Political Truth and Fact

Saturday's Web

I was golfing the other day with my brother-in-law Ed, a University Professor and proud FDR-liberal, discussing a variety of subjects from Alexander Hamilton to Oklahoma Sooner football when the subject of the role of government as the disciplinarian of Big Business came about. Ed was of the opinion that without the mighty force of the Federal Government laying down large fines to reckless corporations like BP, there is no disincentive to prevent corporate tragedies like the 2010 oil spill - a line of reasoning I have frequently encountered.

Of course, as I attempted to explain to Ed, the market itself has its own ways of punishing business malpractice. I asked Ed if he ever saw a BP commercial before the oil spill, of course he had, and then asked him why BP paid for the commercial. “PR”, he replied. I responded by asking him what comes to mind now when he thinks of BP, those commercials or the oil spill? The oil spill, over night, eliminated the value of billions of dollars of investment in public relations, and that's not considering the time. During the summer it seemed never a day went by without an invitation to a Facebook group encouraging a boycott of BP – a market driven punishment to the spill (if not a misplaced one).

Then there was the cost of cleaning up the oil itself. Growing up in Panama City Beach for most of my life, I was quick to volunteer my services in cleaning up its beaches. BP paid the cost of my and my fellow technician's HAZWOPER Certificate (valued over $300), allowing us to work with tarballs with OSHA's blessing. We received a starting salary of $12 an hour, a guarantee of 80 hours a week (meaning $18 an hour with overtime) and our contractor received a nice profit for every head they hired. I was taking home over $1000 dollars a week. At one point we had 1,000 workers at my base camp in Port St. Joe, and we didn't even have oil. BP paid for our meals. BP supplied our hard hats, our gloves, our neon safety vests, our medical personnel, our work trucks, our work ATV's. BP rented out entire marinas and fisheries and dirt lots to set up camps. We enjoyed air conditioned work tents (necessitated by working in 110 degree heat) and all the water and Gator-Aid we could drink. BP rented the services of private fishing boats. BP deployed almost 4 million feet of boom in the water. All of this at a cost.

And then there were the settlements. Though I did not apply for a “BP Check” as it is referred to locally, most everyone else I know did. It is normal to hear stories of people receiving $12,000 check for being fired due to laziness and then blaming it on the oil spill. A former co-worker of mine has received a total of $7,000 dollars, in spite of the fact her tax receipts showed she made more money in 2010 than 2009. Recently BP has offered $5,000 to anyone who filed a claim and agrees not to sue. Local businesses are getting even more. And this in Panama City Beach, where we never saw our beaches covered in oil.

When I bring up these naturally occurring costs, I typically hear a few standard replies. My favorite is “but BP is so large that they will still end up making billions in profits this year.” That may be true, but wouldn't they have made billions more by not filling the gulf with oil? (I typically choose not to bring up the opportunity costs associated with BP not being able to sell the spilled oil.) Ed asked me whether I believed BP would have paid the cost of recovery if not for the Federal Government, I asked whether he would ever buy BP gas again if they didn't. And then there is the legal system, which obviously wouldn't even be eliminated in Murray Rothbard's state of anarchism, that would supply an avenue for victims to be compensated for their losses. Even with the government imposed escrow fund, a coffee shop owner I know, who opened his business nearly three months after the spill, is using the court system (or threat of it) to receive his own BP check after being denied through the typical claims process.

Of course BP is not the only example of the morality of free markets. When a fast food chain allows tainted food to be sold, even if isolated to one specific store, nation-wide demand for their food goes down, along with their profit margin. When a pharmaceutical company puts out a bad drug, they have to deal with similar legal and liability costs that BP endures. When Toyota makes a car whose breaks don't work, they have to pay for the nation-wide recall while at the same time suffering from the resulting decrease in demand. When a coffee shop sells a lukewarm cup of coffee, they suffer the opportunity cost of never enjoying the business of the dissatisfied consumer.

It's easy to develop a near spiritual celebration of the market when you come to understand how the natural morality of the markets is applicable to the individual as well. If you realize that the income an individual enjoys is the direct reward for their labor (be it from selling it to another or applying it to their own enterprise) then one can understand the significance of their budget. The person who spends $50 dollars every two days on a bottle of Jack Daniels experiences the fiscal price of their vice. The person who spends $60 dollars on bag of marijuana, they experience not only a fiscal price for the vice of the drug, but the price of breaking the law (the illegality being directly reflected in the price.)

It is, of course, the government that does its best to destroy this natural morality. When we are told that all food carries with it the endorsement of the FDA, it is only natural for consumers to worry less about the reputation of its producer and to instead focus on cost. When the Southern Pacific Railroad was granted by government a monopoly in California, the resulting corruption was blamed on the railroad industry as a whole, not the politicians who granted the special favor. When criminalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana forces its consumers to interact with drug dealers on a black market, it is the plant that is blamed as a gateway drug. I remembered watching in amazement when the aftermath of the oil spill brought about discussion of raising the liability cap for BP, why should any corporation receive protection from the results of their recklessness?

The more I understand the true nature of the markets, the most enthusiastic I become about the economic freedom of capitalism and the more passionate I become about seeing its return to this country. As Mises sagaciously stated “The alcoholic and the drug addict harm only themselves by their behavior; the person who violates the rules of morality governing mans life in society harms not only himself, but everyone.”

- Tho

Thursday's Web

“Thoughts and ideas are not phantoms. They are real things. Although intangible and immaterial, they are factors in bringing about changes in the realm of tangible and material things.” - Ludwig von Mises

Ideas, we are often reminded, have consequences. Television, space travel, Disneyland – these were the results of good ideas, as are any advancement that results in innovation and progress. Mankind has nothing to fear from good ideas.

But what about bad ones?

Lets take a second to turn back time and arrive in 17th Century France under the reign of Louis XVI, the Sun King. Though he famously proclaimed that “I am the State”, his economic policy was handled by his Minster of Finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert believed that it was his duty as the nations leading economist to guide Frances economy in order to meet his desired ends, mainly the development of a French glasswork, French industry and the promotion of national glory. His plan? High taxes on foreign imports (making imports more expensive than they should be in order to encourage French citizens to buy domestically), the Manufacture Royale de Glaces de Miroirs (a government subsidized glass and mirror manufacturer which enjoyed a state mandated monopoly of glasswork) and control of the French money supply.

The results? By artificially increasing the costs of foreign goods, the prices of goods went up. The Manufacture Royale was never profitable during the 23 years it enjoyed it's state granted privileges and resulted in rising the cost of timber (the 17th Century equivalent to oil). By controlling the money supply, France was able to wage war without considering the costs. Though Louis XVI benefited from Colbert's policy, the French economy did not. Colbertism failed.

Now lets look at 19th Century Britain. Influenced by Adam Smith's magnaum opus The Wealth of Nations, post-American Revolution Britain moved from mercantilism reminiscent of Colbertism to Free Trade as advocated by economic liberalism. Smith saw the creations of colonies as primitive and inefficient and instead understood that the unique qualities of nations, like the unique qualities of human beings, gave each country natural economic strengths and weaknesses. For example, Britain climate made it ideal for sheep herding, but poor for sugar cane. Smith understood that instead of raising the prices of Caribbean sugar in hopes that it will encourage a British sugar industry, it was more efficient to exchange wool for sugar.

Instead of believing that he could manage the economy himself, Adam Smith believed in the “Invisible Hand” of the market. Instead of looking at economics on a national level, Smith understood that every economic decision came down to the actions of individuals, acting in their own self interest. Adam Smith would have told Jean-Baptiste Colbert that it takes more than national pride to develop an industry, it requires capital, natural resources and knowledge of the craft. France's lack of glass industry was the result of French entrepreneurs understanding it's inability to be profitable at the time. Putting Smith's philosophy into action, the British Empire rose from the humiliation of American Independence and succeeded in rising to new heights.

The lesson? Government regulation of the economy is a bad idea. Economic freedom is a good idea.

Unfortunately one American disagreed. Alexander Hamilton was a Revolutionary war hero, America's first treasury secretary and founder of what is referred to as the American School of Economics. Though it is often understood that America was founded upon the idea of individual liberty, the American School advocated a return to pre-Enlightenment mercantilism. In spite of fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Hamilton fought for the American Federal government to impose protective tariffs, the subsidization of domestic industry and control of the money supply through the creation of a national bank. The results? A failed attempt to cultivate a government subsidized industrial town in New Jersey, tension between the agrarian South and the industrial North due to the tariffs and massive inflation (prices from 1791 to 1796 went up 76%).

The election of 1800 led to the removal of Hamilton's Federalist Party in favor of Jefferson's Republican Party. Jefferson adhered to the philosophy of individual liberty in all areas, especially economics. Where Hamilton favored taxes, Jefferson sought to eradicate them. Where Hamilton saw benefits in a national debt, Jefferson sought to eliminate it. Where Hamilton wanted the government to control the currency, Jefferson wanted it made stable. Where Hamilton wanted to protect manufactures at the expense of consumers, Jefferson wanted free trade for all. Jeffersonian Liberalism was so successful that the Federalist Party was eliminated completely.

Unfortunately Jefferson wasn't an economist (as shown with his imposition of the disastrous Embargo of 1807) and his economic policy was a product of his passion for individual liberty, not a comprehensive understanding of the market. Though this did not falsify Jefferson's economic logic, it did allow for future American leaders to adopt Alexander Hamilton as the true economist of the Revolution. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just to name a few, would all endorse economic policy that advocated protectionism, manipulation of the money supply and the subsidization of industry. The American School of Economics defeated Jeffersonian Liberalism. Hamiltonianism wouldn't be limited simply to America. German Economist Frederich List became a devout Hamiltonian during a visit to America in the 19th Century. List would inspire the German Historical School as well as such prominent German leaders as Otto von Bismark and Adolf Hitler.

Though the 20th Century saw Hamiltonianism come to dominate Western Civilization (culminating the economic distress we all suffer from today), it would give rise to the greatest Jeffersonian intellectual since the man himself: Ludwig von Mises. Mises understood what Jefferson and Smith did before him, that economics relied upon the interaction of individuals and, as such, any economic system that did not take individual human action into account would be fundamentally flawed.

Where as the most prominent 20th Century economist, John Maynard Keynes, believed that governments could regulate the economy more efficiently than individuals, Mises understood that markets were naturally occurring and that any manipulation would result in unforeseen consequences. Armed with a knowledge of the science of praxeology, Mises recognized that a government bureaucrat spending someone else's money would never be as efficient as individuals risking their own capital in search of profit. Keynes saw savings as a destruction of wealth, Mises understood savings was the only way to accumulate wealth. Keynesian economics increased the power of politicians and economists (who would be relied upon to guide his regulated economy), Mises advocated empowering the consumer. Is it any surprise that Keynes became the favorite of those in power?

Economics today continues to pit Keynesians v. Misesians, Hamiltonians v. Jeffersonians. While Keynesians like Paul Krugman advocated the artificially low interest rates that created the Housing Bubble, Misesians were warning of it's dangers. As the Federal Reserve continues to increase the money supply, Misesians warn of it's inflationary consequences. As Barack Obama advocated subsidizing green jobs and car sales, Misesians advocate allowing consumers to decide which industries succeed. 

If Americans wish for their government to continue a policy that gives politicians greater control over what happens with their money, then they should continue to allow Hamiltonianism mark its claim to the American School; but if Americans prefer economic freedom, then I propose a Misesian Revolution.

- Tho

Wednesday's Web: State of the Union

NOTE: Today's piece is by guest writer Tho Bishop, Economic Consultant, Bishop & Associates

During the State of the Union last night President Obama told America “We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.” While a lot of people will be focused on attacking the President’s proposals from last night, and often rightfully so, I will instead focus on presenting my own proposal to “win the future”. 

The economic situation in America today is dire: unemployment remains around 10%, the stimulus failed and a series of failed government regulatory ventures has left the American public with a woeful distrust of the competency of government and, more unfortunately, distrust in the very system that created the unprecedented wealth America has enjoyed – capitalism.

It will require more, however, than expressing a love of capitalism to turnaround the economy. The key to boosting the private sector is not to allow the Federal Government to spend more of the wealth generated by Americans, as the President proposed, but instead by getting the government out of the way so they can create more. In the following I will address the two most vital steps the government can take: Tax Reform and Currency Stabilization.

There is no greater source of tyranny in American today than the Internal Revenue Service and no greater source of confusion than attempting to comprehend the American tax code. As Will Rodgers said, “The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.  Even when you make a tax form out on the level, you don't know when it's through if you are a crook or a martyr.” While it is unnecessary for these purposes to go into the long dark history of the American income tax, it is appropriate to identify it as an inherently Progressive reform and one of the greatest burdens on our economy.

    The Tax Foundation estimates that in 2005 Americans spent over 6 billion hours, and over $265.1 billion dollars complying with the tax code . This is the equivalent to a 22 cent surcharge for every dollar of tax collected. Of that $265.1 billion, $148 billion is paid for by business – 56% of the total cost of compliance! And these figures only take into account the time and money spent on tax record keeping, completing tax forms and filing for returns without figuring the time businesses and individuals spend looking for ways to limit their tax burden or the costs involved with tax auditing and litigation. The number becomes greater still if you factor in opportunity costs involved through the withholding process.

    These are the burdens caused by an overcomplicated, overbearing tax system. The practical result is jobs being outsourced overseas, increases in prices and decreases in real income. 

    The system I would propose to replace the IRS would be the National Sales Tax proposal called “The FairTax”. Since I acknowledge the process of replacing the IRS would be even more difficult and convoluted than removing it in the first place, I will spend little time here going into great detail involving this system and instead point out what I believe to be the three most important aspects of it:

•    Removal of Corporate Taxes
•    Simplifying the tax code
•    Increase the number of tax payers

The most important benefit to moving to a FairTax would be the repeal of all corporate taxes, turning America into the most attractive country in the world to build a business. As the number one economic issue before the inadequately labeled “Great Recession” was Job Outsourcing, this simple concept reverses one of the greatest economic burdens America has faced this decade. More businesses in America means more jobs for America and more jobs for America means more revenue for the government, greater stability for the economy and more power for whatever political party responsible.

“We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them. Our predecessors have endeavored by intricacies of system and shuffling the investigation over from one office to another, to cover everything from detection. I hope we shall go in the contrary direction, and that, by our honest and judicious reformation, we may be able…to bring things back to that simple and intelligible system on which they should have been organized at first.”

These were the words written by Thomas Jefferson to his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin in 1802 in regards to the finical programs of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party.  The words are remarkable relevant today in regards to taxation. Thanks to accounting tricks like withholding, most Americans have a vague idea on how much they should be taxed and how much they actually pay in taxes. This, in many ways, is an immoral form of governance.

The FairTax fixes this moral system using the simplification of the sales tax. Just as every state and local sales tax figure is noted on your average receipt, so would the FairTax – as such every citizen would be able to see how much of his money went to government simply by recording the number printed black and white on his receipt. No muss, no fuss.

Perhaps the greatest benefactor from such reform is the American worker. With the end of the income tax comes the end of income tax withholding, leading to every American receiving 100% of their paycheck instead of the depleted one he receives now on payday. A reform in government that would positively impact almost every working American man and woman.

Another important advantage of the FairTax that other proposed reforms, such as a Flat Tax, lack is the increase in taxpayer base. Since taxes are extracted on sales and not on government accounting of income, individuals who currently don’t pay federal taxes would do so; people like: illegal immigrants, tourists and those who deal in black markets. While, for example, your average dope dealer avoids paying much in taxes while making significant income in today’s America, in the one I am proposing he will be doing his “patriotic” duty every time he buys a Mountain Dew or Doritos. More tax payers mean less of the burden is placed on the backs of Middle Class and Lower Income Americans.

While these are three of the most important revelations the FairTax would bring, the benefits are not limited to the above. Since I cannot do due diligence to a proposed piece of legislation years in the making with simply a few paragraphs let me finish this point with identifying the benefits of the FairTax as figured by The Beacon Hill Institute which figured that implementation of the FairTax would, in five years, increase Real GDP by over 10%, domestic investment (a crucial factor in ensuring economic stability) by over 86%, capital stock by 9.3%, employment by almost 10%, consumption by 1.8% and real wages by 10.2%.

I give you Economic Stimulus. And a reduction in government. And a return to Constitutional principles.

While I believe that Tax Reform must be the all important trunk of the tree of economic growth, there are other efforts that should be undertaken in Washington in order to strengthen both economic and political gains.

The benefits of tax reform will be undermined, however, if we allow the government to destroy the worth of the dollar. Ever since FDR has taken America off the gold standard, America has faced ever-increasing inflation. Since 2008 this problem has only been exacerbated with the trillions of dollars in government spending stemming from taxpayer bailouts and other ill-advised measures. Without the ability to generate wealth itself, the Federal Government relies upon one of its most dangerous powers: the ability to legally counterfeit. Every dollar the Federal Reserve generates out of thin air is another dollar that dilutes the purchasing power of American savings.

We must have current stabilization. For this I would point to Nobel Economist James Buchanan’s solution of Constitutionalizing the Currency. While this is historically connected with the Gold Standard, it does not necessarily have to be so as the theory does not stress basing the dollar on Gold – only the depoliticization of the dollar. As Buchanan explains: “In application to money, the requirement is that the value of the monetary unit be made one of the rules of the game, within which economic interaction takes place, rather than being used as a counter in the strategy of play within the rules. In Hayekian parlance, the value of money must be part of the ‘higher law,’ as opposed to ordinary legislation that takes place within such law.”

Money Constitutionalization would prevent the Federal Reserve to use the printing press to rob average Americans the value of their hard earned American dollar. Buchanan goes on to point out that this goes hand in hand with the basic principles the Constitution placed for us, noting that the power to coin and regulate currency was provided in the same sentence that provided Congress with the ability to establish other units of measure. Just as it would be chaos for Congress to be able to manipulate the length of a yard for political purposes, we have chaos with the Fed’s ability to manipulate the value of the dollar with every new one printed.

By placing the value of the dollar in this “higher law”, we would necessarily have currency stabilization. As anyone with ears to the global financial situation can recognize growing international fears about our dollar, it should be easy to recognize the benefits of a more sound and secure currency.

We as Americans have always been a resilient group that has definitely overcome the hurdles fate has placed in front of us. In today’s world, that hurdle is often the unforeseen consequence of well-intentioned government policy. It is time for a change. We must end the failed policies of government economic intervention and advocate for America to be the easiest country in the world to start and operate a business. If we look for government to solve the problems of today, we will find ourselves facing only prolonged suffering. It is Americans, not our government, that makes us great – and it is time Washington remembers that.

Tuesday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Union Political Power must be confronted by conservative grass root activism – beginning now.

Union mobs have found our neighborhoods and are engaged on new tactics that make them a battle field site for thuggish action.  The new union tactic has other implications given their connections with Democrat politics. 

Until recently, union demonstrations against what they claim to be corporate misconduct – real and imagined – were limited to streets and the immediate location of corporate headquarters.  This is no longer the case.  Led by the huge Service Employees International Union (SEIU), intimidation tactics have now led to massive threats surrounding the homes of business leaders.

For the record, in the town hall meetings of 2009 – many of which were the sites of  tea party activism – violence came uniquely from purple shirt-clad SEIU members.

Then, last May, a frightened (and innocent) teenager was trapped inside his home as a 500-man mob that was bussed in by SEIU demonstrated and chanted on his front lawn in an effort to intimidate his father who is a deputy general counsel with Bank of America.

Fortune magazine's Nina Easton – often a Fox News panelist – is a neighbor of the banker and saw what happened.

Easton says 14 busses, loaded with demonstrators from the SEIU and another political outfit poured into her neighborhood armed with bullhorns.  It was an obvious effort to intimidate a banking executive – at his home, not at the bank. After that, the buses took the raucous mob to a residence of a J.P. Morgan Chase executive.

Police accompanied the mob, but did nothing to inhibit their brutish actions.

Now, the SEIU is at it again, as union supporters target a Wal-Mart developer in Washington, distributing fliers showing a bull's-eye and revealing his home address.  The implications are obvious. The flier gives his name and home address and invites protesters to assemble on his front lawn.  

Wal-Mar has long been targeted because it is non-union. The Wal-Mart development would employ up to 1,200 people.

While the group claims no union affiliation, its website links are funded by the SEIU.  (Tracking the many connections of SEIU can be tricky – but they include ACORN – a group prosecuted in over a dozen states for vote fraud.)

SEIU also has direct connections to the Obama White House. Ito cite just one case, Anna Burger – a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board – is also Secretary Treasurer of SEIU.

Now, three local chapters of SEIU,.have received temporary waivers from provisions of Obamacare.  Proving again that it’s nice to have friends in high places – especially in politics.  SEIU does have political friends – Democrat ones. Its political action committee contributed  $27 million  to the Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign.

The mainstream media, long ago signed on with liberal Democrats, has been hard at work undercuting conservatives in tea party groups.  They intend to interdict the political impact the spontaneous grass root movement generated.  Ordinary Americans became activists because of irresponsible spending and the far left policies of Obama and the Democrat majorities that followed him into office.

However, there is little honest reporting of SEIU and affiliated groups such as ACORN.  Especially in instances in which political misconduct is suspected, honest reporting should be mandatory for legitimate journalists.  However “legitimate journalist” is often an oxymoron in today’s America.

Lack of honest coverage of the SEIU et al, is a symptom.  The Internet has proven its ability to not only provide sources of factual information, but also its power in energizing ordinary Americans and marshal them to provide powerful political movements.

That power is crucially needed now as we head into the 2012 election. Polls are hinting conservative enthusiasm is waning – mistakenly thinking the 2010 GOP sweep has solved the crisis represented by the far left efforts from Democrats and the Obama administration.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Liberal politicians will be even more frantic to win and to protect Obama, than ever.  They are fighting to remain politically viable after suffering a “shellacking”. 

The outrageous actions of SEIU must be honestly reported.  Real American voters know huge mobs of union thugs invading neighborhoods is not only wrong, but downright outrageous.  That fact needs no explanation. These same voters must also be made fully aware of the political threat from SEIU and its associates.  Conservatives need to understand the reality of its threat,  Not only do unions such as SEIU have huge memberships, they also have an equally great potential for wielding political power…and a proven willingness to use it.

This is a call to action: Conservative Americans must effectively counter such far left groups.  It’s time to begin organizing and energizing for the fight that will consume the next 20 plus months. The issue is clear, and the enemy is powerful.  Conservatives cannot afford to be found wanting is clashes of a political Armageddon.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

Obama's State of the Union proposals will test whether parties can work together

WASHINGTON TIMES: Despite all the talk about civility and increased bipartisanship over the past two months, Democrats and Republicans have truly agreed on only one major legislative initiative since the November election: the relatively easy move to keep tax cuts in place for most Americans.

Now, the president is expected to offer a series of proposals that don't fall on sharp ideological lines as last year's health care bill did, but will still test the two parties' ability to work together. He is expected to tout deficit reduction, but the two sides don't agree on how to get there. Republicans largely favor spending cuts, Democrats a combination of cuts and tax increases.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is already saying any education reform bill, another issue the president will speak about, should include private school vouchers, anathema to many liberal Democrats.  Obama wants to increase spending on education and innovation, even as Republicans call for across-the-board cuts in government spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012501244.html?hpid=topnews

The Political Left laments Barack Obama's move to center

POLITICO: President Barack Obama plans to play up a bright future with congressional Republicans by channeling his 2008 campaign message of post-partisanship in his State of the Union address — but the liberal wing of his party isn’t quite seeing the light. As the president touts spending austerity, deficit reduction and extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, some Democrats worry Obama will pivot too hard away from the party’s core principles and concede too much to the new House GOP majority that campaigned on destroying his agenda.

A shift to the middle marks a key point in Obama’s presidency, just one year after a State of the Union in which he praised House Democrats above all else, hailing then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for moving health care reform, financial regulatory reform, a jobs bill and climate change legislation. And it reveals how much Obama’s political reality has changed now that the 2012 campaign is imminent. At last year’s address, Obama also faced uncertainty — albeit on a smaller scale — with Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory to take the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat imperiling health care reform. Then, rather than backing away, Obama doubled down on his progressive agenda.

Some Democrats now wonder what the president will say and whether he will be willing to marginalize the left of the party to shore up his position among independents as his reelection operation gears up in Chicago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48095.html#ixzz1C3dvIE3W

Mortgage Giants Leave Legal Bills for Taxpayers to pay

NY TIMES: Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud. The cost was a closely guarded secret until last week, when the companies and their regulator produced an accounting at the request of Congress.

Randy Neugebauer of Texas wants to cut taxpayer exposure to Fannie and Freddie.

The bulk of those expenditures — $132 million — went to defend Fannie Mae and its officials in various securities suits and government investigations into accounting irregularities that occurred years before the subprime lending crisis erupted. The legal payments show no sign of abating.

Documents indicate that taxpayers have paid $24.2 million to law firms defending three of Fannie’s former top executives: Franklin D. Raines, its former chief executive; Timothy Howard, its former chief financial officer; and Leanne Spencer, the former controller.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/24fees.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=fannie&st=cse

 

 

 

Monday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Editor’s Note:

There was no Sunday Edition because I was in Birmingham, meeting with and interviewing Congressman Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the Congressional Financial Services Committee.   A major subject:

“Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud.

“The cost was a closely guarded secret until last week, when the companies and their regulator produced an accounting at the request of Congress.”

Expect details later.

Buddy

Obama as a shape shifter

Sci-fi fans are familiar with “shape shifters” – beings that can change their beings to fit whatever circumstance they may face.  Just such a character was featured in the “Terminator” movies of Arnold Schwarzenegger

Where the President is concerned, conservative writer, Ed Laskey, provides a chilling prediction:“We are about to watch the extreme makeover of Barack Obama in real time”

It has already begun.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes: “31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove.” Says Rasmussen: “That’s the president’s best Approval Index rating since February 1, 2010, nearly a full year ago. Strong Disapproval among Republicans is down to 55%. Among all voters, Strong Disapproval of the president has been consistently lower since mid-December.”

A steady decline in the percentage of American voters who strongly disapprove of Obama seems to have begun shortly after the Republican sweep in November – indicating many such voters are concluding the political struggle for America has been won and is over and are going back to sleep.

How this may impact the activism generated by the “tea party” movement remains to be seen and needs early analysis.  Certainly the GOP has been moving rapidly to make good on its conservative campaign promises.

The GOP House has voted repeal of Obamacare, and GOP Senators are vowing a full scale effort to force a vote on the controversial issue in the upper chamber.  Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has been forced to fly commercial once more as Republican Speaker John Boehner now wields the gavel of power in the House.

However, the shooting in Tucson altered the political environment.  Incredibly, Democrats were successful into exploiting a memorial for the victims into a political rally – even using t-shirts emblazoned with a crass political slogan (“Together we Thrive”) left over from the 2008 Obama campaign.

Many Americans have been eagerly anticipating a defeat of Obama in the 2012 elections, but they fail to realize Obama is a “chameleon who can change the way people perceive him”.  He succeeded in doing precisely that through his Tucson speech.

Tomorrow, Obama gets a second shot.

The State of the Union address will provide Obama with an opportunity to proclaim his political visions in terms designed to lay a foundation for selling his plans for the nation’s future.

Obama is expected to proclaim plans for federal investments centered on efforts to spur job creation.  Think of such “investments” as being simply more federal spending.  Certainly the earlier massive “stimulus” scheme failed to solve the job problem. There is controversy regarding whether it had any impact at all. 

Serious controversy beyond jobs faces both sides.  Raising the national debt limit looms, and Republicans will be hard pressed to secure guarantees of meaningful spending cuts in exchange for their voting to raise the limit.

Illegal immigration will remain front and center for many voters, and not just in the border states.  The issue is emotional and Obama and Democrats are trapped in their refusal to effectively confront the issue.

Last year’s GOP victory resulted in massively changing local governments too. Republicans have taken control of state houses and governor’s mansioins, and that situation predicts controversies closer to home.  Entitlements for union members are on the table – states simply can no longer afford to honor many of the more extravagant provisions.

How this shift in the political environment impacts the national scene remains to be seen.  Obama may seems to be dashing to the political center, but such a maneuver may not bring him a real solution.  For example, Bush made a serious error in fumbling the illegal immigration issue, and, as a result, suffered serious erosion of his most critical base of support.  The 2006 election – a fiasco for Republicans – was the result.  If Obama shifts too far from the far left positions he took in his first two years, his base may desert him as Bush’s did in 2006.

But count on Obama and his handlers to shift anyway – reasoning very liberal voters have no other choice.  Of course many may sit out the campaign.  But Obama seems ready to gamble on that.  His changes in his White House staff provide a clue to the start of his political pirouette. One observer writes: “A clue to Obama's ability and willingness to adapt can be found in the words of his book Dreams from My Father.  There he mentioned only one book, Malcolm X's autobiography, and wrote that Malcolm X's "repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me."A man who can fake a Southern accent, the story of how his father came to America, and the story of his parents' being inspired by the Civil Rights march in Selma to conceive him has no problem morphing for political purposes.”

America gets a look at the 2012 model Obama tomorrow night.  Look closely and consider.

For better or for worse, it’s now “game on”.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

The ObamaCare debate continues

CHICAGO TRIBUNE:   Republicans swept to control of the U.S. House in November with a bold promise that resonated with voters: "We are here because we heard the American people in the last election," says Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "We said we'd do a straight up-or-down vote to repeal this health care law and that's what we're doing."

Last week, the House voted for repeal of the Democrat Healthcare bill – Obamacare -- with all 242 Republicans and three Democrats in favor. Now the spotlight shifts to the Senate. Or, it should shift to the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, says no. He won't allow a vote on the repeal measure. The bill wouldn't pass, Reid scoffs. Other Democrats brand the House vote as "symbolic" as if that were a synonym for "useless." It isn't. Symbols have power.

Reid may fear Democratic defectors, and he can't afford many with a 53-47 voting edge in the Senate and two dozen seats to defend in the 2012 election: Some red-state Dems might vote for repeal.The health care law is in trouble, in the courts and in Congress. Repeal is the first Republican strategy. But Republican lawmakers are also moving to cut its funding and peel away key parts of the law.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-senate-20110122,0,4301338.story

GOP: State of the Union provides Obana political outline

LA TIMES: Tuesday's State of the Union address will be the first test of whether President Obama's post-election shift to a more centrist course is more than symbolic, Republicans said Sunday.

"We're going to find out beginning next week … how much of this he really means," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on "Fox News Sunday." "It is kind of a trust-but-verify moment. Let's see if he's really willing to do it, and if he is, I think he'll find a lot of help among Republicans in Congress."

After his party was dealt an electoral blow in November, Obama embraced a compromise that extended the President George W. Bush-era tax cuts, retooled his West Wing to include more moderate voices — such as his new chief of staff, William Daley — and made new overtures to the business community.

His polls have rebounded on the eve of his second State of the Union address, passing the 50% threshold in a series of major surveys.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-state-union-20110124,0,4402525.story

Social issues top GOP state agendas as new majorities revisit gun laws, abortion rights

WASHINGTON TIMES: Newly minted Republican lawmakers who stormed state legislatures with vows of fixing the economy and controlling spending also are tackling social issues, such as gun laws and immigration, with minimal Democratic resistance.

"This is the Republican high-water mark in terms of state legislatures since before the New Deal, in both the number of Republicans and the number of chambers they've taken over," said John Fortier, a political specialist with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning Washington think tank.

"These are issues that are important to these new state majorities. They haven't had an opportunity to weigh in on them." Norm Ornstein, also of AEI, added that social issues are tempting subjects for conservative legislators because they're easier to tackle than economic and budget problems.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/23/social-issues-top-gop-state-agendas/

 

Saturday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Illegal immigration – an issue Republicans must handle with care

Republican campaign strategists – those focusing on planning for the presidential election, should be careful not to make major mistakes in dealing with Hispanic voters.

Hispanics are, after all, positioned to play pivotal roles in today’s politics.

Notable Republicans such as Jeb Bush, are hard at work trying to convince other Republicans to tone down their rhetoric and actions regarding opposition to illegal immigration.

The White House of George Bush, fumbled its own handling of the illegal immigration issue and that error played a major role in the GOP mid-term disaster in 2006.  It was probably fear of the growing Hispanic population that led the Bush Administration to join in supporting the infamous McCain-Kennedy immigration bill which many Americans considered a plan to grant amnesty for the estimated 14 million illegal immigrants already in this country.

In addition to Bush, that immigration bill had the enthusiastic support of the US Senate and a majority of what is called the “Mainstream Media”.  However, it did not have the support of the millions of ordinary Americans who had found their voice on the Internet.  Internet opposition to McCain-Kennedy reached such an intensity the bill was never called up for a vote.

This was a major victory for grass root America and the first sign of a new populist activism that would – in the recent mid terms – become known as the “tea party movement”.

A majority of Americans simply will not support, or even accept, proposals they view as granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Many see such a move as one likely to encourage more people to cross our borders illegally and sneak into the country.

In debate, liberal politicians charge Republicans are opposed to  immigration. That’s clearly a lie.  Nowhere in liberal rhetoric is there any factual delineation between immigration by those who follow the rules and those who sneak across the border, choosing to make themselves criminals the moment their feet hit US soil.

Republicans should consider some real and significant points:

A majority of American voters – especially those who awarded the GOP a huge mid-term victory – oppose illegal immigration and oppose it emotionally.

The Arizona immigration law has become the sine qua non of the immigration debate.  The real Arizona statistics should be heeded by Republicans tempted to move left on the issue.

70% of Arizona voters support the new immigration bill.  However just under 60% of Arizona’s population is Anglo (non-Hispanic whites).  Given that not all Anglo Arizonan’s support the law, a substantial number of Hispanic voter support the bill. Many Hispanic American citizens resent the illegals because they create a negative image of Latinos.

Hispanics voted Democrat in greater numbers in 2006 and 2008, but so did other groups.  That’s why Democrats won both elections.  This last election saw a significant drop in Hispanics who voted Democrat.  60% voted Democrat in 2010, down from a high of 69% in 2008. 

Republicans must take care in addressing the issue. Overreaching to attract Hispanic support, can alienate the GOP White base. 

Obama is making what is clearly a pandering move to enthuse his Hispanic vote through his court challenge of the Arizona law.  Meanwhile Other states are moving to adopt immigration laws similar to Arizona’s. GOP voters nationwide come down heavily on the side of confronting illegal immigration, and taking effective steps to secure the border in order to prevent or diminish the entry of more illegals.  Republican planners should keep that fact in mind.

Democrats have their own political problems. Despite their Hispanic numbers, they are doing increasingly worse among White Americans. 

It is significant to mention that not all illegal aliens are Latino. According to Border Patrol agents, larger and larger numbers of illegals are coming from the Middle East and Asia, and are paying up to $50,000 apiece to be smuggled in.  The price raises serious questions about motivations of such aliens, and about who is providing the funding.

Republicans are not opposed to legal immigration, but most are very opposed to illegal immigration and the huge costs these aliens are inflicting on local government.

The Los Angeles County Supervisor -- factoring in the cost of food stamps and welfare-style benefits through a state program known as CalWORKS. Combined with public safety costs and health care costs – estimates the “total cost for illegal immigrants to (LA) county taxpayers” was more than $1.6 billion in 2010.”

For a county facing huge financial disaster, such costs are unacceptable.  Other cities and counties face similar costs generated by illegals.

Make no mistake about it: Republicans should do all they can to craft campaign messages that attract Hispanic voters.  At the same time, they must take care to avoid alienating their base of support as happened I n 2006 when the Bush White House misplayed the issue.

In political strategy, the rules say, “work from strength toward weakness”.  This means the primary concentration should be on those voters who provide core support.  Outreach to other voters develops through priorities.

The Hispanic vote is not monolithic.  It should not be treated as such. 

Obama may win his challenge to the Arizona law in the courts.  But he will lose on that issue among the other 70% in Arizona and a like amount in other states.

At the moment, immigration is not the top issue, of course, but it is up near the top, and those who follow it are emotionally connected. 

It cannot be ignored and, like the deficit, must be effectively confronted in the near future.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

Tea party moves to recall Tucson Sheriff Dupnik group wants Dupnik out

WASINGTON TIMES: Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik became famous nationwide for remarks assigning blame for the deadly Tucson, Ariz., shooting to political "vitriol" and calling Arizona "a mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Dupnik now finds himself on a hot seat. A group opposed to illegal immigration has begun an effort to recall the sheriff in a special election. Meanwhile, a Pima County tea party group is planning on holding a "Dump Dupnik" rally next week outside his office.

Not that the sheriff should worry about turning in his badge just yet. Sheriff Dupnik has won election eight times, and he's a Democrat in a Democrat-majority county. While some constituents were appalled by his comments, others have applauded his forthright indictment of the state's political climate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/20/outspoken-tucson-sheriff-faces-recall-bid/

Keith Olbermann gives abrupt goodbye to MSNBC show

YAHOO NEWS: MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann returned from one last commercial break on "Countdown" to tell viewers it was his last broadcast, and read a James Thurber short story in a three-minute exit statement. Simultaneously, MSNBC e-mailed a statement that "MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract."

Neither MSNBC President Phil Griffin, Olbermann nor his manager responded to requests to explain an exit so abrupt that Olbermann's face was still being featured on an MSNBC promotional ad 30 minutes after he had said goodbye.

Olbermann was nearly fired in November, but instead was suspended two days without pay for violating an NBC News policy by donating to three political campaigns, including the congressional campaign of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. He returned and apologized to his fans, but not the network.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_olbermann

Newt Gingrich tells Georgia Republicans he’ll be a candidate in 2012

ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION: Former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich has touched base with several prominent Republicans in his former home state of Georgia, telling them that he intends to make a run for president in 2012 using Georgia as his base – and that he already has his eye on office space for a campaign headquarters.

The visits and conversations – some face-to-face, others on the phone — appear to be an attempt by Gingrich to revive his old campaign network and lock down as much support as possible in a state won by Republican Mike Huckabee in the 2008 presidential primary.

A spokeswoman for US Senator Johnny Isakson said Gingrich called senator earlier this month – adding that Gingrich was not definite about his plans in that conversation. Friday, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he had not talked to Gingrich yet, but that the former U.S. House speaker had asked for an appointment in the near future.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/21/a-newt-gingrich-presidential-campaign-out-of-buckhead/

 

 

Friday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Extreme views of Obama’s cabinet reveal his true colors

Polls are showing Obama’s efforts to change his image are working.   Looking at Scott Rasmussen’s daily polling – a very helpful study providing  day by day trends converted into graphic representation of current political attitudes – movement up for pro-Obama voters, and downward movement for those who oppose what he is doing.  

Before he gets farther down the road toward the 2012 re-election campaign, it’s necessary to address reality what an Obama government is really all about and where actually intends to go.

Look beyond what Obama’s teleprompter is telling him to say, and examine what the people running his show are supporting. 

Obama’s choice of those he wants to head up the federal education operation and the man he expects to craft and carry out his energy plans, leave no doubt about what Obama liberals are a;; about what they want to do to our country.

Listen to what these appointed officials see as their mission and what they expect to achieve.

Obama’s School Secretary, Arne Duncan shocked many parents by admitting, “In all seriousness, I think schools should be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year. This is not just more of the same. There would be a whole variety of after-school programs. Obviously academics would be at the heart of that. But you top it off with dancing, art, drama, music, yearbook, robotics, activities for older siblings and parents”

Imagine the brave new world this would create.  Duncan’s scheme amounts to an overt attempt to take over our future generations.  14 hour a day schools, operating seven days a week for an entire year, would virtually remove most parental influence and severely limit parental guidance.

It would amount to abdicating parental rights and obligations and handing them over to the tender care of a system of public education that most Americans see as badly flawed.  For one thing, Duncan’s plan would make the NEA teacher’s union – which already dominates the US Department Of Education that Duncan heads –the most influential factor in the rearing of American children.  The NEA is a very liberal, partisan organization – almost an organic arm of the Democrat National Committee – it hardly reflects the values a majority of our people share.  Only 20% of Americans share the liberal philosophy and outlook of liberals. That could be

what motivates Duncan to embrace such an extreme concept.  Given the current rejection of liberal policies, they may see taking control of children is necessary to rescue them.

Duncan is not alone in his extremist views.  Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants gasoline prices to rise to the same level as those in Europe (about $5 plus a gallon).  He conspires to use high gas prices as a lever to remold and transform American society.

Chu said in an early interview with the Wall Street Journal: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  Today’s gas prices are headed in that direction.

Gasoline prices of $5 or $6 a gallon, would severely threaten the lifestyles of rural America.  Chu shrugs at such notions, admitting he wants to force people to move into population centers, abandon their cars, and rely on public transportation.  (If there’s no subway entrance in your neighborhood, learn to walk and like it)

Other liberals join Chu in pushing for higher gasoline prices.  As with Chu, they want to force an end to our reliance on oil.  Needless to say, such schemes overlook reality – reality is not a concern of liberals.

Chu’s plot would not only severely penalize rural families, but also any who depend on automobiles for their livelihoods.  Not many truck drivers are ready for windmills on their cab roofs.  Products trucks bring us would also rise in price and the costs of groceries and other necessities would (per Obama) “skyrocket”.

Rising costs of heating would trouble Americans in the northern areas, while increased costs of air conditioning would be oppressive for southerners.

But none of that worries Chu.  Of course one thing does.  Another quote from Obama’s Energy Secretary:  “Coal is my worst nightmare.”

Neither Chu nor Duncan can expect the support of many Americans.  But they do have the support of Obama and he is gaining popularity among voters.

I think that deserves a “Nuff said”.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens

NY TIMES: Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign. But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?_r=2&src=busln

GOP healthcare agenda to limit abortions, probe Dem reforms

THE HILL: A day after House Republicans struck down the sweeping healthcare reform law, the GOP started laying the groundwork for a healthcare agenda that includes limits on abortion and investigations into the reform law’s implementation.
 
The House approved a resolution Thursday morning that instructs key committees to consider replacement pieces to the reform law. And the leaders of House panels charged with replacement previewed their plans during a Thursday afternoon press conference.

Democrats continued to criticize Republicans for moving ahead with repeal without having a plan to replace the law’s consumer protections, such as a ban on lifetime coverage limits and discounted drugs for seniors.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/139081-gop-healthcare-agenda-to-limit-abortions-probe-dem-reforms

Cantor suggests GOP knife could cut deep

THE HILL: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) suggested during a conversation on the House floor with his Democratic counterpoint that Republicans could cut spending to levels not seen since at least 2007.

The Hoyer-Cantor conversation occurred as conservative House Republicans released a plan that would trim spending by $2.5 trillion over 10 years. The colloquy began when Hoyer asked Cantor to explain H.R. 38, which is expected to come up next week and gives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) authority to set discretionary, non-security related spending at 2008 levels or lower.

Cantor says Republicans aim to cap the remainder of discretionary, non-security spending for fiscal year 2011 at 2008 levels.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/139075-cantor-hoyer-duel-on-next-weeks-budget-fight

 

Thursday/s Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Liberal media is increasingly frantic over the success of Fox News

The overwhelming success of Fox News can best be appreciated by the frantic and unreasoned assaults on it by promoters of far left politics such as Harold Meyerson  of the Washington Post.  He recently proclaimed: “Their mission, promoted by Fox News president and former Richard Nixon aide Roger Ailes, is to advance right-wing causes and Republicans”.

Meyerson’s claim, of course, is hypocritical to say the very least.  His publication has a record of decades of journalistic bigotry in slanting what it purport to be “news” to aid and support liberal Democrats and the causes of the nation’s left.  To suggest the Post, other daily newspapers – especially the New York Times – along with all three over-the-air television network news operations, honestly report factual stories, while Fox News does not, is totally absurd and marks its author as being either dumb, or someone with a political mission in mind. Or both.

What drives the left up the wall about Fox, is its stunning success.  Audience ratings show it has larger audiences than all of its cable competitors COMBINED.  People like and trust Fox News, and are voting with their TV remotes. In fact, when the mid-term elections were being covered, Fox News garnered a larger audience than any of the over-the-air networks.  A stunning performance, to say the least.

Thus liberal attacks on Fox are ridiculous.  They are also quite hypocritical.  In a case just last week, the mainstream media paid little attention to the arrest of James Eric Fuller for his threatening a tea party spokesman.  Fuller was among the shooting victims in the Tucson shooting.

During an ABC taping of a special program on the attack, according to Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan,” Fuller stood, turned and snapped a picture of Humphries, then he yelled at him and said, ‘You're dead,'" Ogan said.

Deputies arrested Fuller on charges of disorderly conduct and making a threat.

Only Fox gave the story significant coverage.  Fuller is a vocal liberal, his victim a tea party spokesman.  Mainstream outlets such as the Post, were far too busy conducting an embarrassingly ridiculous crusade against language.  The flavor of the day being omitting any word or phrase suggesting violence.

The liberal language crusade led to CNN offering one of the silliest examples as host John King looked into a camera and said: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the cross hairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language. We won’t always be perfect. So hold us accountable when we don’t meet your standards.”

No wonder CNN is not competitive.

The Post’s Dana Milbank, is another liberal effusive in criticizing language, specifically Republican language during the recent healthcare debate.  Chided  Milbank: “Republicans got through the first 80 minutes without a single misfire - until Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Va.) got his turn. He denounced the bill that Democrats "rammed through Congress last year" and demanded: "We must repeal the new health-care law that kills jobs."

Using a term such as “kill” (as in jobs) in the lofty world of Milbank, was a “misfire”.  Milbank demonstrates the typical overreach by Washington Post writers.  Post readers have become accustomed to such a slant and journalistic bigotry in  and by the Post.

Milbank continues his excessive assault saying: “Of course”, he observes, “it will take far more than one afternoon of restraint to purge the poison. And, at any rate, the occasional gunslinger metaphor isn't responsible for the poison. Some bills should be "killed" in committee, other bills should be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, and there's nothing wrong with killing time, beating a dead horse or looking for the silver bullet, and when a session of Congress adjourns for the last time, it still should be called sine die”.

Thus when real facts conflict with liberal themes and intrudes on liberal propaganda efforts of outlets such as the Post and the NY Times, hyperbole is used in a snide attempt at criticism.  Needless to say, what passed for news coverage  by these outlets during the recent Bush years, demonstrated how slanted mainstream media actually is.  The Times ran far more stories about the Iraqi prison than it did about other major stories such as D-day. CNN was caught having made a deal with Saddam Hussein in order to keep a bureau operating in Baghdad.  Reporting on CNN thus deleted news critical of the old Iraqi regime.  CNN also had to confess a planned documentary claiming US troops used poison gas in Vietnam was a lie. Speaking of lies by the media – CBS had its own in the person of Dan Rather.

 Of course, none of this is new for Americans who are honestly paying attention.  More and more, they are turning their backs on the liberal hacks.  That’s why daily newspapers are dying and liberal TV outlets face declining audiences.

At the end of the day, Americans should be grateful that through the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News, they have access to more factual news information and coverage.  Internet users have options allowing more interested Americans a means of digging out more facts about a particular story than a newspaper or TV news program can offer.

In the end, Meyers, Milbank and their associates are angriest that their work is being increasingly rejected.  Americans today have an honest choice in where they get their news.  That freedom has a great deal to do with the result of the recent mid terms, and the probable future of American politics.

With that freedom comes responsibility.  Americans should question what they are told.  They should check facts and decide for themselves.  Increasingly, they are doing just that and Fox News and talk radio are coming out on top – winning the news reporting competition.

That’s what really drives the liberals at such outlets as the Washington Post really mad and which leads them, the NY Times and CNN to embarrass themselves in trying to struggle back.  They can’t and they won’t.

That fact is really killing them.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

The GOP's Health-Care Offensive Has Just Begun

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described this week's House vote to repeal and replace ObamaCare as "partisan grandstanding." Other Democratic congressmen called it "a political scam," "unfortunate" and "fruitless." Liberal pundits described it as "useless" and "meaningless." All of which confirms that the GOP is on the right path. Republicans said during the election campaign that they would take this vote. Seasoned Democratic observers like pollster Pat Caddell believe that opposition to ObamaCare helped drive turnout and draw independents into the Republican column. The GOP would have deeply damaged its credibility if it failed to follow through on its pledge.

Moreover, the fight against (ObamaCare), of which this week's vote is but the opening round, once again focuses public attention on the law's flaws. Virtually every claim the Obama administration has made on its behalf is turning out to be untrue. (Recall "If you like your current [health-care] plan, you will be able to keep it.") Or it wasn't credible to start with, such as the claim by the Office of Management and Budget that the bill will cut the deficit. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll this week showed that 62% see it as increasing the deficit, 54% think it'll hurt the economy, and 46% think the law will cost jobs. When Republicans have winning arguments, they should keep pressing them.

The House vote also gives the GOP momentum to make ObamaCare a principal issue in the 2012 election. That can't make vulnerable House Democrats who barely survived last fall's campaign, or the 24 Democratic senators up in 2012 (many in red states), happy. Nor can it be to the advantage of the president, who will also be on the ballot.The longer this issue is around, the worse it's likely to be for Democrats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091922171175748.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

McConnell Vows That House-Passed Repeal Will Get Senate Vote

ROLL CALL: The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to repeal last year’s health care overhaul law, sending the measure to the Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is preparing to force a vote on the issue.

According to a GOP leadership aide, the Kentucky Republican is actively working on a plan to force a showdown on the Senate floor over President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement of his first two years in office. Such a confrontation is likely “in the near future,” the aide said.

McConnell offered his congratulations on the 245-189 vote to his House GOP colleagues, none of whom opposed the repeal measure.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly said he will not bring the repeal to the floor, and Obama has said he would veto it if both chambers passed it.

Nevertheless, Republicans in the Senate have begun agitating for a vote.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202594-1.html

House GOP conservatives set to unveil $2.5 trillion in deep spending cuts

THE HILL: House Republicans will force Democrats to go “on the record” about government spending in a symbolic vote next week timed to coincide with President Obama’s State of the Union address.

The House Rules Committee on Wednesday approved by a party-line vote of 8-4 a resolution calling on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to limit non-security discretionary spending in the second half of 2011 to 2008 levels “or less.” Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said the full House will vote on the resolution on Tuesday in a bid to force every member to stake out a position on spending cuts ahead of Obama’s speech to Congress.

Comittee Democrats chose to vote against the resolution Wednesday on largely procedural grounds. Rules Committee ranking member Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and witness House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) attacked the resolution as a political ploy lacking in substance since it has no dollar figures in it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/138975-republicans-to-hold-spending-vote

 

Wednesday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Voting Repeal of Obamacare is about demonstrating Republicans honor their pledges to voters

Finally, the battle is joined on repeal of Obamacare.

The massive government takeover of the nation’s healthcare has been a major bone of contention between the two parties, and had a great deal to do with the intensity of debate during the mid-term elections.

Democrats don’t get it and that disconnect was a major factor in the election outcome, a “shellacking” as Obama, himself, termed it. Democrats enter the 112th Congress with their backs to the wall politically, and with far more strident liberal leaning than at almost any time in the past.

Typical of the liberal disconnect are dismissive political comments such as “I didn’t see health care mentioned on my ballot” or strenuous Democrat efforts to paint the repeal as a waste of time and a distraction.

Powering the GOP sweep last November, was a general dissatisfaction with the tone of government and opposition to what many Americans see as irresponsible spending, along with a penchant for creating larger and larger government which often creates unnecessary encumbrances in daily life.

Obamacare was imposed on Americans, despite opposition by a majority.  During the mid term, many Congressional Republicans made repealing Obamacare a major issue. 

Now, fulfilling that pledge is an element GOP motivations what is expected to come later today.  Polls show increasing opposition to Obamacare since the election.  Despite Democrat hopes, the public has not lost its intensity. Bill Clinton  advised Democrats to go ahead and pass Obamacare, predicting once it was passed, the public would accept it and move on.

It didn’t work out that way.

Now Democrats are squirming, trying to sell an idea that details of the bill could be subjected to a “pick and choose” process to approve some features, while removing others.  Such a process wouldn’t work that smoothly, plus many elements central to Democrat demands, and necessary to making much of Obamacare workable.

Republicans are almost certain to vote Obamacare repeal in the House where the GOP holds a majority.  A few Democrats are expected to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans.  The real question comes in the Senate where Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has indicated he may not even allow a Senate vote on repeal. 

No wonder.  A Senate vote would force Democrat senators to go again go on record on the issue.  Senators can read the polls too.  Democrats already face major hurdles in the Senate in the 2012 elections.  Only ten Republican senators face re-election challenges, and already Democrat numbers are declining as incumbents Joe Lieberman and Conrad Burns announce they will not be candidates. 

Several Senate Democrats are expected to vote with the GOP should Reid allow a vote.  Exactly how many is a matter of speculation.  Of course, even if the Senate joins the house in repealing Obamacare, the measure faces a certain veto by the President. 

Democrats are fervently praying the grass root activism tagged the “Tea Party Movement” will dissipate and not provide the pro GOP momentum that led to November’s sweep in the House.  They still don’t understand the tea parties.  None-the-less, passing Obamacare repeal, even if it faces Senate rejection and an Obama veto, is crucial for the GOP’s maintaining tea party support.

That’s really a bottom line to what will happen today.  Regard, trust, and confidence of American voters in their government are in serious decline. Whether politicians will keep their promises once they are elected is a major question in the minds of voter.  Americans are usually optimistic, and many are hoping that this time things Republicans will show they keep their campaign promises.  Voting Obamacare repeal is central to demonstrating that fact.  Sending that message back home, is what today’s debate and vote are all about 

Harry Reid’s inability to understand the core elements of this debate, is clear.  Reid famously pronounced the war in Iraq was lost, and was proven dead wrong. He is now predicting a demise of the tea party movement.  Reid told NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Tea Party was born because of the economy. The Tea Party will disappear as soon as the economy gets better and the economy is getting better all the time. I don’t think the Tea Party had the vigor and support people thought it would.”

An observer responded: “Reid is apparently laboring under the delusion that millions of newly-awakened Tea Party Americans will simply blow their party horns and then go right back to sleep, fold their tents and go home.”

Reid is wrong.  The Internet has changed the political environment empowering  grass root America in a manner unseen in the past.  Voters “back home” realized they have a new power when they rose up and killed the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  Despite avid support of the Bush White House, the US Senate, and the  mainstream media, the amnesty bill was shouted down and withdrawn.

Subsequent elections have reflected that same power.  It will be a major factor in 2012.  That is potentially bad news for Democrats IF Republicans convince Americans they do mean what they say, and do what they promise.

Fulfilling that promise for a majority of the American people, will be demonstrated in today’s action by the House and its Republican majority.

The message is clear – few Democrats hear it.

Buddy

The Day’s Top Political News:

Democrats, Republicans jockey for position on health care

POLITICO: a bill to repeal the health care law drew the full force of both parties Tuesday as debate on the measure opened in the House, launching a two-year battle over President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

Ahead of the vote Wednesday, House Republican leaders pressed a new line of attack, accusing Democrats of thwarting the will of the people by not committing to give the bill an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Obama, congressional Democrats and the Democratic National Committee went all out in response, emphasizing the benefits that average Americans would lose if the law were repealed.

The Republican call for a Senate vote was meant to put Democrats on the defensive, but it also signaled the central challenge to the Republicans – how to keep their campaign to roll back the law alive when the only thing the House GOP can do unilaterally is already behind them. By Wednesday night, the repeal vote will be over – and they’ve still got two years to sustain their fight before the 2012 elections. Republicans are promising a steady diet of hearings, funding cuts and votes challenging the law, but little will have the same visceral appeal to the GOP base as a straight-up repeal vote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47799.html#ixzz1BUdUxRDc

Two Democrat Senators announce plans to retire

WASHINGTON TIMES: Republicans may have two prime pickup opportunities in the 2012 struggle for control of the Senate after North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad announced Tuesday he will not seek re-election and Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat-turned-independent who still caucuses with his old party, scheduled a Wednesday press conference in Stamford, Conn., on his future.Multiple press reports, citing those close to Mr. Lieberman, are saying he will also step down.

Mr. Lieberman, Al Gore running mate in the 2000 presidential election, "will announce tomorrow that he won't run for re-election in 2012," said an aide, who asked not to be identified by name, to the Reuters news agency. GOP officials said the decision by Mr. Conrad, a five-term incumbent who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, immediately transforms the North Dakota race from a tight battle into a high-percentage prospect for a GOP pickup in a increasingly red state.

Sen Patty Murray, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, praised Mr. Conrad and said her party was not conceding defeat in the race for his successor.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/18/conrad-steps-down-lieberman-likely-to-follow/

Rep Cantor Sounds Tough Note On Raising Debt Ceiling

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R, Va.) sounded a tough note on the nation's borrowing limit, saying Republicans wouldn't agree to raise the debt ceiling without assurances of cuts in government spending.

"We are simply not going to accept an increase in the debt limit without serious cuts and reforms," Cantor told reporters Tuesday. "If our votes are needed, which I assume the president thinks they are, then we will be acting to ensure the people that elected us that Washington's spending binge is over."

Other House Republican leaders have said that the debt limit will have to be raised, with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R, Wis.) saying recently that he didn't want the U.S. to default on its obligations. But Cantor declined to make similar assertions, saying that he was "not going to opine one way or the other" about whether Republicans would vote against raising the nation's borrowing limit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110118-714151.html

 

 

Tuesday's Web

Political Truth and Fact.Com
Neither fair nor balanced, but absolutely factual

Unions versus taxpayers – Campaign 2012 begins

A major clash is boiling across the country.  Unions are being subjected to scrutiny unseen for years.  Auto-making unions are targeting southern states and their foreign-owned plants, and clashes against organized labor are occurring in state governments  and in school systems everywhere. States are facing major financial shortfalls yet lack options for dealing with shortages such as those available to the federal government.

New Jersey’s Republican Governor, Chris Christie has been among the most visible players in the spreading controversy.

Christie, described by some as “the newest You Tube star for the limited government set” proposes a one-year salary freeze for his state’s teachers.  At a recent town hall meeting, a teacher, Rita Wilson, angrily protested right to the governor’s face.  Wilson insisted she should be paid $83,000 as reasonable compensation given her “education and experience”.  Christie’s response? “Well, you know what?  Then you don’t have to do it.”

 The Christie You Tube response went viral … as did the volume of voices urging Christie to seek the presidency. (An urging he steadfastly resists in almost Sherman-like terms) 

Seeing a Governor take on a union in such a manner, has helped encourage anti-union sentiment, language, and action as if a surface-tension had suddenly been breached.

Given increasingly critical budget problems, something has got to give financially for localities.  Salaries and benefits are among the more costly items in government budgets so they are getting a great deal of attention.

Christie’s proposals go beyond a salary freeze, also asking teachers and administrators to contribute 1.5% of their salaries to the cost of their medical coverage.  Thousands of New Jersey teachers have taken to the streets, and the New Jersey Education Association has spent almost $2 million on anti Christie campaigning.

Make no mistake about it, most Americans hold teachers in very high regard, recognizing their dedication and effort.  Not many other government employees.  Few Americans would deny being able to recall several teachers mentors who provided positive, life-changing impacts on their lives.

Teachers’ unions are quite another matter.

The National Education Association was a highly-regarded professional organization until the summer of 1968.  That year the NEA voted to go in a different direction and chose to become a labor union – among the largest and most powerful of all.  So powerful that a dozen years later, it was able to hand the Democrat presidential nomination to Jimmy Carter.  The rest is history.

Not only is the NEA a labor union, it’s also a very partisan one – acting almost as if it is an organic arm of the Democrat National Committee.

The most powerful state-level teacher union is the AEA in Alabama which has pretty much run things in Montgomery for decades.  Few politicians, but last November, Republicans captured both houses of the Alabama legislature for the first time in well over a century.

The first act by the newly installed Alabama GOP ended a practice through which the state collected AEA dues.  Now the union is on its own financially. Most significant is the significant signal that legislation sent that things have changed big time in Alabama politics.

Add the apparently severe decline in the fortunes of the AEA to aggressive union drives to snag Alabama auto workers and a major clash is emerging.

Alabama and New Jersey are not alone in having clashes with and about organized labor.  In New York state, municipalities throughout the state are struggling to negotiate wage freezes and force municipal workers to contribute to their own health care.

Given the GOP mid term sweep, union bosses are rethinking their strategies.  No wonder these bosses are reported on the verge of rolling out a major PR campaign aimed at improving the image of government workers and to fend off pay cuts, benefit rollbacks and other measures union bosses consider anti-union.

The scope of this effort is unusual for a non-election year. It signals a growing concern on the part of unions that they could lose significant clout in states where the political climate has shifted with Republicans in control of things.

Currently, only 12.3% of all of America’s wage and salary workers belong to a union.

As envisioned, the upcoming union PR push will go beyond television commercials and include boiler room phone banks, public rallies, and stepped-up lobbying efforts in targeted state legislatures.

Unions say a national “ideological effort to undermine organized labor” is underway and, thus they must confront it.  For their part, governors, mayors, and other elected officials, see it differently and call for renewing a “balance of power” between taxpayers and “people who are their employees” in order to bring some measure of relief to the taxpayers.

Expect much sound, much fury, and the opening battles in the 2012 campaign.

Buddy

 

The Day’s Top Political News:

 

Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry

FOX NEWS: A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.

In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn it's energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.

Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia's two Democrat Senators.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/17/obama-coal-crackdown-sends-message-industry/#ixzz1BOPsG7Tk

Year ahead looms as toughest yet for state budgets

WASHINGTON POST: If 2011 is hinting at a national recovery, there is little sign of it in statehouses across the country.

States that already have raided their reserve funds, relied on borrowing or accounting gimmicks, and imposed deep cuts on schools, parks and public transit systems no longer can protect key services in the face of another round of multibillion dollar deficits.

As governors roll out their budget proposals and legislatures convene this month, they do so amid a sputtering economic recovery and predictions of slow growth for years to come. State and local governments face lackluster revenue projections, worries from Wall Street over looming debt and the end of federal stimulus spending.

In the first weeks of 2011, Republican and Democratic governors alike have begun detailing across-the-board pain for education, health care, transportation, public safety and other programs. Some say the year of reckoning for state and local governments is at hand, with calls for structural changes that could radically shift expectations of what services government provides. Many believe the months ahead will be the most challenging in memory, with consequences for millions who depend on government funding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/16/AR2011011600397.html

Repeal vote is just Republicans' first step on health care

POLITICO : The highly anticipated vote Wednesday to repeal the health care reform bill will make headlines and count as a promise kept by House Republicans. But in the end, it’s really just for show.

The real work begins immediately afterward, with Republicans using every legislative and political tool at their disposal to wage a two-year campaign against the overhaul. And there won’t be anything subtle about this slow-drip strategy as Republicans aim to erode public confidence in the law and, they hope, make it so politically unpalatable that even some Democrats turn against it.

House committee chairmen will haul administration officials before their panels, pressing for answers to questions that they feel have been ignored. GOP leaders will call for votes on bills dismantling pieces of the law, such as the mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance. They will try to choke off funding at every turn, starting with the stop-gap funding measure that expires in March. Eventually, they will offer an alternative health care reform plan, one that could be pushed legislatively in 2012 and beyond — if they win the Senate and the White House, the holy grail of their long-term strategy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47714.html#ixzz1BOWKFsVl