Free Markets, Free People

Daily Archives: February 10, 2009

Don’t Worry Julio!

Julio works at Mickey D’s and has for the last 4 years. President Obama tells him not to worry, that upcoming legislation is going to cover him up with money he didn’t earn (“refundable tax credits”) and help pay for his college too!

Watch this performance – on both sides:

Maybe that car and mortgage payment aren’t such a wild thought after all.

But as Walter Williams reminds us:

“In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax and is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new President proposes for the economy.”

Welcome to the deep end. You’re going to be putting Julio through college. Do you think he’ll even send you a thank you note?

~McQ

Obama Attempts To Spin Tax Cuts And Does It Badly

My favorite line from the other night’s Obama presser:

Now, just in terms of the historic record here, the Republicans were brought in early and were consulted. And you’ll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. Those tax cuts are still in there. I mean, I suppose what I could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. And maybe that’s the lesson I learned.

Maybe that is a lesson he’s learned. Always nice to see your chief executive engaged in on-the-job training, no?

But more importantly, I enjoyed the spin. “Republicans were brought in early and were consulted”. That’s a bit of a stretch. In actuality the Republicans and Democrats were in agreement that government had to do something. And they were further in agreement with the broad outline of a stimulus package that would include a large percentage of tax cuts.

Now whether or not you agree that a stimulus package is needed or not, the point to be made here is a bunch of politicians from different sides agreeing that something must be done and one of them being pleased that the other side is considering tax cuts as a major part of that “something” does not equal being “brought in early” or being “consulted”.

A "Spinorama" Adventure

A "Spinorama" Adventure

That happens when the bill is written and put into final form, and as everyone know, Republicans weren’t brought in at all on that process, much less consulted. So when that final bill was trotted out and placed before the full House, with no debate, Republican voted 177-0 against it. They did so for a number of reasons, but primary among them was they had had no part in writing the bill. But of equal importance, the tax cuts that they were promised would be in the bill and comprise approximately 40% of it total, just weren’t there.

Oh the Democrats had used language to attempt to convince the Republicans and the press they were in there, but the CBO pretty well killed that meme.  Look on the huge graphic which lays out the spending proposed by the House and check out the upper right hand corner where the CBO discusses the tax cuts.  Its analysis reduces the Democratic claim that the bill contains 26% tax cuts down to 22%.  The primary reason the CBO denies what Democrats call tax cuts is because in reality they’re tranfer payments.  Approximately 100 billion dollars will go to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place.  Other than among Democrats, no other rational person would call giving money to people who don’t pay taxes a “tax cut”.

So when you hear President Obama say that the framework he outlined (which supposedly contained 40% tax cuts) was met with Republican approval, he’s probably right.  But when he then says, referring to those tax cuts, “they’re still in there”, he’s wrong and my guess is he knows that.  But as was obvious in the press conference, he was interested in characterizing the Republcians in a negative light, again mocking them and denigrating them, while at the same time speaking out of the other side of his mouth with faint praise to escape criticism for doing so.

That is not how I define “acting presidential”.

The fact remains the level of the promised tax cuts are not in the House version of the bill.  And while it is somewhat closer in the Senate bill, the reconciliation process may lower that as well.  Without the level of promised tax cuts in the bill which passes out of the reconciliation process, Republicans cannot be faulted for voting against its passage.  Again, that’s not to say I support a single bit of this – but I cannot fault the Republicans for not voting for it if what they were promised initially isn’t in the final bill.

~McQ

If the logic behind the stimulus applied to everyday life

I was thinking something as I watched the video that McQ posted earlier. Those guys point out several times that it’s pretty silly to think you can solve a problem created by too much borrowing and spending by doing a lot more borrowing and spending.

If everyone followed that logic in everyday life, imagine the results:

“Gosh, I’m forty pounds overweight now. I better start eating more.”

“Honey, you’re getting too many speeding tickets.” “Well, then, I better start driving faster.”

“That girl says I irritate her, but I really like her. I guess I should start being more obnoxious.”

“Oh, dear, the roof is leaking again. I better make the hole bigger.”

I’ve been expecting some sort of major meltdown at some point since I first became aware of the demographics of Social Security and the trend lines for government spending about thirty years ago. But I never would have predicted that so many supposedly smart and serious people would take blatant nonsense seriously.

Parsing Iran’s “Dialog With Respect” Demand

The new line out of Tehran is that Iran is ready for talks with the US if those talks are a “dialog with respect”. So let’s check out President Ahmadinejad’s words, shall we?

“The new U.S. administration has said that it wants change and it wants to hold talks with Iran,” President Ahmadinejad said.

“It is clear that change should be fundamental, not tactical, and our people welcome real changes,” he said. “Our nation is ready to hold talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad went on to say that Iran could cooperate with the United States to uproot terrorism in the region. “The Iranian nation is the biggest victim of terrorism,” he said.

But he referred to former President Bush as one of reasons for insecurity in the region and said, “Bush and his allies should be tried and punished.”

“If you really want to uproot terrorism, let’s cooperate to find the initiators of the recent wars in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, try them and punish them,” he said.

Is Iran really willing to talk?

Is Iran really willing to talk?

“Fundamental, not tactical”. Remember, Ahamdinejad accused the Obama administration of only favoring a tactical change. His claim was the Obama administration would not be fundamentally different in its approach to relations with Iran than was the Bush administration. While in Munich, VP Joe Biden made it clear that the US wouldn’t tolerate Iranian nuclear weapons and reserved the right to pre-emptively attack Iran in case it refused to stand down its nuclear weapons program and produced a nuclear bomb. That is the very same policy the Bush administration advanced. How that can be spun as a “fundamental change” vs. a “tactical change” will be interesting to watch. But one is certainly hard put to describe such a policy as one which would place the talks on a plane of “mutual respect”.

An interesting line, of course, is Ahmadinejad’s declaration that the “Iranian nation is the biggest victim of terrorism”. The obvious reason for that declaration is found in the next line, i.e. the policies of the Bush administration are interpreted by Ahmadenijad as being terroristic in nature as they pertain to Iran. But, other than the “let’s talk” invitation, the policy of pre-emptive action remains the announced policy of the Obama administration as well.

Last, but certainly not least, Ahmadinejad clearly puts the Israel question on the table and lays out his solution for stopping terrorism. While Iran demands a “fundamental” change in the US approach to relations with that nation, there’s certainly nothing to suggest that Iran is willing to make fundamental changes in return. And its proxy war with Israel, through Hamas and Hezbollah is certainly an indicator of its continuing attempt to take the “Zionist entity” on.

Or is that simply a delaying tactic until they achieve their aims?

Or is that simply a delaying tactic until they achieve their aims?

So while some may be encouraged by the fact that Ahmadinejad is at least talking about better relations with the US, I say take it all with a large grain of salt. Iran has aspirations toward being the regional power in the Middle East. That is what brought it in direct conflict with Iraq and precipitated their 8 year war. Iraq also had such aspirations. Iraq is no longer a threat in that regard, and the only entity that really stands in its way is the US. Obviously Iran would like to neutralize the US and its influence in the region. One way to do that is to pretend to give the new administration what is so desperately wants – a foreign policy success. Entering into direct talks with the US would do that while really costing Iran nothing. In return for those direct talks, Iran would demand that the US tone down its rhetoric and lift sanctions thereby accomplishing it’s neutralization goal. It can extend the talks as long as it wishes while it proceeds on its merry way to creating a nuclear weapon and marrying it to a long-range missile. At that point, the US is no longer necessary as Iran, by fiat, will be if not the dominant regional power in the Middle East, a close second (assuming as everyone does, that Israel has nukes).

At that point, an Obama administration would be left to either live up to Biden’s words or back off and hope Iran doesn’t finally deal with the “Zionist entity” before Israel deals with it.

Food for thought.

~McQ

Newspeak: Bi-Partisan Redefined

I won’t go into the whole kit’n kaboodle about how “bi-partisan” has recently come to mean “all of one party plus 3 of the other,” but instead point to this (supposedly) journalistic effort to shore up the new definition:

Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley on Heath Shuler’s comment that Reid and Nancy Pelosi “failed” on bipartisanship.

It’s a good one

Quite the set up, eh? It must be something awfully devastating. The way that Glenn Thrush, the Politico “reporter” detailing Shuler’s walk into the wilderness, leads into the allegedly withering comments with little more than a snarky swipe at the Congressman’s dubious NFL career (“Manley sacks Shuler”)

Sacked

Sacked

one would think that Manley had something important to say. One would be wrong.

Before getting to Manley’s “sack” (in Thrush’s words), let’s take a look at the sole account of Shuler’s misdeed, which incidentally is from Glenn Thrush:

“In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way,” Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.

“We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely … I truly feel that’s where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed.”

Shuler, rumored to be mulling a ’10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote “no” on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi’s doghouse. Now he’ll have to build a Harry Reid wing.

Apostasy! How dare a Democrat call the incompetent leaders of the House and Senate incompetent. What is he, a Republican? It’s almost as if Shuler really bought into all that post-partisan claptrap that Obama spouted on the campaign trail. Well, Earth to Shuler. The campaign’s over. Time to get in line and do what your told like the rest of America.

But I kid.

According to Thrush, Manley had a much better takedown of Shuler’s insubordination:

Let me get this straight – this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?

Maybe Someone should tell congressman Shuler that under the leadership of President Obama we have put together a bipartisan bill that will create or save 3 to 4 million jobs, and that We have been more than willing to work with our republican friends. We have accepted some of their ideas and will continue to do so. But not at the expense of creating jobs, investing in our future of helping the middle class. He can stand on a stage if he wants, but senate democrats are busy trying to pass legislation that will provide essential investments designed to create and save jobs.

Hmmm. I didn’t realize that Shuler’s career as an NFL quarterback was somehow relevant. Didn’t get that memo. But Thrush sure did:

In four years as an NFL QB — three with the Redskins, one with the Saints — Shuler threw 32 INTs while tallying only 15 TDs. Shuler was the third overall pick in the 1994 NFL draft and held out for a seven-year $19 million contract, but completed fewer than half his passes — with a rock-bottom 54.3 lifetime passer rating.

In 2008, ESPN rated him the 4th biggest draft bust in league history.

Ummm … OK. So, that’s it? That’s the “good one”? Cracking on Shuler’s life before becoming a Congressman? I mean, I see that Shuler’s point concerning the lack of bi-partisanship is roundly countered by Manley’s response to the effect of “Nuh’uh.” But is that really so devastating? Does that have anything to do with Shuler’s point about the failure to include Republican’s in the Mother of All Spending Bills? Judging from Thrush’s reporting, the “good one” was little more than a schoolyard taunt.

Toady in the Wilderness

Toady in the Wilderness

Perhaps the larger point was that Thrush simply wanted to generate some controversy so that he’d have something to write about. Take a critical remark from a supposed friendly and use it to elicit a stinging retort. That’s the world of lazy journalism and tabloid reports.

But Thrush misses the real story here in a spectacular fashion. Where Schuler takes a political risk in challenging the leaders of his own party by pointing to the actual lack of any Republicans signing onto the bill, Thrush instead focuses on the sarcastic response, completely ignoring the glaring fact that only three out of 219 have been brought on board. Manley’s retort may generate guffaws in the Democratic lunchrooms, but it’s hardly the caliber of a “good one” even for a sophomore in high school. Thrush has reduced himself to little more than a gossiping sycophant, content with relaying the latest insults delivered by the cool kids in order to ingratiate himself with the in-crowd. And in the process, he has perpetuated the myth that the stimulus bill is any way bi-partisan.

One would think there was a good story in there somewhere. That is, if one were really a journalist.

Lies, Damn Lies and Nancy Peolsi’s Charts

If you’re wondering,  her charts would be the “statistics”.

You’ve seen her “worst recession ever chart, right?  If not, here it is:

The Pelosi Chart

The Pelosi Chart

I know, I know – OMG! They’re right! Panic! Spend! Do something!

Hold on there Bunky. Check this out from Justin Fox:

Six Recessions

Six Recessions

Ahem. Uh, we’re not even in as bad a shape as the ’74 recession and haven’t yet approached the ’81 recession, have we? Hmmm.

But wait, there’s more. Economist William J. Polley takes us back to WWII:

All Post-WWII Recessions

All Post-WWII Recessions

Oh.  My.  So,  at the moment, we’re kind of in a middling recession (when you go all the way back to ’48) huh?

The lesson?

Beware of politicians with charts and an agenda.

Hope and change.

~McQ

Talk About Growing Up In A Bubble

No this isn’t something from The Onion.  And it certainly wasn’t made up.  It is a very real report made to a college police department.  Even more disturbing is they took it seriously:

UCONN Police Reporting a Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert:

On 2/7/09 at approximately 6:35 PM a suspicious incident occurred at Hilltop Apartments, in the parking lot between the Beard and French buildings. A male approached a female from the opposite direction and came up within several feet of her personal space. The female turned around and left the area. The male walked away in the opposite direction. The male did not say anything or make physical contact with the female.  The intention of the male is unknown.  Description as follows: a white male 6’ 0” with shoulder length brown hair wearing a red or brown cloth jacket and jeans.  Male described as older than college age.  The male had a round face and large build.

If you have any information or witnessed the incident please call UConn Police at 486-4800.  As always, you are encouraged to travel in groups at night and in well lit areas.  Please notify police of any suspicious activity to police immediately.

“Came within several feet of her personal space”? What in the world does that mean?

And she was such a scared rabbit she turned and headed the other way despite the fact that the guy said nothing to her and made no physical contact with her?

Not only that, his “intention” was unknown? So one has to assume he wasn’t intimidating or displaying threatening behavior (or one would certainly be able to discern his “intention” right?).

Apparently, though, it was enough that the police felt a the need to issue a description?

So, in the real world, what exactly would be the complaint if they picked him up?

~McQ

[HT: William Teach @ RWN]