Honesty, Failure and the Permanent Campaign

"If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months." –Democratic U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, Feb. 16, 2010

 

This was a rare treat – a slice of honesty from a career politician. It's funny how the rare dissent from the administration's party line comes at the same time Bayh announced his retirement. It's almost like he thought "Well, I'm leaving anyway; I might as well go out on a high note!" Honesty is too rare in politics. It's all spin, all the time, and with very few exceptions it's all disingenuous. But let's keep the honesty train rolling, shall we?

Studies have shown that people tend to be their own harshest critics. I've seen this borne out time and again over nine years as a manager. We have an annual review at work, and each employee has to do their own assessment. As a manager I would take their assessment of their work, couple it with my own observations and assign a rating. I would often use their own phrases when I would discuss the rating with them to describe why I gave them the rating I did. In nine years, having done probably 150 of these reviews, I never had anyone go over my head to complain. Sure, at times people were disappointed, but they knew it was right. More often, people were pleasantly surprised that I had rated them better than they thought they deserved. The times where I saw people ranting about how they'd been 'screwed over' by their manager's rating of their work, they were typically people who worked really hard at doing the minimum it took to keep their job while their peers were busting their butts to get ahead. These people would fit in well in the Obama administration.

Take the stimulus bill, for example. One year ago today Obama came to Denver to sign the stimulus act into law, violating, in less than one month from taking office, his promise to fight earmarks. He and his fellow cronies on the left have repeatedly touted the success of the stimulus despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Being objective, the stated purpose for the stimulus was to keep unemployment in check. The President's experts said that passing the stimulus act would keep unemployment below 8% - and without it we would see the numbers crest at almost 9%. Christina Romer even put together a nifty little graph that showed how the stimulus spending would kick in and the economy would be saved. In the world of project management this is called a 'success criteria.' It's the reason the stimulus was commissioned in the first place, and the measure against which its effectiveness is determined. By any objective accounting, it has failed, and failed miserably.

There are a couple of other graphs I would share with you. The first one highlights a close up view of the projections from the Romer with a bright red line reflecting the actual unemployment rate towering over both the Romer projections for unemployment with and without the stimulus. In other words, the stimulus failed. Had we not even put the stimulus in place, we were supposed to hit 8.9% unemployment; instead we hit 10% WITH the stimulus. We were lectured to by Obama in early February 2009 that rampant recklessness had gotten us into this mess, and only the government was big enough to get us out. Spend money on make-work jobs, and people will survive the collapse, he said. If I spend it, they will come. He got his money, but the jobs never came. One argument was that we weren't spending fast enough; but we were assured that the stimulus was working as it was supposed to; that the money from the stimulus (that had to be passed immediately, remember, or society would crumble!) was meant to be spent over the course of several years. That it was working as intended could not have been farther from the truth. If the stimulus was working as it was supposed to, unemployment would have crested at just under 8% in March, not over 10% by mid-year.

Next we began hearing about jobs "saved or created" with stimulus funds. Even yesterday, 'say it ain't so' Joe Biden said that over two million jobs were 'saved or created' with stimulus funds. Though he says this with great conviction, the truth is no one can prove it (and when they try, the reports are fraught with errors, attributing saved jobs to non-existent congressional districts. Oops!). What Joe WON'T say is so is that the two million number is calculated using formulas and economic models that may or may not bear any resemblance to reality. What we do know is that three million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was enacted. In a familiar refrain, the counter argument is that the previous administration left things in much worse shape than anyone really knew. That doesn't exactly provide a ringing endorsement for the people who designed this thing, does it? If they're the experts, and they misjudged things that badly, it's no wonder we're still mired in recession.

As for the 'we're not spending fast enough argument, here's another chart that shows a different view – as spending has increased, so has unemployment. Of course, this can't be true – can it?

It can, and here's how. Much of the stimulus money has been spent keeping state workers employed. This is significant because a study by Harvard economist Robert Barro indicates there's a negative relationship to government spending – that when the government spends $1, the private sector shrinks by $.20. A University of San Diego study puts that figure at .56 – so, for every $1 spent by government, the private sector shrinks by $.44. In other words, while the state workers have kept their jobs via stimulus spending, the private sector keeps shedding jobs.

With people angry, Democrats retiring rather than face expulsion at the hands of angry voters, and plummeting approval numbers, President Obama is going back to his stand by motto: when times get tough, the tough start campaigning. Biden, Pelosi, and Reid have been dispatched to go and tout stimulus success stories. Let me see if I get this right – we gave Obama $787 BILLION dollars to go and improve the economy and the stimulus has, by its own measure, failed to work. Rather than admit it's not working, pull back the unused funds and try something else, we're going to keep spending our way to oblivion, and his solution is to waste even more money by sending our top politicians (and their security details) around the country to spout dubious numbers and – let's be honest – blow smoke up our collective arse. Even Janet "The system worked" Napolitano has been sent out on the road to crow about how successful the stimulus has been (really, she's a good choice given that she's proven she's adept at signaling success while up to her neck in failure). I just thank God these people aren't in charge of something that can kills us in a more direct fashion, like our health care…er, wait – I don't like the sounds of that!!

 

 

 

What, Me Worry?

This week, the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned." Should we be worried?

This supposed event is to take place on the 31^st anniversary of the Islamic resolution that put Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in control of the nation back in 1979. One of his quotes is as follows: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. The Sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Despite this quote, despite repeated acts of terror, our current President lectures to us at every chance he gets about how much the world owes Islam. He has called the Islamic morning call to prayer the most beautiful sound on earth. He's gone so far as to tell Israel that they need to stop building new settlements and has tried pushing them toward policies that benefit the terrorist funding Hamas leadership. At the same time he won't put sanctions on Iran where people are being oppressed, beaten and even hung for daring to oppose their dubiously elected president, emboldening the despots in charge. Is all of this cause for worry?

Political correctness practically mandated that Bush qualify Islam as a religion of peace before being allowed to lambaste the fundamentalists who (peacefully?) murdered nearly 3000 American citizens on September 11, 2001. The following Sunday Jeremiah Wright condemned not the terrorists but the country that they attacked. Seven years and half a gross of Sunday sermons later, Obama only made a passing, half hearted attempt to repudiate the comments during the 2008 campaign. Does this indicate he agrees that the people in the World Trade Center deserved their fate? Is this cause for worry?

And now, back to Iran. This country has held Americans hostage, and for the next 30 years they've ended their Friday prayers with "death to America.". They have sponsored terrorist activity in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Former Iranian leaders have said that in a nuclear exchange, they would gladly lose the lives of 90 million Muslims if it meant that Israel would be wiped from the map in the bargain. They recently announced that they are increasing their enrichment of uranium.

Enrichment of uranium. Hatred for Israel. Public declarations of actions that will leave the West shocked – and a US President who seems completely unconcerned about the threat this rogue nation opposes. Should WE be worried?

Unlawful ban of guns

CSU President Tony Frank

Colorado State University

Ft Collins, Colorado

 

Mr. President,

 

I have written you a previous letter regarding the Board Of Governors decision to go against the wishes of the Student Senate and ban the carrying of concealed handguns by people who hold the Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit.  Having received no response, I felt I should send you another missive.  The Board is taking this action despite the fact that it violates both the Colorado state firearm preemption law and the Colorado Uniform Shall-Issue Concealed Carry Law.  I urge you to follow the established law and allow people who have been trained by the NRA, screened by both their county sheriff and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and had their fingerprints added to IAFIS, to carry a concealed handgun in the careful and prudent manner in which they've been trained.

 

As you are no doubt aware, criminals do not respect no-carry laws, and they seek places where they are less likely to encounter resistance to their crimes.  They also know that the police cannot be everywhere, and making CSU a no-carry zone will serve to leave students and faculty vulnerable to crimes that might otherwise have been perpetrated elsewhere.  Heaven forbid a Virginia Tech-style attack should happen, the student body will be completely defenseless.

 

Conversely, interviews with armed robbers who are in prison show that one of their top fears is encountering a victim who is armed.  In our society it is the criminals who should be afraid, and following the existing law is one way to keep it that way.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Rich Baker

 

State of the Union Reviewed

Once a year the President is constitutionally mandated to get in front of the American people and a joint session of congress and provide a status update of how the country is doing. At least, that's what we're supposed to get. Instead, tonight we got a campaign speech that was a vain attempt to be all things to all people, while providing nothing of substance (which is really a good summary of the president's policies when you think about it).

To be sure, Obama tried to throw bones to a number of constituencies. He talked up his record as a tax cutter and even suggested getting rid of capital gains taxes for the people who invest in small business. He spoke about nuclear power, and drilling for oil offshore, both things that people not allied with the left are generally in favor of. He spoke of changing the tone of politics and of being open to suggestions from Republicans about how to achieve the goals of health care reform. And that's where I began to realize that this wasn't a state of the union address; this was a "Best Of the 2008 Campaign Speeches" montage. The reality is that Obama didn't back off of any of his big government ideas or the socialist plans he has for our economy. Let's go through some of the highlights:

"I'm eager to hear alternatives" on health care, said the President who has completely ignored the Republicans, held back-office meetings with strict admission standards (not a Democrat, health insurance company or union rep? Sorry, you must stay behind the velvet rope!) and authorized the outright bribery of many of the nation's leaders.

"We cannot wage a permanent campaign" said the president who just re-hired his campaign manager to help with his agenda in the wake of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts.

"Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false or how malicious is ok, but it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping our people" said the president who several times this evening blamed the previous administration for all of our problems and said the Republicans only say 'no.'

"I'm trying to change the tone of our politics" said the president who within 60 seconds of that statement took another shot at Republicans.

"I'm going to start meeting with the leaders of the Republican party" said the president who for a full year has shut them out of the health care debate and repeatedly insulted them.

"Tonight I'm calling on congress to publish all earmark requests on a single web site" said the president who has not delivered on his promise to have the budget online, broadcast the health care debate on CSPAN and on the web; nor has he gone through any bill 'with a scalpel' to remove earmarks as he famously said he would during the campaign. Instead he has simply signed everything that was put before him.

"Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt" said the president who has overseen the largest expansion of the national deficit in the 228 years of this nation's history.

I could go on, but by now you get the point. It was all fluff, all smoke and mirrors designed to make you think that every statement he made didn't apply to him. He actually said the stimulus worked and pushed for another one, proposes giving $10,000 tax credits (not deductions) to families putting people through school, capping how much people will have to pay on their student loans in the same speech where he proposes a spending freeze. Remember this quote from the campaign? "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel." Yeah, that was Obama mocking John McCain for proposing a spending freeze. Now, a year and a few months later, Obama has not only not gotten out his scalpel, but he's picking up the hatchet. Well, kind of...the freeze will not take effect until NEXT year (2011). The timing is significant because by this time next year the supermajorities in the Senate and the House will be gone and the spending binge will be OVER ANYWAY. He's giving us the sleeves out of his vest.

He is still pushing for the health care bill to move forward even though public sentiment is against it, it has cost his party 4 elections (including a seat in a state that last elected a Republican in 1972!) and it has not been even remotely bi-partisan. He maintains that this is too big to back away from, and for him it is. It's one of three legs of his complete federal takeover of the nation, and is probably the keystone to it all.

He perpetuated his tactic of class warfare by continuing to attack bankers and corporations for turning profits and avoiding the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Rather than change the system to encourage the right behavior, he wants to impose regulation that force even more work off shore and further depress risk taking, innovation and ultimately will kill more of the jobs that do stay in America. This is the second leg of the federal takeover.

He talked about cap and trade and climate change as being vital to our economy, even saying "there are those who doubt the evidence [of climate change]." What evidence would that be, Mr. President? The evidence that was improperly gathered, purposely excluded or intentionally destroyed? He just plowed through a chorus of boos as though there was no Climategate scandal, because cap and trade gives control of utilities and manufacturing industry to the federal government. This is the third leg of the Democratic federal takeover.

He mentioned towards the start of the speech that "China is not waiting to revamp its economy…India is not waiting." Is it a co-incidence that representatives from those two nations walked out of the climate conference in Copenhagen? They aren't about to let the global climate cabal get in their way, and they realize that there's nothing in it for them, so they left. They're not about to artificially increase their cost of doing business to give corrupt politicians in other countries their hard earned cash. While India and China are busy out-competing us on price of production and freedom of industry, the United States had over 165 members of its delegation stay for the duration, some paying over $2000 per day for lodging and food!! The Democrats can't even manage their expenses individually, and yet they're surprised we don't trust them on health care, corporate regulations or cap and trade? They're surprised that we don't think they have our best interests at heart? Their ignorance is astounding!

I think the fundamental thing that Obama misses is that in all of his pledges to invest in our people the source of that investment IS THE PEOPLE. Maybe it would be more precise to say he misses that WE understand that the government cannot give ANYONE ANYTHING that it has not first TAKEN from someone else. In the end, Obama's policies amount to robbing from Peter to pay Paul. At least he can always count on the support of Paul.

Coyote Call To Action – 2nd Amendment Rights (2AR) Under Assault at Colorado State University

The information below came to me from the NRA Institute For Legal Action (NRA-ILA). Here's the background…the progressive, anti-second amendment CSU board of Governors wanted the Student Senate to issue a proclamation about the carrying of concealed weapons on campus, which they did. The problem was that the Student Senate did not issue the proclamation that the Governors wanted. The Senate voted to continue to allow students in possession of their Colorado concealed carry permits to follow the letter of the law in Colorado and carry guns on campus. CSU is one of the last universities in the nation that allows this, and the Student Senate is proud of that fact.

The board of Governors promptly went against the wishes of the students, however, and has decreed that law abiding permit holders will not be allowed to bring their guns on campus, leaving the students completely unprotected if ever a Virginia Tech-style attack were to happen. I urge all of you to call or write the University President (see contact information below) and let him know that:

• As a publicly funded university he should be obeying the established laws of the state of Colorado
  
• CCW permit holders have undergone NRA training, demonstrated proficiency with a handgun, been scrutinized by their County Sherriff Department and Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) background checks, and are fingerprinted and loaded into I-AFIS (International Automated Fingerprint Identification System) before they are given the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
  
• Criminals do not respect weapons bans or the fact that murder is against the law.
  
• Disarming citizens only leaves them vulnerable to criminals
  
• Criminals are opportunists, and will look to commit their crimes in places they deem to be the easiest to succeed. Places that ban firearms are high on that list
  
• Interviews with incarcerated armed robbers show that their number one fear when committing a crime is that the victim may be armed
  

I have already sent a letter to the University President letting him know that it pains me as a CSU alum, but until the established law is followed, I can no longer support the university financially, and if this moves forward as they plan, I will drop out of the alumni association and recommend my soon-to-be college-bound nieces attend college at the University Of Utah where the right to concealed carry is not abridged.

Thanks for your support of our 2AR. This insidious erosion of our rights is indoctrinating our youth in progressive beliefs, and we need to fight to ensure that we continue to enjoy our freedoms; otherwise, we will wake up one day to discover them gone for good.

 

Colorado State University Seeking to Outlaw
Concealed Carry on Campus
Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

On Wednesday, January 20, Colorado State University (CSU) formally announced their draft proposal to prohibit firearms on all CSU campuses. Exempt from the ban would be weapons used by law enforcement, military and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). This draft policy will be brought up for consideration at the CSU Board of Governors meeting on Tuesday, February 23. A copy of the draft can be found at www.safety.colostate.edu/files/weapons_policy_draft_01_15_10.pdf.

 
 

Last year, the CSU Board of Governors drafted the policy knowing that it would violate the Colorado state firearm preemption law and the Colorado Uniform Shall-Issue Concealed Carry Law.  Current state law strictly regulates the carry or transport of firearms on schools, colleges and universities.

 
 

It is important that Colorado's NRA members voice their concerns to the CSU President that the policy must uphold the Colorado law and allow permit holders to carry concealed for self-defense.   

 
 

Please contact President Tony Frank TODAY by phone at 970-491-6211 or email presofc@colostate.edu and respectfully urge him to comply with Colorado law.

Pardon me while I rant

Before I get started on this rant I want to say that I do think the situation in Haiti is a tragedy. The toll in human life is simply staggering, and the misery the Haitians are enduring is something I cannot imagine. I'm glad we live in a prosperous nation there the government will give money and resources to help, and Americans of all stripes will part with their money and time to do whatever they can to aid the cause. Helping others is the right thing to do, particularly when you're in the enviable position of possessing the means to provide that help. Having said that, did we REALLY need all four networks broadcasting the benefit tonight? Wouldn't one have been enough? It's not like I'm going to donate while I watch channel 4, then switch to channel 9 and donate again.

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant here, but there are another couple of things that have been nagging at me. Barack Obama has been travelling around the world for a year apologizing for the arrogance of the United States, yet every time there is a natural disaster, the world seems to hold its breath waiting to see what the USA will do. And we're in a no win situation! If we don't do enough, we're crass, thoughtless Americans. If we take charge and get 'er done, we're an occupying force. So time and again we pour treasure, time and resources into places like the tsunami ravaged Asian coasts, earthquake zones in China and elsewhere, and now Haiti. The only natural disaster we have not had a stellar response to was within our own borders, and much of that problem was caused by the decisions of men (neglect of the levies, failure to evacuate, etc) not the lack of a proper response. So when we're always at the front, giving the most in terms of time, treasure and resources, what right do other countries have to criticize us for 'occupying' a land?

When you look at Haiti, you see a land where the United States has given over $1 billion in foreign aid over the last 5 years. Despite that, the country's infrastructure was crumbling (before the quake), half the population is out of work and illiterate, and drugs, gangs and disease prey upon the people who live there. Now, with the earthquakes, we're pouring in another quarter tone-half of a billion dollars of government funds (that we all paid for) and for the last week up to and including tonight's telethon, individuals are donating their hard earned personal money to help the relief efforts. I'll be very interested to see how much the people, not the government of France gives; or for that matter, the countries that house so much wealth and hatred for the west, like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia. They castigate the 'ugly American' but when the fan meets the feces halfway around the world, thousands of anonymous Americans will willingly give these people money because we have things so good here, because it's the right thing to do, even though we never can know how that money was used or who really benefitted.

And this is the country that Obama repeatedly apologizes for.

Now look forward ten years and pretend Obama has gotten all of his programs passed and Oprah is delighted because the US is now like Denmark. College education is free, healthcare is free and housing is subsidized. Evil corporate executives don't make much more than their employees, everyone drives a hybrid car, the population of trees is up 2000% because of people and corporations buying carbon offsets to make up for the fact that when we breathe we pollute the earth with carbon dioxide, and all the guns are melted down into statues so there's no crime. You can look forward to enjoying your retirement (social security is fully funded, of course) in peace and harmony with all beings. Of course, your federal income tax rate is 50%; payroll tax is another 15%; state tax is 10%, gasoline is $8 per gallon and your utilities are 4 times what they are today, leaving you about 15 cents of every dollar you make to purchase food, clothes, and any miscellaneous things like going on dates, or buying birthday and Christmas presents. In this world, when the earth quakes and people need help, if we can't afford it, who will run to the rescue? France? In ten years, they're going to be majority Muslim due to their declining reproduction rates. What is the humanitarian record of Muslim nations again?

If we're pouring our money into a country, use our military to restore order, bring in our health care workers to care for the sick and injured, shouldn't we be in charge of how that money gets spent? Our government is gung ho to tell our banks what they can and can't do while they owe TARP funds ("As long as you're under my roof, you'll live by my rules!") but we won't do the same when it comes to spending our relief funds. We have millions of people out of work, many of which are idled construction workers. Should not our money be spent putting our people to work? And if our people are the ones working, shouldn't we be directing them? Our money, our rules.

Of course I could be wrong.

Liberal Hypocrites – Isn’t That Redundant?

One of the things that people seem constantly amazed at is the overt hypocrisy demonstrated by the members of the Democrat party. It's not surprising, though, when you think about it. The only people who have high moral standards are the conservatives; this is why it's such a scandal when one of them falls to earth. Only when the offender says he believes in something, and does the opposite, can you label it hypocrisy.

The left, therefore, can get away with murder because they have no compunction about standing for anything, other than that which will win an election. It's also made easier when there is a compliant and willing partner in the mainstream media.

Larry Craig, a Republican, has a long record of voting against gay rights. When he was in Minnesota and allegedly made an advance toward an undercover officer in a public restroom, a media firestorm ensued. Craig still denies any homosexual activity but his career was effectively over and he didn't run for re-election.

Across the aisle, Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat, had an affair with a male executive at Fannie Mae. He received $40,000 from Fannie for his campaigns. He's a member of the House Financial Services committee, where he has routinely opposed regulation of the banking behemoth that is Fannie Mae. He defended Fannie only weeks before the financial meltdown in 2008, saying that the company was sound and not in crisis. Has he been excoriated by the press for a huge conflict of interest? Does he feel pressure to step down? Hardly.

The media has had a field day tearing down Tiger Woods, tracking down every mistress, finding every byte of text messages that were sent, but is unable to find Obama's long form birth certificate, high school grades, college grades, any evidence that he had student loans (or how his tuition was paid in the absence of loans) or any legal briefs he wrote while working at his Chicago law firm.

Harry Reid's comments about Obama's skin color and 'negro dialect' were 'beyond stupid' according to the Washington Post, but not worthy of his being tossed from office. While I don't entirely disagree with this statement (is the United Negro College Fund an offensive phrase? There are mixed messages here about what is acceptable…) I do disagree with the overall defense. They might as well say "Oh, c'mon, guy, relax - sure it was in poor taste, but it's not really that bad is it? C'mon, man, he's old – he's from a different time!" They have actually trotted out the Trent Lott scandal (Lott said he was proud of Mississippi having voted for Strom Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948 on a segregationist platform. Wasn't 1948 a 'different time?" The hypocrisy comes in though, when Barbara Boxer said that she didn't think that Reid should step down, and that she didn't recall any Democrats calling for Trent Lott's resignation when he uttered his unfortunate comments. To borrow a phrase from Obama himself, the lady from California is engaging in some revisionist history. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana (she of the $100 million payoff for her vote on healthcare) said this of Trent Lott: "Does the Republican Party think this should be their leader?  I can promise you if a Democratic leader said something like this or close to this, their leadership position would be pulled, because our party feels very strongly." Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it appears the strength of their convictions is not that great after all. Maybe the key word there is promise; based on Obama's track record, the word promise appears to have a different meeting from what I thought it did.

In any case, it would serve conservatives well to stop dropping our jaws every time a Democrat gets a pass on something that a Republican would be crucified over, and accept that hypocrisy is in their nature. Instead of spending efforts on bemoaning that they don't get their just desserts, we should spend our energy making sure that their hypocrisies see the light of day and work to get people elected to DO have a sense of honor and integrity. We're seeing a conservative reawakening, and to try to keep score against a political party who has no moral center or obligation to the truth is futile. Instead, to paraphrase John Adams, let's let the facts speak for us, for they are stubborn things that cannot be altered by the desires of men.