Liz Cheney has offered up an intriguing idea to help President Obama out of the mess the Nobel Peace Prize committee left on his doorstep:
Having refused to not accept the award, Cheney's suggestion may be the only way remaining for the President to disarm his critics. It would demonstrate selflessness and humility while sending a strong statement to the rest of the world. Which is precisely why he won't do it.
Well, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Ten days into his administration, he was nominated. Not even months later, he wins. And for... what, precisely?
Words.
That's what it all boils down to. He won it not for anything he did -- because that list is humiliatingly short -- but because of what he has said.
Oh, and a bit for who and what he is, too.
As astonishing as it was to most everyone (even his most ardent supporters), it is of a piece with so much of his life. I don't recall ever knowing of anyone with such an extensive list of achievements, and such a slender record of accomplishments.
The distinction is tremendous. Obama had a remarkable rise in politics, only losing one election in his entire life, and overcoming tremendous odds all along the way. He has achieved so much, so quickly.
But what has he accomplished? What has each of those victories done, besides set the stage for his next victory? What great deeds can he point to and say "that is where I left my mark, that is the place where I made a difference, these are the people whose lives I bettered?"
As troubling as this is, it bodes even worse for the future.
What will be Obama's legacy? What will he leave behind to future generations? Or will he be content to be known not for what he did, but who and what he was?
For example, Jack Kennedy was the first Catholic to become president, and Ronald Reagan the first divorced man. But those are hardly the things for which they are remembered for their turns in the Oval Office. Indeed, they are usually far down the list in discussions of their presidencies.
What will history say about Obama, apart from "the first black man elected president?" I suspect that the elaboration of that will be as empty as the justifications given by the Nobel Prize Committee for giving him the Peace Prize.
Back when he and the First Lady were lobbying for the Olympics, I was struck by one element of Obama's appeal: he spoke of how proud he would be to attend the games in the waning days of his second term.
We are still well short of the first year of his current four-year term. But here he was, speaking in a matter-of-fact way that he would serve out a complete term, be re-elected in 2012, and serve out the majority of that second term to see the 2016 Games.
And from there, it's just a short step to consider January 21, 2017 -- the day that we can be certain that Barack Obama will no longer be our president.
When that date occurs, Obama will be 55 years old. And while I'm no actuarial expert, I feel comfortable predicting that he will, in all likelihood, have another 30 years of life ahead of him -- ex-presidents seem to have a remarkable lifespan. Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan lived to 93, Richard Nixon to 81. Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are both 85, and neither seems to be in any rush to pass on.
What the hell will he do then?
For most of our history, former presidents were content to quietly fade into the woodwork. Oh, there were a couple of examples -- John Quincy Adams becoming a firebrand in the US House of Representatives, William Taft becoming the only man to ever head both the Executive and Judiciary branches of the government by serving as Supreme Court Chief Justice -- but for the most part, ex-presidents just strolled off into the sunset.
Jimmy Carter followed that model at first, but later became quite active in various causes -- and became a minor pain in the ass to two of his successors. Bill Clinton, who also was relatively young when he left office (54), quickly discovered he missed the limelight and started getting his name back in the headlines again.
What will Former President Obama do in his retirement?
I suspect that he'll continue to do pretty much what he's done all his life: talk a lot, do very little.
Oh, and continue to collect awards and honors and praises for his policy of being "all talk and no action."
I've had a really long week (haven't we all?) so I'm feeling like taking some time today to downshift and decompress.
One of my favorite means of relaxation is comedy. I am a huge fan of "classic" comedy, the kinds of things I remember seeing on television as a kid during the 1970's. Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Red Skelton, George Burns, and numerous other comedians from the golden ages of radio and television were still active in those days, and for some reason I always preferred their work to that of contemporary comedians. I also relished the work of great impressionists like Will Jordan, Frank Gorshin, and Rich Little.
So here is a mash-up of some classic, perhaps politically incorrect, humor from the golden age of television ...
Johnny Carson and Jack Webb: The Copper Clapper Caper
Dean Martin and Foster Brooks
Tim Conway and Harvey Corman: The Dentist's Office
Jack Benny guest stars on "You Bet Your Life" with Groucho Marx
If you don't know much about Jack Benny, the only thing that he guarded more closely than his money was his true age. He was always "thirty nine." But when faced with a dilemma between his age and his money ... well, obviously Groucho had a lot of fun on this show.
Finally, if you're going to roast a politician, this is how you do it: Don Rickles roasts Gov. Ronald Reagan:
(Bonus points to anyone who can name all the celebrities visible at the table.)
In awarding their Peace Prize this year, the Nobel selection committee indisputably revealed to the world that their most important selection criterion is idealism.
In the spirit of this important revelation, I would like to nominate this young lady for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize:
I've never seen anyone with such a perfect combination of raw idealism and cluelessness, and such a strong sense of left-wing political priorities. Her vision of a better world should be rewarded, shoudn't it?
From The San Francisco Chronicle:
President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.
Taking a cue from the Nobel Peace Prize committee the crowd wildly applauded Obama for doing nothing...
I keep hearing a certain phrase in reports on the economy, and it has been grating on me every single time. And I finally figured out just why it was bugging me.
"...and government services are being cut back for the neediest -- ironically, just as they are needed the most."
It's not always the same words, and it's not always the same government (federal, state, county, local), but the the sentiment is always the same.
But this is not an irony. This is a sign that our system is working as designed.
Oh, it's not a deliberate result, but an unavoidable consequence. And it is a constant reminder that so, so many people don't understand one of the most fundamental truths of our political, social, and economic system.
The government has no money of its own.
The only money the government has is that which it takes from us, by threat of force.
Oh, you can call them taxes, fees, levies, duties, surcharges, licenses, tolls, or any of a zillion other euphemisms we've invented to disguise the reality, but that's what it all boils down to: the government taking our money, almost always by some sort of explicit or implicit form of duress.
Oh, there are exceptions, of course. For example, my own state of New Hampshire gets a healthy dose of its revenues from liquor sales. They maximize this by, naturally, force -- the state has a monopoly on hard liquor. If you want to buy hard liquor, you go to a state-owned and state-operated liquor store and give your money to a state employee. And don't even think of going into competition with the state -- if you try selling hard liquor openly, they will arrest you and shut you down.
Oh, there are some who don't approve of this. But there's not much they can do about it. They can abstain from liquor entirely, or they can travel to a neighboring state where private enterprise can openly sell liquor.
But almost no one does. On the contrary -- people from other states come to New Hampshire to buy their liquor. That's because New Hampshire uses its monopoly to keep its prices significantly lower than those of other states (who tax liquor sales quite exorbitantly.) It also strategically places the liquor stores -- the four busiest ones are located in rest areas along interstate highways.
In fact, this summer, Massachusetts chose to extend its sales tax to liquor sales. This was especially rich -- liquor is already taxed in and of itself, so the sales tax applies both to the liquor and the tax already paid on the liquor. This led to a most entertaining story when one of the Massachusetts lawmakers who championed the tax hike was caught stocking up on booze at a New Hampshire liquor store.
So, it only follows logically that when the people have less money, the government will have less it can take. An economic downturn leads, inevitably, to a government revenue downturn. And an economic downturn leads, inevitably, to a greater demand for government services and assistance. It's an unavoidable paradox.
Is there a solution? Yeah, but it's not an easy one. Fix the economy. There's an old saying that "a rising tide raises all boats."
But even that isn't foolproof. A boat that is too tightly anchored can be swamped and sunk by a rising tide. And in this metaphor, the anchor is government regulation and control.
We're already seeing it. During the recent "cash for clunkers" fiasco, the automakers who surrendered their sovereignty to the government got almost no boost in sales. On the other hand, Ford did rather well. And foreign automakers did even better.
So the next time you hear someone talk about the "irony" of cuts in government services coming as more and more people find they need them, note it carefully -- someone has just shown just how little they understand the fundamentals of our system. And when they have no clue on how it works, they have no clue on how to make it work better.
The Nobel Prize Committee (here they are in case you're curious) has managed to do something that the McCain campaign could never accomplish: turn the phenomenon of Barrack Obama into pure satire. One of Ann Althouse's commenter's noted (via Instapundit) :
This just reinforces my ongoing impression that we've been living out a satire for the past year or two....It's like no one's even serious about anything anymore. None of it matters. It's the Society of the Spectacle.
Which point brings to mind the old maxim "that's why they play the game". This phrase is rooted in the lore of odds makers, handicappers and their clients: gamblers. As anyone who follows sports knows one of the key ingredients in the recipe for an exciting game (or race) is the run up to the event itself or, to borrow the phrase, The Society of the Spectacle. Odds makers weigh in with their analysis of each teams' strengths and weaknesses as they try to predict the difference in the final score of a game. Handicappers (in horse racing) examine lineage, racing results and times in an heroic attempt to quantify the process of predicting a winner.
The political process is in some ways no different as it relates to the Society of the Spectacle. There is a period of courting, preening, pretending and obfuscating (campaigning) as candidates actively participate in the theatre. But at the end of the day, the game itself (governing) must be played . And therein lies the dilimma of Barack Hussein Obama today. The Nobel Peace prize committee handed him an award for courting, preening, pretending and obfuscating at the very moment he needed to demonstrate that he could actually play the game (govern). This irony was not lost on the American public, which seems to be taking notice that there is not just a question of work product that is found lacking in this president but also a lack of work ethic.
The metaphors and analogies that decribe today's Peace Prize poison are everywhere in the blogosphere , which means serious trouble for a President that has never been forced to contend with ridicule, sarcasm and humor. Perhaps sometime this weekend Barack Obama will come face to face with those realities. But I doubt it. Until he surrounds himself with real players instead of the band and the cheerleaders, he will never understand why he must actually have to play the game.
I just finished listening to an excellent interview with Bob Hamer on Sean Hannity's radio show. The topic of discussion was safe school czar Kevin Jennings. Bob recently did an interview with J.R. Head at Big Hollywood which included discussion of the subject as well. Here is an excerpt of what Bob had to say about Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay and NAMBLA:
Kevin Jennings is President Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. His history and beliefs are well documented in the numerous books he has authored and edited. There is some dispute as to the legality of his conduct while working as a teacher but by Jennings' own admission the only counseling he gave a male high school student, who admitted having sex with a man he met in a public restroom, was to use a condom. Jennings also has high praise for Harry Hay. If NAMBLA had a Hall of Fame, Hay would be a member. Hay fought for NAMBLA's inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA Walks With Me." Although Hay died before I was invited to attend any of NAMBLA's secret, underground meetings, Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love. When members of the Administration admit to admiring a NAMBLA icon it gives me cause for concern and is at the very least a reason for further inquiry.If you have not read Bob's book, The Last Undercover, you can read a sample of it at his website. It is an excellent account of not only his infiltration of NAMBLA, but of his 26 years as an undercover FBI agent.
In the spirit of full disclosure (and hopefully in accordance with new FTC Big Brother regs) Bob sent me a free review copy of his book when it first came out. After I read it I purchased additional copies as gifts. I've met Bob in person twice, once with his family when they were visiting NC and another time with my family when we were in San Diego. He has done some amazing work and, in my opinion, has earned the gratitude of every parent in this country.
See more about Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay and NAMBLA in a video from Scott Baker.
Terresa at Noisy Room has compiled a lot of additional information on Kevin Jennings. While at her site, check out the Czar Chronicles.
Update: I missed Bob on Hannity on tv last night, but the transcript of that interview is here.
Update II: Someone in the comments section is calling me a liar for saying Jennings admired (or praised) Hay. If they followed the link to Terresa's posts at Noisy Room they would have seen that she linked this ZombieTime post several days ago which included the following quote from Jennings' speech to "the GLSEN Mid-Atlantic Conference on October 25, 1997 in New York, as reported in the January-February 1998 edition of the Lambda Journal":
One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not--they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [shitty] old way it is now. It's the people who think, 'No, I can envision a day when straight people say, "So what if you're promoting homosexuality?"' Or straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?' That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. To not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place. And think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay's one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him.Most of those on the left (unlike my commenter) do not argue that Jennings said he admired Hay, but only that it didn't matter that Hay had a NAMBLA connection.
President Obama is as deserving of the Heisman Trophy as he is of a Nobel Peace Prize. Now there's a way for you to ensure that Barack Obama gets a real vote for the Heisman.
Enter "Barack Obama" as a write in candidate at ESPN. He's only 10,908 votes behind Tim Tebow as of now, and surely Obama is a better quarterback than Tebow. Tebow's great, but he's no match for "The One," just ask the Nobel committee...
The athlete with the most votes in the Nissan sponsored poll will receive one official vote in the Heisman Trophy selection process. You've seen the president play ball, right? Heisman Trophy Winners are determined by votes from 924 electors representing sportswriters and broadcasters.
The groundswell has to start somewhere...
As HughS noted below, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing. It is so ridiculous that one can't help but wonder if the GOP has a mole in the Nobel committee. It is also so obvious that this award was made for purely political purposes that even the Obama-loving media are shaking their heads in incredulity. The Times of London wrote this:
The award of this year's Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America's first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world...
Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had "captured the world's attention". It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
Benedict Brogan at the UK Telegraph:
They could have awarded it to Kylie Minogue and I wouldn't have been half as surprised as I am watching the television screens around me proclaiming that Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize...President Obama remains the barely man of world politics, barely a senator now barely a president, yet in the land of the Euro-weenies (copyright PJ O'Rourke) the great and the good remain in his thrall...What this does is accelerate the elevation of President Obama to a comedy confection, which he does not deserve, and gives his critics yet another bat to whack him with. Shame on theSwedesNorwegians*. He should turn it down, even if he does look great in white tie and tails.
This isn't about peace or even doing good. If it were former President George W. Bush would have won easily for his efforts to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa, which saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Ronald Reagan would have won for ending the cold war and freeing millions of people from the shackles of communism.
When ABCNews called the White House to get reaction, aides thought it was a joke. One responded, "It's not April 1, is it?"
The Nobel Prize Committee freely admits that Obama was selected even though he hasn't accomplished anything. All he's done is "inspire" people, and I take issue with that:
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said as the prize was announced."His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
He won the Nobel Peace Prize for wanting to spread hope and peace around the world. If that's all it takes to get the award, then every beauty pageant contestant should have received one, too. But that's what Obama is, when you think about it. He's the beauty pageant president. He's pretty and says nice things, but when you look below the surface, you discover he's an empty vessel. Cue Bert Parks: There he is, Mr. America!"
I. Don't. Believe. It.
Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
My initial reaction was stunned disbelief. What the hell has he done to deserve it?
I guess talk IS cheap. All the guy has done is talk.
He's TALKED about reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons... mainly ours, of course. Iran's, North Korea's -- they don't really count. They're willing to talk all they like, as long as we don't expect them to keep any promises they make.
Oh, and he's worked towards reconciling America with the world. Which translates into he's gone on his grand "we're sorry, world" speaking tour.
The Nobel Peace Prize is usually awarded for one of two things: either a singular achievement, or a lengthy record of accomplishments. Obama has been president for barely nine months, and his list of successes is thinner than a supermodel after a three-week coke binge.
Even more remarkably, the deadline for nominations was February 1. That means he was nominated less than two weeks after assuming office.
Anyway, that was my first thought. Then I gave it some more consideration, and I was forced to admit that Obama's winning the Prize is actually a step up for them.
Obama, for all his non-accomplishments, actually raises the bar for Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Recent winners have included Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), Muhamad ElBaradei and the IAEA (2005), Jimmy Carter (2002), Kofi Annan and the United Nations (2001), Yassir Arafat (2004), Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), and the UN Peacekeeping Forces (1988) (for, presumably, outstanding achievements in the field of child rape, a special award presented by Roman Polanski). Compared to their accomplishments, Obama's lack of actually doing things looks pretty damned good.
Essentially, Obama's award is for the outstanding achievement of "not only not being George W. Bush, but joining the rest of the world in blaming him for everything." And for the most part, I can live with that.
I do have two concerns, though. The Prize comes with close to a million and a half dollars in cash, and that raises some interesting questions. Can a sitting president accept that much money? Will he pay his taxes on it, or will he let Treasury Secretary Geithner counsel him on how to avoid them? And will he pocket it, or divvy it up among many and several liberal causes? (I find myself wondering if ACORN will get any...)
My other concern is that Obama is already pretty damned insufferable and smug. This can not help that situation in the least.
It's Friday, which means it's time for the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™. Enter your best caption for the following picture:
Winners will be announced Monday morning.
In what has to be one of the most dramatic examples of the global elitist genuflection and obsequiousness before the presence of The One, it was announced today the President Barrack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Friday.The committee cited Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The committee said Obama had created "a new climate in international politics."
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said, in a news release. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
When this item showed up in my email this morning the first thought was that it was a joke. But then I remembered that the Nobel committee's judgment has been routinely dynamited before such as when they chose AlGore(2007), Jimmy Carter (2002) and, the pièce de résistance, Arafat (1994).
The news release by the Nobel committee could easily read as satire.
Note: The New York Times calls it a stunning surprise. Well, it was for most everyone else, but a cynic might suspect the Times has been pushing hard on this for months.
Update: I like Rick Moran's take on this:
Sometimes, an event occurs that is so sublimely ridiculous that it becomes a parody of itself. That's what we have here.
And Obama thought last week's Olympic debacle was bad. The Nobel committee has unwittingly brought another weekend of derision to this president.
A new Washington Post poll released today spells out the doomsday scenario facing House Democrats in 2010:
The latest Washington Post poll of the Virginia gubernatorial race represents more than bad news for Democratic nominee R. Creigh Deeds. The findings paint a portrait of the electorate that, if replicated elsewhere, stands as a warning sign for President Obama and Democrats who will be running in next year's midterm elections.The poll shows a lack of enthusiasm among many of the voters who propelled Obama and his party to victory last November, raising troubling questions for the Democrats: Were many of Obama's 2008 energetic supporters one-time participants in the political process who care little about other races? Is Obama's current agenda turning off some voters who backed him last year but now might be looking elsewhere?
The poll shows Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds trailing
Republican nominee Robert F. McDonnell by nine points among likely voters. And that's the good news. Here's the rest of the story:
First, just half of Virginians who say they voted for Obama last November say they are certain to vote in the gubernatorial election. That compares with two-thirds of those who say they backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).Second, there is a lack of energy in the African American community. Last November, African Americans made up 20 percent of the Virginia electorate, part of a broader surge that saw record numbers turn out nationally. Today, African Americans comprise just 12 percent of the likely gubernatorial electorate.
Third, the poll shows an even sharper falloff in interest among younger voters.
Fourth, the intensity gap between Democrats and Republicans has done a complete reversal.
At least among likely Virginia voters the contrast between Candidate Obama and President Obama is beginning to be get attention. This poll seems to confirm that the so called Obama mandate was indeed a mile wide and an inch deep.
The never ending use of children as propaganda tools for everything Obama marches on.
This week's Obama indoctrination session is bought to you by the Ron Clark Academy, via CNN :
Actually, the kid who is interviewed first makes a bit of sense. He may receive a flogging for veering off script.
This is the first time I have ever heard of this particular "school." However, after a few clicks in Google, you'll find they have participated actively concerning the last presidential election, of course, with particular interest in Obama.
This past October they released "You Can Vote However You Like." A very wholesome and unbiased song. (/sarc)
Their next song, "Dear Obama," appears to have been done sometime just after the election. This song also caught the admiration of the other big "O", Oprah Winfrey. She loved it so much, she sent a check to the school for $365,000.
How do these kids become 5th grade propagandists?
What ever happened to "dodge ball" and "tag?"
I'm sure there's more, but, honestly, I can only take so much self-inflicted torture.
(Lyrics after the jump.)
Continue reading "More Hymns For The One" »
Alfred Webre, at the Examiner, who appears to have watched entirely too much Star Trek growing up. This is exactly why I don't read Examiner sites...
Actual details of the very interesting LCROSS mission are available at Scientific American.
I remember when she asked that. It was back in late 2003. I included the quote and the context in my column at American Issues Project today.
In late 2003, when economic growth surged "at the fastest pace in nearly two decades" with the gross domestic product (GDP) growing at a 7.2 percent rate, those in Congress hoping to convince voters that George Bush's policies were failing pointed to the unemployment numbers. To draw attention away from the incredible growth numbers, Democrats pointed to the job market which lagged behind other economic indicators.So, where are the jobs, Mr. President? Remember that President Obama warned the country that we could see a 9 percent unemployment rate next year if his $787 billion "stimulus" wasn't passed. (Again, in case you missed it above, last month the unemployment rate hit 9.8 percent.)In August 2003, reacting to a July unemployment rate of 6.2 percent, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi asked "Where are the jobs, Mr. President." With the current unemployment rate at 9.8 percent and many predicting it will go higher over the coming months, House Speaker Pelosi should be asking that question even more emphatically than she did six years ago.
A few months after Pelosi asked about jobs in 2003, they materialized in a big way. Here is an excerpt from the Reuters story from 2004 which indicates just how fast the political winds shifted.
The shift in political rhetoric from the "jobless recovery" lament of the Democrats to "nearly a million jobs in 100 days" of the Bush administration appears to have reached consumers, whose confidence levels hit the highest level in two years in June, according to a Conference Board report this week.I hope for the sake of all those looking for work that the job market rebounds as wonderfully as it did in 2004, but I fear the kinds of jobs we are going to see in the short term will be temporary ones resulting from government stimulus spending. If the unemployment situation does not improve significantly between now and Election Day 2010, those currently in power could be in serious trouble. If the unemployment rate continues to rise, exceeding 10 percent as many experts are predicting, 2010 could be a very bad year for Democrats.
Update: This kind of stuff (via the NRSC) is not going to help Democrats:
At a White House meeting today to discuss "job creation efforts," Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took time to praise the so-called "stimulus" package for "making a real difference."This remarkable statement comes nearly eight months after Reid railroaded the nearly trillion dollar "stimulus" package through the Senate, promising it "would create three and a half million jobs across the country, including 34,000 in Nevada."
Since then, however, unemployment rates in Nevada and across the country have continued to rise, recently reaching a 30-year high in the Silver State over the summer, while soaring to a 26-year high point nationwide last week.
Update II: More on the issue from Mark Tapscott.
Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office spells it out [PDF]...
Estimated Budgetary Impact of the Amended Chairman's MarkAccording to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period.1 In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
1 The $196 billion figure includes $180 billion in additional revenues (estimated by JCT) apart from receipts from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $16 billion in additional revenues from certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions (estimated by JCT and CBO).
Ignore for a moment the net cost of $829 billion, instead focus on how the the plan (despite what nearly every media outlet is reporting, it's not a bill) achieves its reduction in the federal deficit. The numbers are right there...
And my favorite, the footnote...
That my friends is how $829 billion in new federal spending magically reduces the federal deficit..
Continue reading "Baucus Plan Gets Clean CBO Scorecard By Raising Taxes" »
Regular readers of this blog have been well-versed in the numerous failures of the Cash for Clunkers program. But the Wall Street Journal went straight for the government jugular with this searing op-ed piece:
Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best "the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use." Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing assets that are still productive, in this case cars that still work. Under the program, auto dealers were required to destroy the car engines of trade-ins with a sodium silicate solution, then smash them and send them to the junk yard. As the journalist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic, "Economics in One Lesson," you can't raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.
In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices. The people who really belong in the junk yard are the wizards in Washington who peddled this economic malarkey.
Ouch.
Interestingly though, new car sales for Ford only dropped 5% (from 2008 sales figures) during the month of September, the first post-Cash for Clunkers sales period. Yet measured against last year's sales, Chrysler was off 42%, and GM was off 45% in September. Why such a lop-sided differential in sales between the "Big 3" auto makers?
The state-run news media seems to be deliberately avoiding a direct discussion of the biggest difference between Ford, Chrysler, and GM -- Ford was not bailed out by the Federal government; consequently, Ford is not being managed by White House "czars" and the UAW.
In the midst of a steep recession, Americans have clearly voted with their dollars. Despite the wishful thinking of liberals both in the press and in the White House, it seems clear that a majority of Americans are not excited about the Federal government, already a lumbering behemoth with the power to suffocate anything it suddenly disfavors, getting into the car business. Our politicians would do well to remember this the next time talk of "bailouts" begins swirling around Washington DC.
The Washington Post, unwittingly, illustrates how spineless the mainstream media has become in the intro to an article about Rep. Charlie Rangel. Emphasis mine.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) isn't interested in talking about his tax troubles and the ethical questions they've raised in Congress.Reporters accosted him Monday as he strolled to the podium for a news conference outside a Manhattan subway station, but Rangel, 79, ducked his head and kept moving.
"Let me thank you all for coming on this beautiful day," he began when it was his turn at the podium to tout the new subway entrance at 96th and Broadway. "And I would hate to see anyone attempt to mar this with questions that are not related to this exciting event."
Everyone obliged, except a guy driving by in his car.
"Charlie, pay your taxes! Come on, Charlie, pay your taxes!" the passerby shouted.
Do you think if Rangel was a Republican "everyone" would have obliged? Probably not...
In other news Congressman John Carter is on the House floor right now introducing a resolution to strip Rangel of his Chairmanship, not that it will get anywhere...
Next >
Send e-mail tips to us:
Get Wizbang in your inbox by submitting your email address below.
CNN: Hey, maybe Obama should stop raising Fox’s ratings [Hot Air]
MICHAEL S. MALONE: A real-estate technology race.“But the big tech battle in the real estate busi… [Instapundit]
Military, Intel Sources: Obama's Lying About Risks of Afghanistan Stategery [Ace of Spades HQ]
"Brit Fans Nuts For Squirrel." [Althouse]
NFL Football Thread [Ace of Spades HQ]
A passage to South Africa [Power Line]
Sunday NFL Open Thread [NewsBusters.org]
NFL Players Union Opposes Rush Limbaugh's Bid for Rams [NewsBusters.org]
Obama pledges to end“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, repeal DOMA … sometime [Hot Air]
links for 2009-10-11 [RedState]
Forty Thousand Troops? How About Sixty Thousand Troops? [Say Anything]
Does SNL really deserve attention for poking fun at Barack Obama? [Althouse]
Open Thread [NewsBusters.org]
Howard Kurtz Scolds Rush Limbaugh's Critics [NewsBusters.org]
The Nobel quest for mediocrity [American Thinker Blog]
3 Iranian protestors face hanging [American Thinker Blog]
Strain on FDIC as small banks fail [American Thinker Blog]
Convenient: George Soros To Invest $10 Million/Year In Rent Seeking For His“Green” Investments [Say Anything]
Rule 5 Sunday [The Other McCain]
Sunday football open thread [Darleen Click] [protein wisdom]
Where are My Sunday Funnies?!? [Flopping Aces]
Conveniently Incomplete: Gore Claims British Court Vindicated School Showing of Movie That 'Violated Laws' [NewsBusters.org]
Al Gore spoke about global warming here in Madison on Friday. Saturday, it snowed. [Althouse]
Q. How does Al Gore handle inconvenient truths? [RedState]
Toronto's little all electric Zenn automobile is an interesting choice for city driving. It has a low price of just $15,995 plus shipping or some options which is pretty low....
5:22 PM | 
0 comments
Did I mention YouTube was involved? Apparently, she hated people all in her stuff and whatnot. So she spent hours (or minutes, maybe) writing and recording and shooting a video...
2:04 PM | 0 comments
Most people are well aware of the tremendous talent of the late great singer Marvin Gaye. However, few knew that he also was a minor film star as well. In...
4:48 PM | 0 comments
According to his attorney, 19 year old Levi Johnston, the baby father of Bristol Palin's baby is currently working out to buff up for posing nude in an upcoming PLAYGIRL...
2:46 PM | 3 comments
ESPN Magazine's "The Body Issue" features six different covers. This is ESPN's answer to the annual Sport Illustrated Swimsuit issue, focused entirely on athletes. Here's the three female covers. A...
4:29 PM | 0 comments
Publisher: Kevin Aylward
Section Editor: Maggie Whitton
Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, HughS, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Cassy Fiano, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert
Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port
All original content copyright © 2003-2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.
Powered by Movable Type 3.35
Hosting by ServInt
Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.
Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.
Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.
Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.
