Tuesday, 30 June 2009


Giving America the Old One-Two

Clintonista Roger Altman prepares the battlefield for a massive tax increase, and tries to round up some Republicans to go along:

Only five months after Inauguration Day, the focus of Washington’s economic and domestic policy is already shifting.  This reflects the emergence of much larger budget deficits than anyone...
Hold it! Whaddaya mean “anyone,” Democrat?  Over here, we’ve been yelling about the deficit since November’s bailout pork bill (and some of us were yelling long before that).
...expected.  Indeed, federal deficits may average a stunning $1 trillion annually over the next 10 years.
Yep, it’s a stunner, all right:
Why has the deficit outlook changed?  Two main reasons: The burst of spending in recent years and the growing likelihood of a weak economic recovery.
Half right, Roger.  What about “the billions of dollars in payoffs to Democrat clients during the last eight months which have aggravated economic uncertainty and depressed private investment”?  Along with a carbon tax which will pull more billions out of the economy?
A speedy recovery is highly unlikely given the financial condition of American households...
Think it’s bad now?  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Mr. Obama and his economic advisers understand this deficit outlook and undoubtedly view it as unsustainable.
Well, there’s an unsupported assertion, if ever I saw one.  I haven’t noticed any administration concerns about the deficit.  (But then maybe I was out having a beer...)
They also understand that increasing deficit concerns complicate their efforts toward universal health-insurance legislation, which is clearly a top priority of this administration.
You know, somebody could just say, “Hey, we can’t afford to do this right now.”  After all, the public seems to understand...
The public is restive over this threat: In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Americans were asked which economic issue facing the country concerned them most.  Respondents chose deficit reduction over health care by a ratio of 2 to 1.
So in response to rising public concern over the deficit, you Democrats plan to... go ahead with health care?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, which released its latest forecast June 16, such legislation would mandate more than $1 trillion of new federal spending over 10 years.  Winning support for that much new spending -- in the face of record deficits -- will be a challenge.
And why is that?  Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House. ’Sa-matter, Bucky, those 2-to-1 poll figures makin’ you nervous?
The poor budget outlook may impel...
Note the language: “Hey, it’s not our fault!  We’re impelled!
...the administration to follow up health-care legislation with an effort to fix Social Security... Public anxiety over deficits may make this fix possible now even though it has been elusive for years.
“Elusive.”  That’s rich.  Seems like it wasn’t that long ago that you guys had no interest in doing anything about Social Security.  What was “elusive” was any Democrat who might have been prepared to address the issue.

But back to that deficit...
Sometime soon, perhaps in 2010, Main Street and financial markets will exert irresistible pressure to reduce the deficit.

The problem is the deficit’s sheer size, which goes way beyond potential savings from cuts in discretionary spending or defense.
We could always try, and see how far we get: How about starting with a freeze on federal pay scales, followed by a mandatory 20% downsizing for all non-military agencies.  Then we could abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Hassling American Travelers Homeland Security...
It’s entirely possible that Medicare and Social Security will already have been addressed, and thus taken off the table.  In short we’ll have to raise taxes.
Hey, did somebody let a bunch of cows in here?  Somthing smells: “Entirely possible; ” that’s rich.  What you mean is, you’ll create an untenable situation by spending like drunken sailors Congressmen, and declaring your pet programs “off the table.”  Then say we “have” to raise taxes.

Oh, and Republicans, here’s where you fit in:
...possibly next year, Congress will seriously consider a value-added tax (VAT).  A bipartisan deficit reduction commission... may be necessary to create sufficient support for a VAT or other new taxes.
“Bipartisan commission,” meaning “Republicans providing cover.

The Democrats are on track to strike a one-two punch against individual liberty, and your pocketbook: They’re half way to cap-and-tax.  On top of that, in the name of “reducing deficits” they want a VAT.  (And given the performance of the last five months, is there anyone who believes this administration is capable of reducing any deficit?)  By the time they’re done, all your income will be going to Washington, and you won’t have a pot to piss in.

Look at that chart again.  The Democrats own the deficit.  Despite the Republican defectors, the Democrats own cap-and-tax.  They also own the Presidency and both houses of Congress.  They can solve things by themselves.

But now they’re scared.  And they want some Republicans along to protect them from the coming wrath of the public.

Well, it’s their mess.  Let ’em take the consequences.

And any Republican who falls for the “bipartisanship” wheeze should be run out of the party.  Starting- right now- with the Cap-and-Tax 8.

LATER (090701 15:55), Related:

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 23:21:19 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 865 words, total size 9 kb.

Saturday, 13 June 2009


O.G. reads the weekend WSJ “Opinion” page...

...so you don’t have to.

(Wherein O.G. reacts to a wasted 20 minutes at breakfast this morning.)

Peggy Noonan: The Case for Getting off Base
A 1200+ word bleat from the beltway establishment.  Executive summary: The Republican Party pays too much attention to its base (!), and Rush Limbaugh should shut up; lest the legacy media continue to characterize Republicans as “the party of ‘angry white men’” and RNC Chairman Michael Steele continue to look like a wimp.  Pullquote:
When Michael Steele gets up in the morning, 20 million people don’t wait aren’t waiting [ FIFY - o.g.] to hear his opinion.
It’s yet another rehash of the old “Republicans can win, provided they don’t take positions the media doesn’t like, and don’t say anything the media can misrepresent” argument.  For why this doesn’t work, see Goldstein.  For an example of breaking out of the MSM box, see Palin.  Forget Noonan.

Peter Berkowitz: Conservatism and the University Curriculum
Progressive-dominated university Poli-Sci departments neglect the “conservative tradition in America,” so “students are condemned to a substantially incomplete and seriously unbalanced knowledge of their subject.”  But “affirmative action for conservatives is a terrible idea.”  Pullquotes
There is no reason why scholars with progressive political opinions and who belong to the Democratic Party can not... study and teach conservatism in accordance with high intellectual standards.
If they can find time for feminist theory, they can find time for Edmund Burke.
Berkowitz makes an intellectually-driven argument which fails in the face of an ideologically-driven situation. No one will listen, nothing will change, 1000 words wasted.

George Ball: Naturalism Has Been Hijacked
Ball belatedly discovers the anti-human loonies in the environmental movement, and quotes some examples.  But instead of naming names (“one activist author,” “a Yale professor”) and calling bluffs, he blithers away at trying to define their politics:
Their anti-business stance might mark them as liberals, while their hard-edged fundamentalist views about nature and brittle nostalga for a lost Peacable Kingdom are surely conservative.
Waste of time.  Just call them self-hating moonbats, say “Hey buddy, if humans are so bad for gaia, why haven’t you killed yourself?”, and be done with it. (750 words)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 16:41:53 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 4 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
77kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.1295 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0968 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.