worth a listen because it is both an honest admission of the problem, and a refreshingly accurate appraisal of what the solutions are. He chastised the legislature, unions, municipalities, and affordable housing initiatives while promising to do something about all of those.
Unfortunately I cannot find a transcript, nor is there a YouTube video but you can Watch Chrstie's Speech To League of Municipalities on public television. It starts out with an ad you have to listen to, but it quickly picks up once Christie starts speaking. He starts off in fine fashion calling the legislature's budget "Alice In Wonderland Budgeting"
Partial Transcript:
In the time we got here, of the approximately $29 billion budget there was only $14 billion left. Of the $14 billion, $8 billion could not be touched because of contracts with public worker unions, because of bond covenants, because of commitments we made accepting stimulus money. So we had to find a way to save $2.3 billion in a $6 billion pool of money.When I went into the treasurer's off in the first two weeks of my term, there was no happy meetings. They presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be able to balance the budget. I accepted 375 of them.There is a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. So something needed to be done.People did not send me here to talk, the people sent me here to do. So we took the executive action we did to stop the bleeding.As we move forward, and we evaluate what we need to do three weeks from now in our fiscal year 2011 budget address, you all need to understand the context from which we operate.Our citizens are already the most overtaxed in America. US mayors hear it all the time. You know that the public appetite for ever increasing taxes has reached an end.So when we freeze $475 million in school aid, I am hearing the reverberations from school boards saying now you are just going to force us to raise taxes.Well there is a 4% cap in place as you all know, yet school boards continue to give out raises which exceed that cap, just on salary. Not to mention the fact that most of them get no contribution towards the spiraling increase in health care benefits.Now, we are going to reduce spending at the state level. And we are going to continue to reduce it because we have no choice but to do so. Our obligation to you is twofold. One, is to let you know that. So I'm' letting you know that.Second to work with the legislature to give you the tools helping you to reduce spending at the municipal level. Now the pension and benefit reform package that was passed unanimously in the senate this week begins to give you some of those tools.But it is only a beginning.Do we need to change some of the rules of arbitration to level the playing field to allow municipalities and school boards to have a more level sense of collective bargaining?I think the evidence of ever increasing raises being given to public sector workers as a result of the arbitration system tells us that we do. [Applause From Mayors]But you have to stand up and give the support to the legislators in this building to get them to do that. I can guarantee you this, that more pension and benefit reforms which I will consider arbitration reform to be one of them, are things that when they come to my desk, they will be signed. [Applause From Mayors]Because we can no longer continue on a path where we say we are going to reduce spending at the state level but we are not going to give you any tools to do that at the municipal level and the school board level.By the same token I am tired of hearing school superintendents and school board members complain that there are no other options than raising property taxes. There are other options.You know, Marlboro, after a two year negotiation, they give a five year contract giving 4.5% annual salary increases to the teachers, with no contribution, zero contribution to health care benefits.But I am sure there are people in Marlboro who have lost their jobs, who have had their homes foreclosed on, and who cannot keep a roof over their family's head there is something wrong.You know, at some point there has to be parity. There has to be parity between what is happening in the real world, and what is happening in the public sector world. The money does not grow on trees outside this building or outside your municipal building. It comes from the hard working people of our communities who are suffering and are hurting right now.I heard someone in the legislature say two days ago that they wanted no fare hike in New Jersey Transit, no cuts in service, and no cuts in subsidy. And I was thinking to myself, man I should have made this guy treasurer. [Laughter] Because if you can pull that one off, you're obviously magic.This is the type of awful political rhetoric that people sent me to this city to stop.I would love to be able to do that, but I can't. I would love to tell you that municipal aid will stay level, but it's not. And it's not because we don't have the money. So you need to prepare. You need to prepare for what's coming down the line because we have no choice but to do these things.And so we need to get honest with each other. In this instance, the political class,for which unfortunately all of us are a member of, the political class is lagging behind the public on this. The public is ready to hear that tough choices have to be made. They're not going to like it. Don't confuse the two. But they are ready to hear the truth.In fact, they find it refreshing to hear the truth.They are tired of hearing, don't worry I can spare you from the pain, because they have been hearing that for a decade, as we have borrowed and spent and taxed our way into oblivion.We have done every quick fix in the book that you can do. And now we are left, literally holding the bag.Leadership should be about making tough decisions. I'm not hear to tell you that anything you are going to have to do as mayors, council people will be easy. But I firmly believe after spending the last year traveling around the state of New Jersey, talking to regular citizens, that this is what they are expecting us to do.They are also expecting us to ferret out waste and abuse. But they also know that old song that waste and abuse is going to balance the budget is an old and tired one, and it's not going to.Now we are going to have a fight about COAH. And I have engaged in that fight and I have engaged in it directly. Not only will I be fighting COAH, I will be fighting the courts too. [Applause From Mayors]That's OK.We need to understand we are all in this together. And you know, all of you know in your heart, what I am saying is true. You all know that these raises that are being given to public employees of all stripes, we cannot afford. You all know the state cannot continue to spend money it does not have. And you all know that the appetite for tax increases among our constituents has come to an end.And so the path to reform and success is clear. We know what it is. We just have to have the courage to go there. What we are doing is showing people that government can work again for them, not for us. Government has worked for the political class for much too long.There's no time left. We have no room left to borrow. We have no room left to tax. So we merely have room left now, to do this. We are all reaching the edge of a cliff. And it reminds me a bit of that part of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where the had a seminal decision to make. So what did they do? They held hands and they jumped off the cliff.We have to hold hands at every level of government, state county, municipal, school board. We have to hold hands and jump off the cliff.I firmly believe we will land and we will be fine. It does not mean it will not be a scary ride on the way down. And it does not mean there won't be moments of fear and moments of apprehension.But for certain, the troops of the decades of overspending and overborrowing and overtaxing have gained on us. So the ruination of New Jersey's economy, and of the quality of life we want all our citizens to have, is certain if we do not take this course.It's time for us to hold hands and jump off the cliff. It's time for us to do the difficult things that need to be done and to stop playing the petty politics of yesterday, of lying to the people telling them they do not have to pay for it because someone else will.We are going to make the leap because that's what people elected me to do. We are going to make the leap because it is the responsible thing to do. We are going to make the leap and we are going to do it together because that is what leadership demands for us. That is what the responsibility of the offices we hold requires of us.Forget about the next election. Forget about the next editorial in the newspaper, and forget about the next angry letter or phone call you are going to get from someone who wants something for nothing.One thing is certain. The alternative will lead to certain defeat. And so it is time for us to show courage, and resolve. And we can do it because we are from New Jersey. And I have never, in all my travels around the country, met a group of tougher people than we all have the opportunity to lead.
------------------------------------------
What a contrast to the Dems in Congress (and many Republicans, but the Dems are in charge and going hog wild).
Over in the House, Republican Study Committee chairman Tom Price comes to Bunning's defense — as other Republicans have today — saying in a statement that “what’s remarkable is the ease with which Senate Democrats reject offers to actually pay for new spending. Those who vilify an objection to further drowning future generations in massive debt have clearly not heard the American people. While it may be a foreign concept inside the beltway, Americans don’t accept the notion that we can continue to spend more than we take in.”
Governor Christie: "Time to Hold Hands and Jump Off the Cliff" - Chris Christie For President?
In an amazingly candid appraisal of the sorry state of affairs in New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie laid it on the line in a speech to about 200 mayors at the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
The speech is 24 minutes long and well worth a listen because it is both an honest admission of the problem, and a refreshingly accurate appraisal of what the solutions are. He chastised the legislature, unions, municipalities, and affordable housing initiatives while promising to do something about all of those.
Unfortunately I cannot find a transcript, nor is there a YouTube video but you can Watch Chrstie's Speech To League of Municipalities on public television. It starts out with an ad you have to listen to, but it quickly picks up once Christie starts speaking. He starts off in fine fashion calling the legislature's budget "Alice In Wonderland Budgeting"
Partial Transcript:
In the time we got here, of the approximately $29 billion budget there was only $14 billion left. Of the $14 billion, $8 billion could not be touched because of contracts with public worker unions, because of bond covenants, because of commitments we made accepting stimulus money. So we had to find a way to save $2.3 billion in a $6 billion pool of money.When I went into the treasurer's off in the first two weeks of my term, there was no happy meetings. They presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be able to balance the budget. I accepted 375 of them.There is a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. So something needed to be done.People did not send me here to talk, the people sent me here to do. So we took the executive action we did to stop the bleeding.As we move forward, and we evaluate what we need to do three weeks from now in our fiscal year 2011 budget address, you all need to understand the context from which we operate.Our citizens are already the most overtaxed in America. US mayors hear it all the time. You know that the public appetite for ever increasing taxes has reached an end.So when we freeze $475 million in school aid, I am hearing the reverberations from school boards saying now you are just going to force us to raise taxes.Well there is a 4% cap in place as you all know, yet school boards continue to give out raises which exceed that cap, just on salary. Not to mention the fact that most of them get no contribution towards the spiraling increase in health care benefits.Now, we are going to reduce spending at the state level. And we are going to continue to reduce it because we have no choice but to do so. Our obligation to you is twofold. One, is to let you know that. So I'm' letting you know that.Second to work with the legislature to give you the tools helping you to reduce spending at the municipal level. Now the pension and benefit reform package that was passed unanimously in the senate this week begins to give you some of those tools.But it is only a beginning.Do we need to change some of the rules of arbitration to level the playing field to allow municipalities and school boards to have a more level sense of collective bargaining?I think the evidence of ever increasing raises being given to public sector workers as a result of the arbitration system tells us that we do. [Applause From Mayors]But you have to stand up and give the support to the legislators in this building to get them to do that. I can guarantee you this, that more pension and benefit reforms which I will consider arbitration reform to be one of them, are things that when they come to my desk, they will be signed. [Applause From Mayors]Because we can no longer continue on a path where we say we are going to reduce spending at the state level but we are not going to give you any tools to do that at the municipal level and the school board level.By the same token I am tired of hearing school superintendents and school board members complain that there are no other options than raising property taxes. There are other options.You know, Marlboro, after a two year negotiation, they give a five year contract giving 4.5% annual salary increases to the teachers, with no contribution, zero contribution to health care benefits.But I am sure there are people in Marlboro who have lost their jobs, who have had their homes foreclosed on, and who cannot keep a roof over their family's head there is something wrong.You know, at some point there has to be parity. There has to be parity between what is happening in the real world, and what is happening in the public sector world. The money does not grow on trees outside this building or outside your municipal building. It comes from the hard working people of our communities who are suffering and are hurting right now.I heard someone in the legislature say two days ago that they wanted no fare hike in New Jersey Transit, no cuts in service, and no cuts in subsidy. And I was thinking to myself, man I should have made this guy treasurer. [Laughter] Because if you can pull that one off, you're obviously magic.This is the type of awful political rhetoric that people sent me to this city to stop.I would love to be able to do that, but I can't. I would love to tell you that municipal aid will stay level, but it's not. And it's not because we don't have the money. So you need to prepare. You need to prepare for what's coming down the line because we have no choice but to do these things.And so we need to get honest with each other. In this instance, the political class,for which unfortunately all of us are a member of, the political class is lagging behind the public on this. The public is ready to hear that tough choices have to be made. They're not going to like it. Don't confuse the two. But they are ready to hear the truth.In fact, they find it refreshing to hear the truth.They are tired of hearing, don't worry I can spare you from the pain, because they have been hearing that for a decade, as we have borrowed and spent and taxed our way into oblivion.We have done every quick fix in the book that you can do. And now we are left, literally holding the bag.Leadership should be about making tough decisions. I'm not hear to tell you that anything you are going to have to do as mayors, council people will be easy. But I firmly believe after spending the last year traveling around the state of New Jersey, talking to regular citizens, that this is what they are expecting us to do.They are also expecting us to ferret out waste and abuse. But they also know that old song that waste and abuse is going to balance the budget is an old and tired one, and it's not going to.Now we are going to have a fight about COAH. And I have engaged in that fight and I have engaged in it directly. Not only will I be fighting COAH, I will be fighting the courts too. [Applause From Mayors]That's OK.We need to understand we are all in this together. And you know, all of you know in your heart, what I am saying is true. You all know that these raises that are being given to public employees of all stripes, we cannot afford. You all know the state cannot continue to spend money it does not have. And you all know that the appetite for tax increases among our constituents has come to an end.And so the path to reform and success is clear. We know what it is. We just have to have the courage to go there. What we are doing is showing people that government can work again for them, not for us. Government has worked for the political class for much too long.There's no time left. We have no room left to borrow. We have no room left to tax. So we merely have room left now, to do this. We are all reaching the edge of a cliff. And it reminds me a bit of that part of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where the had a seminal decision to make. So what did they do? They held hands and they jumped off the cliff.We have to hold hands at every level of government, state county, municipal, school board. We have to hold hands and jump off the cliff.I firmly believe we will land and we will be fine. It does not mean it will not be a scary ride on the way down. And it does not mean there won't be moments of fear and moments of apprehension.But for certain, the troops of the decades of overspending and overborrowing and overtaxing have gained on us. So the ruination of New Jersey's economy, and of the quality of life we want all our citizens to have, is certain if we do not take this course.It's time for us to hold hands and jump off the cliff. It's time for us to do the difficult things that need to be done and to stop playing the petty politics of yesterday, of lying to the people telling them they do not have to pay for it because someone else will.We are going to make the leap because that's what people elected me to do. We are going to make the leap because it is the responsible thing to do. We are going to make the leap and we are going to do it together because that is what leadership demands for us. That is what the responsibility of the offices we hold requires of us.Forget about the next election. Forget about the next editorial in the newspaper, and forget about the next angry letter or phone call you are going to get from someone who wants something for nothing.One thing is certain. The alternative will lead to certain defeat. And so it is time for us to show courage, and resolve. And we can do it because we are from New Jersey. And I have never, in all my travels around the country, met a group of tougher people than we all have the opportunity to lead.
------------------------------------------
What a contrast to the Dems in Congress (and many Republicans, but the Dems are in charge and going hog wild).
Over in the House, Republican Study Committee chairman Tom Price comes to Bunning's defense — as other Republicans have today — saying in a statement that “what’s remarkable is the ease with which Senate Democrats reject offers to actually pay for new spending. Those who vilify an objection to further drowning future generations in massive debt have clearly not heard the American people. While it may be a foreign concept inside the beltway, Americans don’t accept the notion that we can continue to spend more than we take in.”
Obama to call for subverting the will of the people - wants Reconciliation for ObamaCare
Of course, O will try to avoid using the R word. So much for his feeble effort at bipartisanship.
jaketapper :
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., says "Snookie (SIC), from the Jersey Shore, has more substance than President Obama’s offer" of GOP ideas in #hcr also says: "This is 'The Situation,' Mr. President: the American people do not want unconstitutional mandates and job-killing tax increases"
POTUS wont use word "reconciliation," but will call for up or down vote + make clear what's next if not given one > http://bit.ly/cJsg1w
jaketapper :
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., says "Snookie (SIC), from the Jersey Shore, has more substance than President Obama’s offer" of GOP ideas in #hcr also says: "This is 'The Situation,' Mr. President: the American people do not want unconstitutional mandates and job-killing tax increases"
POTUS wont use word "reconciliation," but will call for up or down vote + make clear what's next if not given one > http://bit.ly/cJsg1w
Monday, March 1, 2010
Stupid Bureacracy Story of the Day: Asylum for Homeschooling
The idiocy of government bureacracy at work....
Homeschooling Asylum [Mark Krikorian]
The NY Times writes about a family from Germany which has received asylum in the U.S. because homeschooling is prohibited in their country. This is yet another example of misuse of asylum, as we see our domestic culture wars bleed over into asylum policy; first it was feminists and homosexual-rights campaigners, then disabilities-rights activists, and now homeschoolers.
What we're not doing well is drawing the distinction between governmental or social practices that we disapprove of, on the one hand, and conduct so abhorrent that it creates special immigration rights for people who have no other options. Germany's ban on homeschooling is indeed stupid, but there are two factors weighing on the other side: First, Germany's a democracy and if the stupid laws of every democracy are a cause for asylum, then we're in trouble. In France, after all, you can't (or couldn't) work more than 35 hours a week — are we going to grant asylum to Frenchmen seeking overtime? Or how about the English butcher who couldn't sell his meat in pounds rather than kilos?
Second, Germany is a member of the EU and of Schengen, and as such, its citizens have the right to travel and live in a wide variety of countries, almost all of which permit homeschooling. A specific and immediate reform that would help a lot would be to draw up a list of "safe" countries, like the EU, Canada, and Japan, from which we simply won't entertain asylum requests at all, eliminating the opportunity for protracted litigation and judicial activism. We already have something like this for third-country nationals passing through Canada, and that should be extended to the EU and Japan as well, so that no one arriving at our airports, having passed through those countries, should be permitted to apply for asylum, since they should have done so in the first safe country they entered.
Homeschooling Asylum [Mark Krikorian]
The NY Times writes about a family from Germany which has received asylum in the U.S. because homeschooling is prohibited in their country. This is yet another example of misuse of asylum, as we see our domestic culture wars bleed over into asylum policy; first it was feminists and homosexual-rights campaigners, then disabilities-rights activists, and now homeschoolers.
What we're not doing well is drawing the distinction between governmental or social practices that we disapprove of, on the one hand, and conduct so abhorrent that it creates special immigration rights for people who have no other options. Germany's ban on homeschooling is indeed stupid, but there are two factors weighing on the other side: First, Germany's a democracy and if the stupid laws of every democracy are a cause for asylum, then we're in trouble. In France, after all, you can't (or couldn't) work more than 35 hours a week — are we going to grant asylum to Frenchmen seeking overtime? Or how about the English butcher who couldn't sell his meat in pounds rather than kilos?
Second, Germany is a member of the EU and of Schengen, and as such, its citizens have the right to travel and live in a wide variety of countries, almost all of which permit homeschooling. A specific and immediate reform that would help a lot would be to draw up a list of "safe" countries, like the EU, Canada, and Japan, from which we simply won't entertain asylum requests at all, eliminating the opportunity for protracted litigation and judicial activism. We already have something like this for third-country nationals passing through Canada, and that should be extended to the EU and Japan as well, so that no one arriving at our airports, having passed through those countries, should be permitted to apply for asylum, since they should have done so in the first safe country they entered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
