Many years ago in a graduate math class I had a professor who attributed success to “main strength and awkwardness.” Today we have a governing class who appear to attribute success to blind faith and ignorance.
"We liberals are going to do what we've been itching to do for decades, and even though our policies will place greater burdens on the economy, retard economic growth, and cause the debt and deficits to further explode, we'll end up with a surplus anyway because we are so doggone virtuous with our liberal compassion that fate will have to reward us."
Change you can believe in.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
HOW A RECESSION BECOMES A DEPRESSION
Scott Johnson is depressed “because the president of the United States is a fool who will immiserate us, render us wards of the state and lose us our life and liberty .... “
Yes.
Yes.
SMART, REALLY SMART
From James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” (scroll down):
It looks that the Obama administration may be a little late “toning down its Wall Street bashing.”
There are other indications that last week's fury [at Wall Street and particularly AIG] may be calming. The Wall Street Journal reports that "over the weekend, the White House worked to tone down its Wall Street bashing and to win support from top bankers for the bailout plan announced Monday." It seems the administration "has concluded that it needs the private sector to play a central role in fixing the economy." Brilliant, guys. We could have told you that.
Problem: "Weeks of searing criticism by politicians and the public had left bankers leery of working with the government." Isn't Obama among those who spent years arguing that President Bush's arrogant my-way-or-the-highway attitude toward foreign policy harmed America by alienating friend and foe alike? Whatever you think of that insight, did it not occur to the new president that it might have some applicability in domestic politics?
It looks that the Obama administration may be a little late “toning down its Wall Street bashing.”
GREEN JEALOUSY
Environmentalists are turning green (with jealousy):
For huge numbers of people in India the imminent introduction of the world’s cheapest car – the Nano – is a boon to families all over the developing world that currently speed around town on overloaded two-wheelers, often with an infant perched precariously on someone’s lap.
Environmentalists, however, have decried the Nano and its low-cost imitators as an impending disaster. ... Last year, the Nobel Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, who is head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was quoted as saying he was “having nightmares” about the car.
How dare the poor have the effrontery to despoil their “pristine” environment!
IS BARNEY FRANK A HETEROPHOBE?
“After Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, admitted he feared a Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage because ‘that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current Court’, the associate justice called on all Americans to ‘have patience with Rep. Frank as he struggles with his heterophobia.’”
Scott Ott rocks.
Scott Ott rocks.
REVISITING THE WIZARD OF OZ
After President Obama’s appearance on 60 Minutes, one feels he is the "anti-amalgam" of Dorothy’s sidekicks in the Wizard of Oz - no heart, no brain, no courage.
But he does have a diploma.
The interview highlights are here; the interview is here.
But he does have a diploma.
The interview highlights are here; the interview is here.
SOMETIMES PRAYER DOESN’T WORK
The headline: Crash pilot who paused to pray is convicted.
As the pilot who forwarded this link commented, “If praying was listed at the bottom of the EP [emergency procedures] then this would have been avoided.
As the pilot who forwarded this link commented, “If praying was listed at the bottom of the EP [emergency procedures] then this would have been avoided.
I QUIT
This is what happens when the demonization of capitalism continues:
Read the whole letter; then ask yourself if the US is better off. Somehow I don’t think so.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
Read the whole letter; then ask yourself if the US is better off. Somehow I don’t think so.
IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
Ed Morrisey thinks President Obama may have inadvertently endorsed the flat tax last night.
I don’t. I think it’s much worse. Here’s Obama on reducing the charitable contribution deduction for “the rich.”
His explanation is slick, glib – and wrong. Absolutely, flatly wrong.
Here’s what actually happens. If Joe Sixpack decides to give that marginal dollar to charity, what happens is this: Joe gives 72 cents and directs Uncle Sam (through the charitable deduction) to give 28 cents to the charity Joe specifies. The same is true for Jane Upscale: she gives 61 cents of her marginal dollar to charity and directs Uncle Sam to give 39 cents.
Now under Obama’s proposal, Joe Sixpack’s charitable contribution remains the same. But now Jane Upscale gives 61 cents, directs Uncle Sam to give 28 cents, and pays Uncle Sam 11 cents for his trouble!
David Copperfield would be proud.
I don’t. I think it’s much worse. Here’s Obama on reducing the charitable contribution deduction for “the rich.”
People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent.
Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street. And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent.
In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize — when I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some — a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent — he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.
His explanation is slick, glib – and wrong. Absolutely, flatly wrong.
Here’s what actually happens. If Joe Sixpack decides to give that marginal dollar to charity, what happens is this: Joe gives 72 cents and directs Uncle Sam (through the charitable deduction) to give 28 cents to the charity Joe specifies. The same is true for Jane Upscale: she gives 61 cents of her marginal dollar to charity and directs Uncle Sam to give 39 cents.
Now under Obama’s proposal, Joe Sixpack’s charitable contribution remains the same. But now Jane Upscale gives 61 cents, directs Uncle Sam to give 28 cents, and pays Uncle Sam 11 cents for his trouble!
David Copperfield would be proud.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
ROVE ON O'REILLY
Karl Rove made an interesting point on the O'Reilly Factor. President Obama wants to hold down the cost of health care by increasing the Federal budget. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul (with a little skim off the top for Uncle Sam).
LIVEBLOGGING OBAMA
8:06 PM - So far he's used the word "investment" repeatedly. So taxes are now investments in "liberalese."
8:08 PM - He's got a list of people to call on. Can't recognize the individual reporters? Or is he calling on the friendlies?
8:10 PM - Can we trust you with the authority to take over other financial institutions? No answer.
8:11 PM - Why not ask the public to sacrifice? Answer: folks are sacrificing already; we have to make sure that the "rich" make sacrifices. We're going to "invest" in the future. Don't want to return to the "false prosperity" of the last several years.
[UPDATE} Jonah Goldberg comments on sacrifice.
8:12 PM - American people must continue to "volunteer." Huh?
8:16 PM - Will you veto the budget if there is no cap-and-trade? Answer: it in Congress's hands; I'm sure they'll come through. But no threat to veto.
8:21 PM - Obama: if we don't invest, we won't grow. We'll still have trillion dollar deficits. No recognition that the deficits are a result of the spending which is occurring on his immediate watch.
8:24 PM - Don't look behind the curtain ... those future deficits are just current estimates. Next year (when no one's looking) we'll give you a better number.
8:26 PM - Now it's Mexico. Should the military be sent to the border? Uh, well, uh ... the Mexican government is doing very well.
8:28 PM - Blame Bush. "Over the last several years ... veterans have been neglected."
8:30 PM - He's now trying the Defense Department "fraud, waste, and abuse" argument. As a former Defense contractor, I've been through this before -- it's nonsense.
8:31 PM - Asked about the deficit (again), the President turned the answer to health care. If I understand him (hah!) then the health care crisis is the cause of the deficit.
8:37 PM - Did I hear him right? The deficits will persist beyond our 10-year forecast? Is he seriously suggesting running the US into complete bankruptcy?
8:44 PM - Why is the President always talking about layoffs of "teachers and policemen?" What about people employed in the private sector? So far, I can't recall him ever saying word one about secretaries and plumbers.
8:55 PM - It's over.
9:55 PM - Two last thoughts. First, the arrogance. Approaching the podium, President Obama didn't walk; he strutted. Second, no matter what the question, the answer was "investment" in health care, energy, and education. The financial crisis is just an opportunity to invest.
8:08 PM - He's got a list of people to call on. Can't recognize the individual reporters? Or is he calling on the friendlies?
8:10 PM - Can we trust you with the authority to take over other financial institutions? No answer.
8:11 PM - Why not ask the public to sacrifice? Answer: folks are sacrificing already; we have to make sure that the "rich" make sacrifices. We're going to "invest" in the future. Don't want to return to the "false prosperity" of the last several years.
[UPDATE} Jonah Goldberg comments on sacrifice.
8:12 PM - American people must continue to "volunteer." Huh?
8:16 PM - Will you veto the budget if there is no cap-and-trade? Answer: it in Congress's hands; I'm sure they'll come through. But no threat to veto.
8:21 PM - Obama: if we don't invest, we won't grow. We'll still have trillion dollar deficits. No recognition that the deficits are a result of the spending which is occurring on his immediate watch.
8:24 PM - Don't look behind the curtain ... those future deficits are just current estimates. Next year (when no one's looking) we'll give you a better number.
8:26 PM - Now it's Mexico. Should the military be sent to the border? Uh, well, uh ... the Mexican government is doing very well.
8:28 PM - Blame Bush. "Over the last several years ... veterans have been neglected."
8:30 PM - He's now trying the Defense Department "fraud, waste, and abuse" argument. As a former Defense contractor, I've been through this before -- it's nonsense.
8:31 PM - Asked about the deficit (again), the President turned the answer to health care. If I understand him (hah!) then the health care crisis is the cause of the deficit.
8:37 PM - Did I hear him right? The deficits will persist beyond our 10-year forecast? Is he seriously suggesting running the US into complete bankruptcy?
8:44 PM - Why is the President always talking about layoffs of "teachers and policemen?" What about people employed in the private sector? So far, I can't recall him ever saying word one about secretaries and plumbers.
8:55 PM - It's over.
9:55 PM - Two last thoughts. First, the arrogance. Approaching the podium, President Obama didn't walk; he strutted. Second, no matter what the question, the answer was "investment" in health care, energy, and education. The financial crisis is just an opportunity to invest.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT
On Saturday, there were “Tea Party” tax protests held in Orlando FL, Raleigh NC, Ridgefield CT, and Cincinnati OH. Round-up here.
Today I opened my Sunday Washington Post, and what did I find?
On the front page, below the fold, an article on Obama’s “volunteer” campaign (Obama’s Campaign Army on Road Again).
On page A-8, an article on a rally outside the AIG offices in Washington (In the Capital, a Glut of Outrage).
On page A-10, a full-page article on the anti-AIG demonstration outside the home of AIG executive Douglas Poling in Fairfield CT (Obama Looks for Calm in a Firestorm).
On page A-16, an article on the anti-war (in Iraq) march from the National Mall to the Pentagon (Protestors Mark Milestone). The largest demonstration (against the war) was estimated at 2000-2500 people.
The Tea Parties linked to above were more widespread, and at least one was larger than those reported on by the Post. Did I see any coverage of the Tea Parties?
Nope. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
All the news that’s fit to print. Riiight.
[UPDATE] Oh, my God, an Instalanche! Thanks, Glenn, for the link.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming; please look around and come again.
MH
Today I opened my Sunday Washington Post, and what did I find?
On the front page, below the fold, an article on Obama’s “volunteer” campaign (Obama’s Campaign Army on Road Again).
On page A-8, an article on a rally outside the AIG offices in Washington (In the Capital, a Glut of Outrage).
On page A-10, a full-page article on the anti-AIG demonstration outside the home of AIG executive Douglas Poling in Fairfield CT (Obama Looks for Calm in a Firestorm).
On page A-16, an article on the anti-war (in Iraq) march from the National Mall to the Pentagon (Protestors Mark Milestone). The largest demonstration (against the war) was estimated at 2000-2500 people.
The Tea Parties linked to above were more widespread, and at least one was larger than those reported on by the Post. Did I see any coverage of the Tea Parties?
Nope. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
All the news that’s fit to print. Riiight.
[UPDATE] Oh, my God, an Instalanche! Thanks, Glenn, for the link.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming; please look around and come again.
MH
Saturday, March 21, 2009
NOT IN MY BACK YARD
Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels: “California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.”
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
It would supply power to much of southern California, but tortises and aesthetics are much more important. In other words, put thesolar panels in someone else’s yard.
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
It would supply power to much of southern California, but tortises and aesthetics are much more important. In other words, put thesolar panels in someone else’s yard.
RECESSION? OR DEPRESSION?
More thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:
Hanson never misses. Read it all.
Why are so many Americans so depressed about things these days? It is perhaps not just the economy.
I think the answer is clear: all the accustomed referents, the sources of security, of knowledge and reassurance appear to be vanishing.
Hanson never misses. Read it all.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS, II
I’m starting a new feature, SEND IN THE CLOWNS, because the caption is too good to waste with every new clown entering the Obama administration.
Welcome the latest clown: Jon Wellinghoff, a Nevada lawyer appointed as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Enter “cap and trade.” A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (less aggressive than Obama’s proposal) projects permit revenues of $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion from 2012 to 2019. Those “revenues” come from anyone who purchases energy (electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc.). Think "taxes."
OK, let’s consider two items here. First, transmission lines, especially large, high-voltage lines, aren’t cheap. Who pays? Think "taxes."
Second, a “smart grid” implies control, not coordination. Think "regulation" - and "bureacracy."
In other words, not in my back yard. Don’t put wind turbines in the ocean off Massachusetts where they can be seen ... put them in Kansas, or Nevada, or the Mojave desert. You know, one of those “sparsely populated places.” Think "your back yard, not mine" - and "arrogance."
Eminent domain, anyone? After all, who cares about Kansas farmland, or a cattle ranch in Texas. We’ll just give ‘em a few bucks and move them off properties that have been in families for generations. Think "your back yard, not mine."
Oh, please. “Promise?” But skip the control aspect (and the implied bureaucracy) and consider the single word: efficiency. I haven’t tried to look up the numbers, but conversion efficiencies are typically in the low 90% range. Thus a double conversion to battery storage and back to AC for transmission may be as high as 80-85%. In a distributed plant – automobiles scattered all over the grid – I’m guessing maybe 70-75% at best. Think "stupid."
If the Obama administration was serious about energy, there is an obvious answer. Put nuclear power plants where the power is consumed – in Manhattan, for example. Also Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit,.... The transmission infrastructure is already in place, transmission losses are minimized, no “big transmission lines” are needed, and – Kansas gets its farmland back.
Welcome the latest clown: Jon Wellinghoff, a Nevada lawyer appointed as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Climate change will remain "a big priority for [Wellinghoff]. From everything I've read, we're in big trouble and we need to do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint."
Enter “cap and trade.” A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (less aggressive than Obama’s proposal) projects permit revenues of $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion from 2012 to 2019. Those “revenues” come from anyone who purchases energy (electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc.). Think "taxes."
Wellinghoff envisions a more sophisticated electricity system with more big transmission lines and a "smart grid" with greater ability to coordinate fluctuations in wind and solar power with the demand from households, buildings and factories.
OK, let’s consider two items here. First, transmission lines, especially large, high-voltage lines, aren’t cheap. Who pays? Think "taxes."
Second, a “smart grid” implies control, not coordination. Think "regulation" - and "bureacracy."
He is also seeking greater authority over the siting of transmission lines that could carry renewable resources from sparsely populated places where they are plentiful to the cities and suburbs where those resources are most needed.
In other words, not in my back yard. Don’t put wind turbines in the ocean off Massachusetts where they can be seen ... put them in Kansas, or Nevada, or the Mojave desert. You know, one of those “sparsely populated places.” Think "your back yard, not mine" - and "arrogance."
A recent court ruling, which asserted states' rights to block transmission lines, could complicate that task. But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) favors an increase in FERC's authority ...
Eminent domain, anyone? After all, who cares about Kansas farmland, or a cattle ranch in Texas. We’ll just give ‘em a few bucks and move them off properties that have been in families for generations. Think "your back yard, not mine."
[Wellinghoff] is a proponent of using electric cars to send electricity back to the electrical grid as well as draw from it. Electric-car owners could sign up with a company that would amalgamate hundreds or thousands of car owners and, based on their average behavior, promise to either draw down or send back electricity to the grid.
Oh, please. “Promise?” But skip the control aspect (and the implied bureaucracy) and consider the single word: efficiency. I haven’t tried to look up the numbers, but conversion efficiencies are typically in the low 90% range. Thus a double conversion to battery storage and back to AC for transmission may be as high as 80-85%. In a distributed plant – automobiles scattered all over the grid – I’m guessing maybe 70-75% at best. Think "stupid."
If the Obama administration was serious about energy, there is an obvious answer. Put nuclear power plants where the power is consumed – in Manhattan, for example. Also Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit,.... The transmission infrastructure is already in place, transmission losses are minimized, no “big transmission lines” are needed, and – Kansas gets its farmland back.
WHERE ARE THE CLOWNS?
Cal Thomas on the congressional frenzy to “recover” the $165 million in retention bonuses paid out by AIG:
Well, we know where the clowns are – elected to Congress.
When politicians get on their high horses about something, it is almost certain that a considerable amount of horse manure will get spread around. ... For politicians to complain about misspent tax dollars is like one of those tabloid honeys lamenting the decline in family values. ... This is all populism, of course, since the amount of money Congress wastes every minute makes whatever earned or unearned money paid to AIG employees pale by comparison.
Well, we know where the clowns are – elected to Congress.
THE END OF AMERICA?
THE END OF AMERICA? [R]iddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.
Is this the end of America?
I hope Terence Corcoran is correct in his assessment. Before the Obama administration, I probably would have agreed that the economy is strong enough to pull through; this time I’m no longer sure.
Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.
Is this the end of America?
Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism. The U.S. economy has pulled out of self-destructive political spirals in the past, spurred on by its business class and corporate leaders, the profit-making and market-creating people who rose above the political turmoil to once again lift the world out of financial crisis.
I hope Terence Corcoran is correct in his assessment. Before the Obama administration, I probably would have agreed that the economy is strong enough to pull through; this time I’m no longer sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)