That's Trillion, With A 'T'

When I saw the headline, I almost did a double-take. But I realized that it should not have been surprising at all. After all, why wouldn't Obama's first economy-busting budget have a $1.8 trillion deficit?

For those of you out there that are Economics 101 deprived (or are incapable of reading a balance sheet), the projected deficit for the first year is 150% above all of George W. Bush's deficits (6 years worth) combined. Does anyone one on the Left care to explain how Obama's creation of a single year deficit of almost $2 trillion (with a follow on $1.3 trillion deficit next year) is somehow more fiscally responsible than George Bush's now minuscule-by-comparison deficits?

Anyone? Anyone? No?

I thought not.

Again it appears the Left still believes the money to finance this incomprehensibly huge debt will appear by magic. Certainly the Chinese won't buy into it. Neither will anyone else. And we already know the rich don't have enough to pay for it even if Obama took every penny they make (the funds collected would barely cover a fifth of the total deficit). That means he'll go after the businesses that employ us, and then he'll come after us. And still it won't be enough to pay for all of the Left's dystopian programs.

Atlas Shrugged indeed.

Thoughts On A Sunday

It was a busy day for the WP family, with a couple of different gatherings to celebrate Mother's Day. BeezleBub, Deb, and I made the trip to the WP In-Laws for the day. The trip served two purposes: to celebrate Mother's Day and to take BeezleBub's Jeep down so he and his grandfather could start the restoration work.

Needless to say, the trip has left little time to put the usual effort into the regular Thoughts On A Sunday post, so this one will be rather abbreviated.

*********

Are the chickens now coming home to roost? It appears so as many of Obama's wealthy supporters may now find themselves in the spotlight and end up being on the receiving end of Obama's tax plans.

Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obama during the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.

But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

A top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: "I'm appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it's the real world. I'm surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He's a real class warrior."

What surprising is that this guy is surprised. Most of those who voted against Obama last November knew exactly what he was and what he was going to do. That Obama has turned on his supporters does not surprise me in the least because he's got a history of doing just that.

My only question: How long before he turns on George Soros?

*********

Discouraging investors with his bullying is just so...so Nixonian. Does Obama really understand what's he's doing to the economy by such actions? If I had to guess, I'd say he doesn't have a clue. That's what's really scary.

*********

Via Instapundit: Are plummeting federal tax receipts an indication individuals and businesses are 'going Galt'? It certainly seems that way to me.

*********

Talk about a Catch-22.

It seems California will be going broke by July, yet the Feds won't let them make pay cuts in order to balance the state budget or they'll cut off stimulus funds.

*********

Via Ace comes this cautionary tale from Mrs. Peel about the insidiousness of evil, particularly when it comes in the guise of making decisions for people for their own good because they aren't seen as being capable of making decisions for themselves.

What's worse is that some of our more naïve citizens actually support the idea, but somehow believe it wouldn't apply to them. But their lack of common sense doesn't excuse making the rest of us slaves to an uncaring and incompetent government that does not have our best interests at heart.

*********

And that's the (abbreviated) news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where we're one day closer to summer, spring planting at the local farms has started, and where Monday has come all too soon.

How Dare They!

It's bad enough people are questioning the validity of global warming theories, now they're actually backing up their skepticism with hard evidence.

What will Al Gore do now?

Gun Grabbers Cooking The Books

I find the following report misleading in a lot of different ways: Hawaii Has Lowest Gun Death Rate.

Hawaii, with its strong gun laws and low rate of gun ownership, has the lowest gun death rate in the nation, the Washington D.C.-based gun control group Violence Policy Center said Wednesday.

The islands had a per capita gun death rate of 2.58 per 100,000 people in 2006, according to the center's analysis, based on the most recently available national data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The national average was 10.3, it said.

Only 9.7 percent of Hawaii households own guns, compared with 45.6 percent in Louisiana, which topped the nation in per capita gun deaths at 19.5, the center said.

Louisiana was followed by Alabama (57.2 percent household gun ownership, 16.9 deaths), Alaska (60.6 percent, 16.3), Mississippi (54.3, 16.3) and Nevada (31.5 percent, 16.2).

What I find interesting is there is no mention made of cities like Washington DC, which also has had, until recently, the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, very low 'legal' gun ownership, yet was has been vying for the title of Murder Capitol of the US.

Other countries with very restrictive gun laws, like the UK and Australia, have found that while gun deaths have gone down, violent death and crime rates have climbed dramatically. The Violence Policy Center appears to have ignored that little statistic. I guess death by other violent means is OK, just not deaths caused by the use of guns.

Here in New Hampshire we have a high gun ownership rate and relatively lax gun laws. We also have a very low murder rate and low violent crime rate. In fact, New Hampshire has an overall crime rate less than half that of Hawaii (25,466 crimes in New Hampshire versus 57,997 in Hawaii in 2006). How does the Violence Policy Center reconcile that? According to crime statistics compiled by New Hampshire law enforcement, there were 13 homicides in the state in 2006. With a state population of 1,314,895, that gives an overall homicide rate of 1.01 deaths per 100,000 people. According to crime statistics collected by Hawaii law enforcement officials, during that same year the number of homicides were 21. With a population of 1,285,498 at the time, that gives a homicide rate of 1.63 deaths per 100,000 people.

Looking at the Violence Policy Center's stats, they claim New Hampshire had a gun death rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people, or 82 gun deaths in 2006. But how many were due to crime, how many due to suicide, how many to accidental discharges, and how many due to hunting accidents, and so on? They don't break that down in any meaningful form.

I also have to ask this question: How many of the gun deaths being counted were the result of a law abiding citizen killing a violent miscreant intent on harming or killing the citizen? Again, they don't bother breaking down that number.

In effect, they're cooking the books, treating gun deaths as if they were a majority of all deaths not due to auto accidents, falls, other misadventures, or natural causes. You don't hear them decrying the number auto deaths, which kill far more people than guns. The national death rate was approximately 15.2 per 100,000 in 2006, with over 44,600 auto-related deaths. That's 50% above the national death rate for gun related deaths. So shouldn't automobiles and truck be as tightly regulated as they want guns to be?

Is this a valid comparison, looking at the two sets of statistics and drawing a conclusion? Of course not. It's no more a valid notion than that being drawn by the Violence Policy Center, that strict gun laws and low gun ownership rates automatically lead to lower gun death rates. They ignore a number of questions, including whether they have counted just legal gun ownership, or all gun ownership, legal or illegal. If they ignore illegal gun ownership, meaning they've ignored guns owned by criminals, then their argument is flawed. It certainly explains the high murder rate in Washington DC, where gun related deaths are high despite low legal gun ownership rates.

Yet Another Obama Plan Will Hurt The Poor

Here's a follow up to yesterday's post, showing yet another example of the Obama Administration's ignoring the Law of Unintended Consequences to the detriment of the very people Obama claims he wants to help.

In an effort to get 'clunkers' off the road, the proposed the Cash For Clunkers plan is supposed to offer between $3500 and $4500 for people's old cars. This will be done in an effort to induce people to buy new, fuel efficient cars. The only problem is that this program will end up hurting the poor.

The supply of affordable used cars will disappear as the program lays out hundreds of millions of dollars to get them off the road. This unintended consequence will show itself in two ways: Used cars that would have sold for $1000 or $2000 will now be 'worth' $3500 or more and will sell for that much on the open market and; What used cars that are out there will be sold to the government and crushed, depleting the total supply of cheap used cars. The supply of cars for the poorer citizens will have disappeared, leaving them without affordable transportation. How is this supposed to help them?

I can imagine this response from the Socialist-In-Chief:

“At least while you're walking to and from your low paying job you'll have nice fresh air to breathe!”

Yeah. Right.

Economic Ignorance And Thuggery Rule In Washington

Rob Sama points us to this disturbing event, where the true colors of one of Obama's appointees shine through.

This (as yet unproven) yarn goes exactly like this:

Confronting the head of a non-TARP fund holding Chrysler debt and unwilling to release it for any sum less than that to which it was legally entitled without compelling cause, this country’s “Car Czar” berated the manager of said fund with an outburst of prose substantially resembling this:

“Who the fuck do you think you’re dealing with? We’ll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with.”

Faced with these sorts of threats, in this environment, with valued employees in the crosshairs and AIG a fresh, open wound upon the market, the fund folded.

I wish I could say this surprised me, but seeing the attitude of others in or involved with the Obama Administration, it does not. It shows the willful ignorance of members of the government when it comes to economics and finance, and such ignorance can do incalculable harm to the American economy. Unfortunately I get the impression many of these same people could not care any less about the economy as long as they control things. As Rob stated in his post “ It is truly straight out of Atlas Shrugged.”

I'm afraid he's right.

Another example of the Obama Administration's dalliance with the Law of Unintended Consequences is the President's focus on punishing USA companies doing business overseas by eliminating the many of the tax breaks given to them due to the double whammy of having to pay taxes to both the foreign country and the US. Somehow he believes these tax breaks have allowed these companies to outsource jobs overseas at the expense of American workers, therefore they must go.

Never mind the US already has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world (only Japan's are higher and their economy hasn't been performing all that well since the taxes hit those heights). Somehow he's come to believe that by hitting US companies in their profits that somehow it will help keep jobs in the US.

The problem? He's so wrong, so ignorant of economic cause and effect, I'm not sure where to begin.

His plan would limit the tax deferral on income earned abroad by tightening the rules, limiting allowable deductions and restricting eligibility for foreign-tax credits. This "solution" is antigrowth, job-destroying, protectionist and unlikely to raise the tax revenue Mr. Obama predicts.

Congress long ago created the corporate tax deferral to compensate for this competitive disadvantage. Under deferral, a company doesn't have to pay the U.S. corporate rate until it repatriates its earnings. It can retain them overseas or reinvest them abroad with no penalty. But if it brings them home or pays them as dividends, the tax bill comes due.

Few major U.S. companies pay 35% of their profits in taxes because of the foreign tax-deferral and other deductions, credits and loopholes. But that's precisely why Mr. Obama should want to take the better path to corporate tax reform by reducing the rate and removing loopholes. America now has the worst of both worlds -- a high statutory rate and a tax code so riddled with complexity that it is both expensive to administer and inefficient at collecting revenue. And yet Mr. Obama's proposal to limit deferral only layers on the complexity.

Some of Mr. Obama's advisers understand all this, but then their real goal isn't tax reform or U.S. competitiveness. It's a revenue grab, one made easier by the fact that overseas tax "avoidance" is easily demagogued. To that political end, Mr. Obama conflates tax deferral with the offshoring of jobs -- hence the sly reference to Bangalore, India. With trillions of dollars of new spending, the White House and Treasury are desperate for new tax sources to pay for it all.

Of course they could just decide to forget the deficit laden $3.7 trillion budget proposal and create a new one without all that pork that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers. But we know that isn't going to happen. Therefore the Law of Unintended Consequences takes over.

But even as a revenue raiser, this is likely to fail. Fewer companies will keep their headquarters in the U.S., especially small or mid-sized firms that can slip away without becoming a political target. Those companies that can't flee will sooner or later demand relief from Congress, which will be happy to create even more loopholes.

If Mr. Obama's proposal has a silver lining, it is that he has embraced the principle that tax rates matter to investment decisions. If his new and short-sighted proposal becomes law, he and all Americans will discover just how much.

Those wishing to make investments will decide to invest elsewhere, which will have a negative effect on the economy. Companies wishing to maximize their profits and minimize their tax burdens will move out of the US, taking their money and their jobs with them. Companies wishing to do business in the US will rethink their decision to do so, not wanting to be burdened with such onerous taxes which will reduce any profit they might realize. In effect, Obama's move will stifle job growth, investment, trade, all while reducing the tax revenues collected. In other words, his effort to collect ever penny 'owed' will have the opposite effect, and he'll cripple the economy at the same time. But don't expect that to stop him from going forward with his ill thought out plan. He'll just find someone else's money to take.

Yours.

When that happens, it will put even more downward pressure on the economy because consumers won't have the money to spend because the government has taken it, which in turn will cause even less revenue to be collected, which will spur even more tax hikes...well, you get the picture.

It is indeed a nightmare right out of Atlas Shrugged.

Dueling Banjos...With A Twist

This was just too good not to post.


Dueling Banjos Played With Hands Only - Watch more Funny Videos

Notable Quotes

Two notable quotes that apply to the situation our nation faces today:

“I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor – 1816

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ” - Ronald Reagan

Both our financial system and our freedoms are under attack, all in the name of “fairness” and “equality” and “sharing the wealth”, by a President who seems to think the Constitution is something that can be ignored when it is convenient to do so, coddles our enemies, abandons our allies, and diddles with our economic system without understanding how it works, and taking control of some banks because they have been deemed 'too big to fail'.

Huge Natural Gas Deposits Found In US

What will the effect of up to 2200 trillion cubic feet of new domestic natural gas supplies have on the environuts? I expect them to go out of their minds. After all we're supposed to be developing wind and solar electrical generating capability, not wasting our time and (private) monies finding new domestic sources of a clean burning hydrocarbon fuel.

A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation's energy landscape. After an era of declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas.

Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current U.S. natural-gas demand.

We already have the infrastructure to distribute the new supplies of gas, whether for heating, cooking, car/truck fuel, or electrical generation. And none of it will come from foreign sources.

(H/T American Thinker)

Why Do Democrats Still Fear Sarah Palin?

It is obvious to anyone watching from the Lower 48 that the Democrats must fear Alaska Governor Sarah Palin more than any other Republican in the country. Since her campaign as John McCain's running mate last year, numerous ethics complaints have been filed against her in an effort to destroy her reputation and to bankrupt her family with the legal costs of defending herself.

Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, who tangled with Palin when both served on the state Oil and Gas Commission before she became governor, said Palin may be more susceptible to attacks on her ethics from opponents because she “raised the ethics issue years before she came into office and made a major point of working to change the state ethics laws and regulation.”

“Some of the complaints over the last several months have been frivolous,” he said, “but others have been brought about by the high level of interest in ethics issues around Palin.”

"Over the past months it became increasingly clear that supporters of Gov. Palin needed to help defend against the onslaught of frivolous attacks against her,” said Trustee Kristan Cole, a Wasilla native and Palin friend, in a statement. “These baseless accusations are designed to inhibit her ability to focus on the issues Alaskans truly care about and force massive personal debt on her and her family.”

To avoid additional accusations of impropriety, the fund set an unusually low, self-imposed cap of $150 per donation. It also volunteered to disclose the names and dollar amounts of each donor, leading Cole to call it “one of the most restrictive and transparent legal funds in history.”

You know it's bad when someone needs to start a legal defense fund in order to deal with the endless number of baseless complaints filed against Governor Palin. But what's worse is that now the legal defense fund is under attack by another complainant.

An Eagle River resident who had recently joined a federal lawsuit against Palin for failing to issue a proclamation commemorating the Juneteenth emancipation holiday in 2007, complained that Palin is misusing her office and receiving improper gifts by setting up the fund, accusing the governor of intending to raise much more than she needs to pay her legal debts.

So a legal defense fund set up with some of the tightest controls and limitations is seen as nothing more than a way to raise cash for personal use? If anyone has doubts about the intent of her opponents to ensure character assassination and bankruptcy, I think this last attempt will remove all doubt. The Dems want to make sure she won't be able to defend herself against their smear campaign and force her out of public life through extortion, intimidation, and frivolous legal actions rather than by the ballot box. Put another way, they're like the Mob of old.

From reading the comments to this article, it appears many of those on the Left are far too willing to believe the allegations, even the most outrageous and frivolous ones.

One commenter, using the name loretta, showed her ignorance by asking this question:

[I]f one is innocent, truly innocent of charges, would it cost this much to prove it?

Honest question.

All I am saying is that a truly innocent person would not have to lay out this kind of cash to prove it. It doesn't make a bit of sense.

This person has obviously never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit or other legal procedure. Defending oneself, whether guilty or innocent, can cost a fortune. If one is constantly accused of things they haven't done and such accusations require a response, as they do in Sarah Palin's case, the legal costs can be staggering. The comment assumes an innocent person wouldn't need to spend a dime to defend themselves. That's a great way for an innocent person to be found liable in a civil case, or guilty in a criminal case.

Many of the comments offered by self-identified liberals were rehashes of long discredited claims about the governor and her family. One kept demanding a DNA test to prove that Bristol's child was not fathered by Jonathan Levi, but by someone in the Palin family (they didn't come right out and accuse Todd Palin of incest, but that's what they were implying). How friggin' low can the Dems go?

One commenter made the mistake of claiming Governor Palin is a moron because she said she can see Russia from her house. At least someone else set them straight, informing the ignorant jerk that it was Tina Fey that said that in an SNL skit and not Sarah Palin.

What is it about Governor Palin that scares the Dems so much they feel the must use every means, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, to destroy her reputation and impoverish her family? Perhaps they should put their efforts towards cleansing their own party before turning their gaze to the GOP.

Thoughts On A Sunday

The local farm stand opened this weekend, meaning BeezleBub was busy all week at the farm, getting things squared away for the opening.

On Monday he'll be back in school, his spring vacation over for now.

While he loves working at the farm, I think hell be glad being back at school if for no other reason than he won't get as tired as when he puts in a day at the farm.

*********

Another sign of the upcoming summer: our clothesline is back up and in use. Deb ordered one last summer (it's one of those umbrella frame types) and BeezleBub put it up. We got about two and a half months use out of it (it went up in July) and decreased the use of the gas clothes drier and the propane to run it considerably. In the time we had it up last year we used 40 gallons less propane. Since it's up almost 2 months earlier this year I expect we'll save even more propane.

We'll still use the drier, but usually for drying towels or on rainy days.

*********

Rachel Lucas experiences questions about her Texas drivers license while trying to buy hard cider in England. Somehow the clerk didn't think she was over 18. Rachel is 37.

I was standing three feet away from her with no makeup under MOST unflattering lighting. I will not lie to you. No sane person would ever in a million years guess I was a day younger than 32 at that moment, and that may be generous.

She also gets asked constantly about how she's enjoying the weather in England.

*********

In an earlier post I mentioned the White House would start collecting 'protection' money from businesses if Obama kept doing things “The Chicago Way.” It turns out I forgot this gem which basically explains how TARP is being used to skim funds from and take control of the nation's banks.

I'd say that qualifies, wouldn't you?

*********

According to the Boston Globe, Senator Arlen Specter (D..er..R...umm..D - PA) has shown he has shown little courage.

Arlen Specter would never have made it into "Profiles In Courage." Unlike the senators described in John F. Kennedy's book - men who remained true to their principles, even when it meant paying a steep political price - Specter has never been celebrated for his backbone.

Forty-odd years ago, Specter abandoned the Democrats in order to win election to Congress as a Republican; five days ago, he abandoned the Republicans in order to win reelection as a Democrat. As he announced his defection, he all but admitted that he was acting out of naked expediency.

The surprise? That it's the liberal Boston Globe slamming Specter.

*********

From the same article, the tales of two women who stood up for their beliefs despite the probably fallout – Mary Ann Glendon and Carrie Prejean.

Carrie Prejean and Mary Ann Glendon could hardly seem more dissimilar. Prejean is a 21-year-old California beauty queen and model; Glendon is a Harvard law professor and a former US ambassador to the Vatican. What they have in common is a greater respect for honesty than for political correctness, and for the obligations of moral witness than for their own personal prestige.

Glendon made news last week when she refused to accept the University of Notre Dame's illustrious Laetare Medal, the most distinguished honor in American Catholic life. The medal was to have been presented on May 17, when President Barack Obama will receive an honorary degree and deliver the commencement address.

In a letter to Notre Dame's president, Glendon expressed dismay that the university would bestow a high honor on someone so hostile to such a fundamental Catholic principle, in flat disregard of church guidelines. Worse, it was using her appearance to deflect criticism, suggesting in its "talking points" that Obama's address to the graduates would be balanced by Glendon's brief remarks. Unwilling to let her presence be exploited in this way, Glendon renounced the medal.

Unlike Glendon, who had weeks to reflect before making her decision, Prejean had only seconds. In the final round of the recent Miss USA Pageant, Prejean was asked by one of the judges - the gay gossip blogger who calls himself Perez Hilton - whether she thought every state should legalize same-sex marriage.

She gave the honest answer. "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other," Miss California replied, but "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that's how I was raised."

Both stuck to their guns and did not allow political correctness temper their beliefs.

Again, the surprise that it's the Boston Globe reporting on this. Anyone knowing the Globe would think they would have been dragged through the proverbial mud because their beliefs contradict the leftist dogma.

There may be a glimmer of hope for the ailing newspaper.

*********

Raven takes a look back at the now departed winter of 2008/2009. Other than the nasty ice storm that started out the winter, it was not nearly as bad as the previous one.

*********

George Will details California's economic and financial crisis and how it will probably get worse.

For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California's business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state's. In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is.

If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states.

A lot of the blame must go to California's Assembly, which never saw a spending or tax bill it didn't like. Too often they chose to ignore the consequences, or worse, never even considered them before moving forward with expanded social programs. They've found the truth of the Thatcher Axiom - Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

That's where California finds itself now. But there may be a silver lining to this fiscal cloud...but only from those states willing to learn the lesson.

California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy.

California shows how not to do things, and that may be as important as anything else we may learn.

*********

Will President Obama end up making Jimmy Carter look like a bad-ass?

*********

Is the hysteria about H1N1 influenza a greater danger than the flu itself?

I've heard a radio host dub it the Overblown Flu. That may be closer to the truth than many realize.

*********

Skip Murphy explains the differences between internal and external governors of behavior, with the help of Dr. Walter Williams.

As Skip explains:

Dr. Williams is right - in the headlong rush to allow almost everything under the rubric of "rights", we have allowed society to "ungovern" itself. While Liberals whine about their rights; they often have willfully neglected to retain the complementary side of rights - that of responsibility. While rights are God given, the price of those rights and of freedom is self- responsibility. Without the ability and discipline, they willfully will allow their rights to be subsumed by the State in an ever increasing snare of external laws by Government instead of relying on the inward sense of "maybe I just shouldn't do that".

The Left has abandoned the internal governors that have been in place for generations, replacing them with 'rights'. And then they end up having to replace those rights with laws (external governors) because the internal governors no longer exist and behavior becomes unacceptable. None of it would be necessary if internal governors (morality and rules of behavior) were still being taught to children by their parents.

*********

To quote BlackFive: “No words.”

*********

Now Muslims are stoning Dutch girls in the Netherlands. At the moment the clash of cultures is being won by Muslim extremists because they're willing to impose their culture upon others and ignore the laws of the countries to which they've immigrated.

This can be solved by using 12-gauge shotguns loaded with rock salt on these miscreants. If they aren't going to abide by the law, it's time for them to leave. The time for being polite is over.

*********

It appears I'm not the only one that misses Condi Rice, particularly in light of her smackdown of some uppity know-it-all 'progressive' Stanford University students.

(H/T Pirate's Cove)

*********

R.S. McCain has declared this week National Offend A Feminist Week.

*********

A great new find for the blogroll: Serr8d's Cutting Edge.

Found through a semi-convoluted route starting at R.S. McCain's. Check out this post.

*********

And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where summer preparations continue, boats have been going back into the water, and where summer can't get here too soon.

Voting With Their Feet - Ohio Edition

If we needed any more evidence that high taxes can drive businesses and residents out of a state, there's the example of Ohio. Like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, ever rising taxes, coupled with less effective services, failing schools, and a rising crime rate are helping fuel an outmigration from the Buckeye State.

Ohioans have been leaving the state’s large cities for four reasons, only one of which — the natural human desire for open space — is arguably not their fault. The causes the cities have failed to deal with, and which have been within their control, are high crime, lousy schools, and high taxes. For decades, their governments have been asking, “Where else can they go?” Hundreds of thousands have answered with their feet.

While some may claim there are plenty of other factors prompting the flight from Ohio, it still comes down government pulling too much money out of the economy and giving little in return, other than demands for even more money.

Some states have realized having tax rates beyond a 'reasonable' level is the kiss of death to its economic health and have worked hard to live within their means. Others have stumbled now and then and seen the effects of high taxes and were able to pull themselves back from the brink. Others have not. And yet others will fall into the vicious cycle of raising taxes, falling revenues and contracting economy, raising taxes to make up for the falling revenues, and so on ad nauseum, much like California.

'Persuasion' White House Style

As time goes on, evidence of what Glenn Reynolds has labeled White House thuggery has become public, with one incident showing how the Obama Administration has turned the White House Press Corps into a bludgeon used to intimidate opponents. Says attorney Tom Lauria:

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

It sounds like Obama is taking a page from the book of another well known Chicago power broker – Al Capone. I wonder if it will come to the point of collecting “protection” money from businesses? Oh, wait, that's already happening! All one needs to do is look at the proposed budget to see how the Obama Administration is going to coerce funds from businesses and taxpayers.

To paraphrase the aforementioned Glenn Reynolds, “They said if I voted for John McCain, the White House would turn to using intimidation against opponents, and they were right!”

If They Ask Run Away!

Is it any wonder Andy McCarthy wanted nothing to do with the President's Task Force on Detention Policy? Under the circumstances, neither would I.

[I]n light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers--like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy--may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government...

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

It seems hypocritical of the government to ask lawyers to do exactly the same thing others have done for the previous administration, something for which the present administration now wants to prosecute them.

Health Care Won't Be Free And It Won't Be Care

If anyone requires more proof that 'universal' health care as defined by Obama and the Democrats in Congress isn't all it's cracked up to be, here are a few examples from Alexandr Solzhenitzyn (by way of Assistant Village Idiot) and Megan McArdle.

First, from Solzhenitzyn's The Cancer Ward comes this exchange:

"But it's our greatest achievement, the fact that it's a free service."

"Is this in fact such a great achievement? What does 'free' mean? The doctors don't work for nothing, you know. It only means they get paid out of the national budget and the budget is supported by patients. It isn't free treatment, it's depersonalized treatment. If the patient kept the money that pays for his treatments, he would have turned the ten roubles he has to spend at the doctor's over and over in his hands. He could go to the doctor five times over if he really needed to."

"But he wouldn't be able to afford it?"

"He would say, 'To hell with the new drapes and spare pair of shoes. What's the use of them if I'm not healthy?' Is it any better as things are now? You would be ready to pay goodness knows how much for a decent reception at the doctor's but there's no one to go to get it. They all have their schedules and their quotas, and so it's 'Next patient, please.' As for the clinics that do charge fees, the turnover's even faster than the others. Why do people go there? Because they want a chit or certificate or sick leave or an invalid's pension card. The doctor's job is to catch the malingerers; patients and doctors are like enemies. Do you call that medicine?

This illustrated the state of the Soviet medical system back in the mid-1950's. It also parallels some of the experiences of patients being treated under the UK and Canadian health care system today. Is this something to which we want to subject patients in the US? It appears the Democrats have no problem doing so.

Next, Megan McCardle writes about one of the effects of socialized medicine already being felt here in the US – the dearth of primary care physicians.

A lot of liberal blogs, and a few conservative ones, are discussing this article from the New York Times, which points out that if you look at actual economic resources, instead of prices, increasing health care utilitization isn't going to be so easy, because there's not a lot of spare capacity in the system.

The core problem is that we don't actually have a ton more doctors and nurses. In 2008, 42,000 people applied to medical school, and 18,000 enrolled. Presumably some who were admitted decided not to go, and some who weren't shouldn't be doctors. There don't seem to be, say, 10 qualified people for every slot. And nursing schools aren't swamped by more qualified applicants they can handle, yet there's a nursing shortage.

Another problem is that a teaching hospital is a hard thing to construct--given how much training doctors need, we won't do that overnight. Teaching hospitals are very expensive, and receive heavy government subsidies. Obviously, we could increase the number of doctors by some amount, but it wouldn't take care of the supply problem.

It's more reasonable to note that reimbursement structures are creating an undersupply of primary care physicians, compared to the number of specialists. We reimburse for procedures, not wellness, so surgeons are well paid and GPs aren't. This has led to the bizarre fact that Medicare chronically underreimburses (and thus insures an undersupply of) geriatricians, which should be the one doctor a program like Medicare produces a lot of.

So the present government-run system already gives us a preview of what medical professionals will have to put with, and a universal system like that will help generate a shortage of needed doctors and nurses, just as it has in Canada and the UK. Again, is this something we really want to do here in the US?

The question that must be asked of the Obama Administration and Congress: “Why do you insist the only way to provide health care to everyone is to destroy the health care system, as imperfect as it is, and replace it with a system that will make sure everyone receives equally poor treatment?”

Unfortunately we already know the answer.

It's Not About Facts, It's About Feelings

How many times hove you entered into a debate with someone with a different viewpoint from yours only to realize they really didn't have a valid argument to put forth because their opinion was based solely upon something they were spoon-fed and not upon their own experience or research? It's happened far too often to me to count. One more than one occasion my opponent's argument was based entirely upon emotion and not upon fact or even anecdotal evidence. How is it possible to enter intelligent debate with anyone about anything under such circumstances?

The answer: You can't.

Skip over at GraniteGrok illustrates just such a scenario, relating the experiences of a retired career military officer invited by a professor at California State University in Chico to discuss his experiences with culture in the military community. The phenomenon I mentioned above became quite apparent to this retired officer in a very short time.

A few years ago I was asked by the instructor of a philosophy class, then titled “Roots of War,” to discuss with his students the culture of the U.S. military community. After identifying myself as a former career military officer, I discussed my impression of our military’s culture. When I was done, a young woman who had been glowering at me and holding her arms tightly across her chest raised her hand. When called upon she vehemently said, “I don’t agree with you. I don’t think it is anything like that. You have just been brainwashed by the military.”

“OK,” I said, “what do you think our military’s culture is like?”

“Well, certainly nothing like that,” she sputtered. I could see some heads in the class nodding in agreement.

I asked, “Could you share with us your experience in or around the military?”

“I haven’t had anything to do with the military,” she indignantly replied.

“Have you extensively studied the U.S. military or worked with current or former members of the military?”

“No,” she angrily said.

“So where have you gotten your impression of the military’s culture?” I tried to ask softly.

“I am entitled to my opinion, and I think you are a Nazi!” was her voracious reply. The class was clearly enjoying her attack on me at this point and the philosophy professor sat smugly satisfied.

I decided to end this ridiculous exchange: “So let us review. You have no personal experience or knowledge of the military. You have not studied the military. You cannot explain why you disagree with me. And you think you are entitled to your opinion. Well, I agree with you on one point. You do have a right to an opinion, and I have a right to point out that yours is an ignorant opinion—ignorant because by your own admission it is not based on any facts, education, research, or experience. Your opinion is apparently based on nothing more than simple ignorant prejudice.”

The class was silent for a moment. The young woman began to sob and yell at me, “You can’t say that to me!”

I replied, “Yes I can, because it is the truth.”

Perhaps that was his crime, using the truth rather than his emotions to put this poor ignorant lass straight. But wait! It gets even better!!

The now visibly upset philosophy professor said, “Doug, you are being a little harsh on her.”

“No...I am just stating the truth.”

“Well Doug, you have to respect her feelings.” Much of the class was nodding in agreement while attempting to soothe the young woman who was now obviously enjoying the attention.

“Gee Ron, I thought this was a university where we discussed subjects rationally using facts and logic.”

“A lot of us feel the same way she does,” the philosophy professor responded, as if that were justification for her ignorance and her personal insults.

Fed up with the charade, I walked out of the class.

Later, I sat in the campus office of a friend, relating the story. He smiled and occasionally laughed as I recounted what happened. “Of course you were right Doug, but you can’t say that here. Where do you think you are, America?” We both laughed, while knowing that it was no laughing matter.

His friend's last statement is probably one of the scariest things I could imagine anyone saying under the circumstances. ”Where do you think you are, America?”

While not the most egregious example of leftist indoctrination I've come across, it's pretty telling.

Somehow facts and truth have become less important than feelings and indoctrination. Never mind that no matter how much one might believe they can fly by merely flapping their arms, the laws of physics and the force of gravity will stand in their way. There's no getting around either regardless of how much someone says otherwise.

I've noticed the same thing when it came to the debate about nuclear power many years ago. The argument hasn't changed all that much since then.

People protested against nuclear power, not because it was unsafe, but because they were told it was unsafe, the incident at Three Mile Island and bonehead moves (and piss poor design) at Chernobyl not withstanding. The protests were driven purely by emotion, making any kind of rational debate impossible. Never mind that people protesting at nuclear power plants were more likely to die driving to and from the protests than they ever were from a nuke plant. All they knew is that nuclear power was BAD BAD BAD!!! They couldn't explain why it was bad. Many couldn't even tell you how a nuclear power plant actually worked. Someone told them they would all die if nuclear plants weren't shut down and that's all they needed to know.

The same disease, for that's what it is, has also torpedoed any rational debate about anthropogenic global warming. Another example from Douglas Campbell:

Not very long ago a student approached me, pointed at my office door, and announced, “You can’t say that!” She was pointing to some articles taped to the door that challenged the foundations of global warming theory.

“I believe the arguments presented in those articles are scientifically sound, and I am not at all convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring,” I replied.

Much to my surprise her outrage suddenly faded and, smiling, she said, “Yes, but if people don’t believe in global warming they won’t stop polluting.”

Quickly recovering from my initial shock, I replied, “So the end justifies the means? You would lie to people just to advance your agenda?”

She smiled sweetly and said, “Well, people don’t know what is good for them.”

As she departed, I turned to a colleague standing across the hall who had overheard the entire exchange. “Can you believe that?” I sputtered.

“She is right Doug, and you should take that stuff off your door before you get in trouble,” he replied as he turned, walked into his office, and closed the door.

It was suddenly very obvious to me why that young woman believed that “people” could not be told the truth and that the end justifies the means.

So “people don't know what is good for them.” That is one of the more typical beliefs the Left holds, believing they know more about what you or I need than we do. That belief reduces most of the population to the status of children in their eyes. Only the Left are adult enough to tell us what to do.

Here's a little secret folks like that won't believe: They are less competent to run our lives than we are because they are no different from you and me. In fact, it is my belief they aren't competent enough to run their own lives because they can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, particularly when they let their “feelings” decide things for them. None of their decisions can be trusted because they ignore facts when making decisions about their lives and, even worse, our lives.

The Big Kite

Just for a change of pace...

I received this via e-mail and later found it on YouTube. This is very cool!


It can also be downloaded from here. (5MB)

View Points From Two Countries - New Tax/Spending Policies

There are at least two people around that have an understanding about bad tax policy and the effects such policies can have. One is in the UK and the other in Washington, DC.

Andrew Lloyd Webber – yes that Andrew Lloyd Webber – writes in the Daily Mail about the British government's foolish move, boosting the maximum income tax rate to 50%, and how it will hurt Britain.

[B]efore you lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for my own cause, let me beg you to believe that I am not.

I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc.

I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.

Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.

I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs.

Aye, there's the rub. If taxes are raised to the point of punishing success, the successful will pull up stakes and take their business, as well as their money and the jobs they provide, some place where their efforts are appreciated. Elsewhere in his piece he mentions the draconian taxes placed upon the successful back in the 1970's. It destroyed the British economy as wealth fled the UK for tax havens. Businesses closed, jobs were lost, and the UK entered a period of economic decline not seen since just after the end of World War II.

And now the Obama Administration wants to the same thing to the US.

Just as Labour swept into power in Parliament and 10 Downing Street, the UK and has been drastically changing tax, trade, and industrial policies to reflect their socialist bent, so too have the Democrats swept into power in Congress and the White House been doing the same thing. About the only sure thing about this in both countries is that it spells big trouble for their respective economies. As Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has said, elections have consequences.

We are certainly seeing the consequences of Democratic power running unchecked in Washington. Just about every leftist dream on their long standing wish list is being brought up in bill after bill in Congress. Never mind they haven't thought about how the US will actually pay for all this unneeded and unwelcome social spending. Too many American voters bought the hype being sold by the Democrats last November and now the bills are coming due, in spades.

His "main concern," he says, "is that if you look at the Obama budget, it projects on average about a $1 trillion deficit [every year] over the next 10 years." And as a result of all that spending, "You see the size of government growing from 21% [of gross domestic product] to 22%, to 23%, 24%, 25% . . . toward 30%."

Set against this spending growth, Mr. Gregg points out, "the revenue base is only so big. Granted, right now it's way down because of the economic situation. But even if you took it back to an economy that's performing extremely well, say [revenues of] even 19% [of GDP], you can't close that gap under the present projected situation. And so we're in trouble. And the policies of this administration are driving that to an even more acute situation." Spending and deficits are both heading skyward, and government debt held by the public is heading toward 80% of GDP.

For Mr. Gregg, this is like living a nightmare. He has been a hard-nosed advocate for government spending restraint since his days as a Congressman (1981-87) and governor of New Hampshire (1987-93). At times, his commitment to fiscal responsibility led him to oppose tax cuts when they weren't matched by spending restraint. Those stances incurred the ire of his Republican colleagues, but he always stuck to his fiscal-responsibility guns. Now he's staring down a spending explosion that makes those battles look picayune.

The only way to pay of even a small portion of those huge deficits will be to raise taxes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even raising the tax rate on 'the rich' to 100% would only raise an additional $400 billion in revenue, theoretically. (If the tax rate were actually raised to that point, the revenues collected would most likely be zero.)

It appears that both nations are on a collision course with financial ruin, with their respective governments being the ones setting that course. How is it the people in either government think that this is somehow good for their countries and the people they are supposed to be serving? That's the way it usually is with socialists. They really don't believe there's no way the money will eventually run out because they know the rich (meaning anyone with a job) have an endless supply of money that can be taken away “for the good of society.” As history has shown on more than one occasion, that usually leads to abject poverty. Since when does poverty benefit anyone...except the socialists?

Thoughts On A Sunday

The warm temperatures we've been experiencing have been welcome, allowing us to shut off the furnace and allow the Official Weekend Pundit Woodstove to go cold. The windows were opened, the screen doors put in, and the patio furniture returned to the main deck behind The Manse.

Despite the warm temperatures, BeezleBub and I spent a few hours moving firewood from the Official Weekend Pundit Woodpile into the garage. While mostly dry, it still needs some time to be properly seasoned. The warm, dry conditions in the garage will speed the last of it and ensure we'll have a least two and a half cords of perfectly seasoned wood for next winter. The last two or so cords will continue drying outside. We expect to get two more cords before fall to ensure we have enough for next winter.

But until then we'll focus on getting things ready for the coming summer.

*********

Speaking of the coming summer, we have secured a new slip for the Official Weekend Pundit Lake Winnipesaukee Runabout, aka The Boat. Unlike last year, The Boat will once again be berthed close to The Manse, just across the cove where we'd berthed in previous years. Last year we returned to a slip located outside the Original Official Weekend Pundit Manse. While inexpensive, it was not a convenient location, taking over 20 minutes to get there from The Manse and another 40 minutes to get out onto the main part of Lake Winnipesaukee. The new location is only 5 minutes away and it takes only a few minutes to get from there to the big lake. The great thing is that it costs only a tiny bit more than the slip we had last year.

We still have work to do to The Boat to ensure it will be ready for the upcoming boating season, but nothing major. It should be ready to return to the water sometime in the next two weeks.

*********

Now there's another debate about global warming..er..climate change. With the sun at a solar minimum not seen for over 100 years, global temperatures falling, and increasing doubt about Man's part in climate change, the battle is centering on the Sun's effect on climate. If I had to guess, I'd say it has everything to do with it.

There are plenty of records showing a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. (Yes, I know correlation does not imply causality, but it does mean we need to explore this correlation to determine if there is another mechanism driving the phenomenon.) During the last solar minimum, titled the Maunder Minimum, solar activity was very low. It coincided with the “Little Ice Age”, which brought far colder temperatures worldwide. Some solar scientists believe that Cycle 24 (the 11-year sunspot cycle) has not started its upward swing. In fact it is over 18 months overdue and not showing any signs of starting any time soon.

Gee, could it be the warmists are wrong and that climate variation over time is natural?

*********

Obama's first 100 days...and his first 100 mistakes.

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

*********

Via Maggie's Farm: “President Pantywaist does not know who the Enemy is.”

You know it's bad when even the UK press is lambasting President Obama's policies.

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Said one commenter, “It's a sad state of affairs when this opinion is published in the UK, rather than being trumpeted in the MSM by the Republicans, Libertarians and Independents in the US.”

Nothing more need be said.

*********

Is it a surprise to anyone that federal tax receipts have plummeted, particularly in light of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy? As Tom Blumer puts it, tax receipts are down because Americans are 'Going Galt'.

Even more importantly, they started doing so last summer with good reason.

Starting in June and all the way through to Election Day, Pelosi, Obama, and Reid — but especially presidential nominee Obama — told the country that they were ready, willing, and would soon be able to punitively tax the 5% of the nation’s most productive so they could redistribute money to everyone else. Enough high producers to make a difference believed them and abandoned their previous guarded optimism[...] not because of then-current economic conditions, which were at worst mediocre. They did so because of their assessments of what economic conditions would be in the not-too-distant future, based on the perilous pronouncements of Pelosi, Obama, and Reid. Many of those who didn’t catch on during the summer did so after observing the reckless September-October actions of the Washington establishment.

As a result, they took steps that businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and investors ordinarily take when a serious recession takes hold — not hiring, not expanding, letting people go and not replacing them, making worn-out equipment last longer instead of buying new, and others — before the serious recession took hold. They deliberately downsized in response to stated promises by powerful government officials Pelosi, Obama, and Reid to penalize and punish them and the economy as a whole, if and when they gained power.

In other words, enough high producers to make a difference preemptively “went Galt.”

The end result? A recession of the likes we haven't seen since the 1970's. The cause? The socialist punish-the-rich plans put forth by the Democratic triumvirate.

This shows two things: First, that George Santayana was right. Second, that Pelosi, Obama, and Reid never took (or passed) an economics class in school, or even worse, have had no real world experience running a business and understanding what motivates business owners to do well.

Coming across as a government sanctioned protection racket is not how one spurs business owners to do well.

*********

Just to break up this Obama love-fest, I must relate this Sunday morning experience that illustrates what happens when you can't get good help.

My lovely wife and I decide to have breakfast out this morning, so we went to one of the local eateries, one I happen to frequent once or twice a week. As we entered we could see it wasn't busy, with maybe a third of the booths/tables/counter stools occupied. We thought it wouldn't take long for us to have breakfast. We were wrong.

We sat at one of the booths, which still had dirty dishes from the previous occupants. After 15 minutes of being totally ignored and seeing other diners entering and being treated the same way, we decided to seek our breakfast elsewhere.

The diner was not undermanned by any means. But even with all the apparent activity, I came to realize they really weren't getting anything accomplished. Tables were not being cleared, orders weren't being taken, and patrons had to wait to pay their bills.

This is not a model for success.

*********

From Bruce comes this story about the People's Republic of Taxachusetts and their plans to raise their sales tax from 5% to 6%...or maybe even 7%. As he points out, all this will do is induce even more Massachusetts residents to make the drive to New Hampshire to shop, which has no sales tax. It will also induce Rhode Island residents to spend their money in their home state since Massachusetts sales tax will now equal Rhode Island's.

It appears no one in the Massachusetts legislature or the governor's office has ever heard of the Laffer Curve.

As Bruce says, the alternative title to his post should be “The Great New Hampshire Stimulus Bill Rolls On.”

*********

Raven let's us know the danger of having a narcissist for a president. For one thing, he misses things like the outbreak of swine flu in Mexico, which has now made its way into the US. He is also unaware of the protests symbolized by the Tea Parties.

*********

Bob Parks slams Shane Murphy, second in command of the Maersk Alabama, for his diatribe against Rush Limbaugh's reporting about the rescue of Captain Phillips and the death of the three pirates. Murphy believes Limbaugh's characterization of the pirates holding Phillips was racist. Never mind that Limbaugh's identification of the pirates was 100% accurate.

As one commenter to Bob's post wrote, “[Murphy] is just a tool.”

He'll get no argument from me on that one.

*********

Fred First over at Fragments From Floyd reminisces about the loss of his dog Buster six years ago. The memories came flooding back when he came across a wonderful picture of Buster he'd misfiled on his computer.

*********

Rachel Lucas gives us some insight into the European view of Americans, particular those of us too darned ignorant to not vote for the Obamessiah.

Rachel also lays a smackdown on Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her complete ignorance about matters dealing with national security.

*********

And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where the weather is more like summer, thoughts of boating intrude on a regular basis, and where work to put up firewood for next winter continues.

Tide Turning Against Gun Control?

Now even the media appears to be turning against gun control...for now.

Of course 'gun control' means different things to different people. For instance, here in New Hampshire gun control means putting all 5 rounds in the center of the X-ring at 50 feet in less than 2 seconds...using your off hand.