Michael Bennet and the Shmoo

I just re-watched "Lucky Number Slevin" with Bruce Willis, Josh Hartnett, Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley. If you haven't seen it and you like the mystery/gangster genre, I highly recommend it. In one scene, Morgan Freeman gives a wonderful monologue (as only Morgan Freeman can) about the Shmoo. The Shmoo is a wonderful creature from the L'il Abner comic. It essentially is all things to all people – it gives milk, produces eggs, its whiskers make excellent toothpicks, and it dies of sheer ecstasy, ready to be cooked, if looked at with hunger. Ultimately, the Shmoo was deemed bad for society. Since it provided for every need, people no longer had the will to work or provide for themselves, so the Shmoo was made extinct by giving everyone a picture of Andy Capp's mother with a hungry look on her face. Through the united will of the people, the Shmoo was no more. The Shmoo reminds me of the mythical Moderate Democrat, promising to do everything for everyone. The Moderate Democrat is pro-life while being pro abortion, spends money freely while being concerned about debt; they oppose war while supporting our troops; they're champions of small business while designing larger government entities to make small business suffer. In the end, their programs will provide for the people, taking away the people's desire to provide for themselves.

Speaking of the myth of the moderate Democrat, I recently received an email from accidental Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. In this email, he speaks about the deficit, saying:

"…if we don't get serious about bringing down the debt, our kids will be left to pay for today's irresponsibility, and our economy will suffer.

Our national debt now exceeds $12 trillion; a debt that poses enormous danger to our fiscal stability."

I could not agree with Bennet more. With the passage of Obamacare, our debt is now spiraling out of control. As a country, we are facing the loss of our AAA rating, meaning we will pay higher interest rates for our borrowed money. For individuals this is known as "exploding debt theory" – where the same amount of money borrowed now costs more due to increasing interest rates. Think about adjustable mortgage interest rates and the housing bubble. How did that work out for the country? Now imagine that on the scale of $13 trillion of debt (i.e. America's mortgage). More of our tax receipts will be going to pay for interest, leaving less to spend on government programs, like Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare. This effectively means we will need to either borrow more money, worsening the situation, increase our tax receipts to offset the rising interest, or a combination of the two. Already people in congress are talking about a Value Added Tax – or VAT – to help fund these programs. While this means more money for Washington, it means less money in all of our pockets; and in fact, it can reduce tax receipts as people under a VAT system will tend to delay or avoid purchases because of the added tax burden. A new TV is much less attractive when the cost just went up by 10 or 20%. A used car purchased privately is much more attractive when the $30,000 price tag on a new one suddenly becomes $36,000 with no additional value for the additional cost. Lastly, the 'black market' thrives under a VAT system, leading to an increase in organized crime.

This brings me back to Michael Bennet. I applaud his concern for our fiscal health. It would be more impressive if he didn't support every single act of wanton government spending that came down the pike for the last year.

He approved the stimulus.

He approved the GIVE act – expanding funding for volunteer programs

He approved the Omnibus bill

He voted against ending the TARP program

He voted for the Senate version of Obamacare (but against the amendment that would have had the congressional leaders purchase their health insurance through the same exchanges to which they're subjecting the public).

Then to really demonstrate his commitment to fiscal responsibility, he voted against the amendment that would have banned earmarks in years in which we run a deficit (effectively banning earmarks).

So forgive me if his concern for our financial security rings hollow. It's a desperate attempt to appear to have some conservative values only appeal to fence sitters and middle of the road voters who still believe the Moderate Democrat is real and not just a cousin of the Shmoo.

Just as the Shmoo was made extinct by the will of the people, so too must we unite and rid our congress of these pretenders to the conservative crown. It's time for Bennet to go.

 

P.S. For those concerned about the second amendment (hopefully everyone reading this) he voted to confirm Eric Holder and Sonia Sotomayor, two of the biggest threats to Second Amendment Rights (2AR). According to the Denver Post, in another act of chicanery he voted for the Thune amendment for concealed carry – AFTER the votes were there to defeat it, rendering his yes vote meaningless.

The End Of Days Is Here

This is it folks – after a year of arguing back and forth, both sides accusing the other of lying, after the creation of the Tea Party movement in response to government arrogance, after those opposing the health care legislation were labeled racists, Nazis, and un-American by the very people whom 'we' elected to represent us, the final vote on health care legislation may take place this week.

Facing the Democrats is the choice of a lifetime. On the one hand, they can vote with Nancy Pelosi and fulfill the progressive dream of government run health care. In their view, this is the first step on the path to a permanent majority. Step two is to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants who will certainly benefit from this and other government programs (the Democrats opposition to English as the official language of the USA ensures those who don't speak English will require government assistance) and thereby ensure that Conservatives will never again see higher elected office.

On the other hand, choosing to vote for this legislation could be sounding the death knell for the Republic. Realizing this, people are angry and in the short term anyone voting yes for this bill is risking their career. Dick Morris is projecting Democrat losses in the house in excess of 30 seats regardless of how the vote comes out, and up to 80 seats if they use the tactic Louise Slaughter is advocating to pass the bill without a vote. Politicians are not known for taking the long view and this reality could have a significant outcome on the vote.

So then, we too are faced with the choice of a life time. We can do nothing and hope that things work out alright, or we can take action. I for one do not think I can look myself in the mirror if I do nothing and this bill passes. If I take action and it passes anyway, at least I will have been on the losing side and gone down fighting. But what can we ordinary citizens do?

First, call the congressman/woman for your district and tell them that you expect them to insist on a vote. Then tell them you want them to vote no on the bill. Tell them you will spend time and personal treasure to ensure that, if they vote yes they will be replaced come the next election. Send them an email as well. They likely won't hear or see either one; but their aides will. They keep count, and they want to stay in power.

Then do the same for the other congressmen and women in your state, and the vulnerable officials nationwide. Tell them that you don't live in their district or in their state, but you are watching and will work to unseat them in November. And, you will do so publicly in on-line forums, recruiting people to join you ousting them from office.

Also, consider donating to an organization like the League of American Voters. The LoAV is running ads in the districts of the most vulnerable congressmen and women. Again, according to Dick Morris, public pressure in these districts is mounting and many of the people who voted yes the first time around are now saying they're undecided. Even if you donate only a couple of dollars, it has a cumulative effect. Conservative causes have always relied on large numbers of small donations to get things done. The RNC, the NRCC all can use financial help; if you believe in the work a group does, lend them a hand!

The Democrats are going to have to choose between their progressive legacy and their careers. Our choice is to quietly watch events unfold on TV, or ensure that if they choose to ignore the voice of the opposition we make that voice as loud as possible.

As for me, I intend to raise my voice.

 

Resources:

Donate to the League Of American Voters: https://www.newsmaxstore.com/contribute/lav/

List of swing votes in congress: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/03/14/call-these-swing-congressmen-on-health-care/

Find your district, your congressman or woman, and lookup the others in your state & nationally: http://www.congress.org/

Bringing Chicago To Mainstream America – Part 1 - Bullies and Liars

I remember when I read my first Ann Coulter Book several years ago. It was Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right and it was an eye opener for me. Until that point I hadn't paid a lot of attention to how the media operated. I wasn't very in tune with what was happening in politics, and though I voted Republican it more from force of habit than from force of principle. Slander changed all of that. I began to pay more attention to the 'tactics of the big lie' and I was amazed at how often it's used, and how successful it is. In life, there are some things you learn that you just can't unlearn.

To be fair, Coulter is a rabble rouser and her job is to stir up dissent, which she does very well using only truth and a sarcastic wit. The difference I see in her tactics and those of the mainstream media, is she speaks (or writes) honestly and from the heart. The media has an agenda and it matches that of the Obama administration. During the 2008 campaign Coulter was vocal about her disdain for John McCain as the Republican candidate (she started a mock support group called "Get drunk and vote for John McCain) and it brought forth some ire from those on the right; but as he's been a punching bag for Obama since losing the election (falling perfectly into the well planned "the election is over" sound bite from the health care debate for example) she may have been correct in her assessment. Regardless, she doesn't pander to anything but her own beliefs.

The media, however, is a puppet on a string for the Obama oval office. The Eric Massa scandal is an example. I don't know enough about Massa to know if he's a sleaze or a victim. I suspect as the days go by we're going to hear more and more about bad things he's done and likely we'll learn that he should be tossed out on his can. Arguably, so should the majority of people in congress (that the majority are Democrats is coincidental). Buy why the sudden bum's rush on an 18 month veteran of the House when Charlie Rangel's offenses festered for 18 years (and he still has his seat, if not his chairmanship)? Massa claims that this is what happens when you don't go along with the Obama program. The mainstream media have been reporting on his alleged misdeeds and downplaying the "why now" angle. Watching some of the news outlets over the last couple of days, much has been made of his no-so-quiet exit, but not as much has been said about the allegations of bullying by Rahm Emanuel. When I have seen it mentioned, it's in the context of "what a whacko this Massa guy is" and not "is Rahm really spawned from the devil?" Massa's descriptions were unusually specific, and given his record of voting against the grain of his party you have to admit there's a slice of credibility to his claims. On the other hand, he could just be trying to take someone down with him as he goes. The thing is, if the tactics that he says were applied really happened they've proven to be an effective ploy. Is it a coincidence that on the same day Massa announced that he was pushed out because he was voting against the health care bill, Bart Stupak, who has been strong in his stand against the bill (because of federal funding of abortion) now thinks a compromise is possible? Monday, while Massa was all over the news ranting about Emanuel chasing him down in the showers of the Congressional gym, Stupak said with regard to a healthcare compromise that "I think we can get there." Is the timing more than coincidental? Could he have been told "look, Massa is out – and you're next if you don't play along!"? You be the judge, but it fits in with the Chicago style politics, only now the arm twisting, back scratching, in-fighting, threat-leveling culture is riding high in the oval office and not just Lower Wacker Drive. It's entirely possible that this type of thing has always gone on to one extent or another, but I've never seen it played out unabashedly in the open like this. It's as if they don't care what anyone thinks….well, scratch that. Based on their response to public outcry over the health care bill, we already knew they don't care a whit about our opinions.

And the lies keep getting bigger and more front and center. Yesterday Obama lied to a crowd in Pennsylvania when he said the health care bill "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we're spending our healthcare dollars more wisely. Those aren't my numbers…" they're from the CBO estimates. Except that they're not from the CBO, so even that statement was a lie. The CBO has said that he was off the mark by a about $900 billion dollars, The $1 trillion savings estimate is for the SECOND decade of the plan, not the first, and that the numbers that went into the second decade's estimate are subject to "substantial uncertainty." What is in that $1 trillion? According to Fox News, $130 billion in premium savings, $200 in reduced payments to doctors and $500 billion in savings from Medicare. In other words, 83% of the estimated savings are from things that we have no evidence will be brought about. And this is one of the tactics of the lie. You say whatever you want about a topic. That's what people hear and repeat. When the correction comes, it's not opening segment news, it not on the front page. It's buried on page ten, or relegated to one cable news network that will say something truthful about the president. The correction is never as big as the statement being corrected.

President Bush caught flak throughout his presidency for being ineloquent. For his use of words like "misunderestimated" he was labeled a moron. The "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot" bumper sticker was a best seller. The media has descended on Palin like a pack of hyenas on a fresh carcass over everything she says or does. Yet Obama has visited 57 states – wait, it was 58 – lies about his handling of the health care debate, and makes statements about his pet healthcare bill that are off by a factor of ten, and nobody in the mainstream media seems interested. There's no retraction from the White House, no one calling him on the carpet for carelessness with his numbers or saying he's an idiot for miscounting the number of states – TWICE…in one sentence!! No one, that is, except the converted. But the converted didn't vote for him in the first place.

Bush's creative use of the English language was amusing to some, embarrassing to others, but it wasn't going to bankrupt the nation. Obama's math skills just might.

What Does Bipartisan Mean?

I sincerely think someone needs to get President Obama a dictionary. He keeps paying lip service to a bipartisan healthcare bill, but either he doesn't know what the word means, or he's full of...well, you can guess what he's full of. Bipartisan's true meaning is "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." In that spirit, for almost a year Obama and the House and Senate leaders have ignored the Republican solutions and have ignored the will of the people. It has cost them, to date, two govermorships, a House seat, a Senate seat (held for over 30 years by a Democrat in the bluest state no less!), a defection from Dem to Republican in the House, and multiple retirements in both the House and Senate, leaving dozens of seats in jeopardy of going Republican in 2010.

Obama seemed to get the gravity of the situation by inviting the Republicans to a summit on the 25th of this month to discuss health care. We've been hearing for weeks - since Scott Brown's election - that Obama CAN save his presidency IF he moves to the right, really works with the House and Senate Republicans, really listens to what the ALL the people say, not just what his advisors and the people at the SEIU and MoveOn.Org have to say. And it seemed, for a few brief moments, like he was going to do that.

But then either his puppet masters or his ego took over again, and he has gone back to the "I know better than you what's best for you" style of politics. He announced that he is fully hoping for a bi-partisan solution to health care, and to prove it, until the Republicans come around, he will keep pushing forward with the existing legislation. This is where I think he may not understand the meaning of the word bipartisan, It does NOT mean that the Republicans need to agree with the Democrats. It doesn't mean that the existing legislation should be the starting point. It means getting out a fresh sheet of paper and starting over. 

It doesn't stop at healthcare.  To prove he's bipartisan, he's offered up money for nuclear power plants - IF the Republicans pass cap & trade legislation.  In other words, he's trying to bribe them to get what he wants.  He'll give us nuclear power, we just have to compromise our values - and our economy - to get it. 

Back to his bipartisan approach to healthcare, he's going to be announcing his own version of the health care plan today, THREE DAYS in advance of the summit. This plan is expected to be purely budgetary, so they can pass it through reconciliation with only 51 votes in teh Senate, and then make up whatever they want on the back end once they have the money to pay for it.  No one should be fooled, he has no intention of taking the wishes of the Republicans into consideration. He just doesn't get it!

If you doubt that this administration thinks that we're all a bunch of simpletons, his mouthpiece, Nancy Pelosi, said this: "We (Liberal Democrats) will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own (good)."

Did you get that? It's for our own good that healthcare be put in the hands of the government, which can't get the Cash For Clunkers dealers paid on time, which can't get unemployment checks paid on time, which causes the private sector to shrink by twenty cents for every dollar it spends, and which will create over 100 NEW AGENCIES with this legislation. If you get cancer and need a timely course of treatment, is this who you would turn to?

Please, keep writing and calling your elected officials. Keep up the pressure. Let's show them the way, or show them the door.

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