polecat news and views

Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

2012-02-03T06:30:00.000-08:00

Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

Posted by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But each of his first three years in office has marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

What do those numbers tell us? Put simply: that the country is hardening along more and more strict partisan lines.

While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly.

Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven — yes, seven — have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher.
“Obama’s ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years,” concludes Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones in a memo summing up the results. “That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama’s immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency after the rally in support from the 9/11 terror attacks faded.”

Our guess is that Jones’ latter hypothesis is the right one — that we are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.

The realization of that hyper-partisan reality has been slow in coming for Obama. But in recent months, he seems to have turned a rhetorical corner — taking the fight to Republicans (and Republicans in Congress, particularly) and all but daring them to call his bluff.

Democrats will point out that Republicans in Congress have played a significant part in the polarization; the congressional GOP has stood resolutely against almost all of Obama’s top priorities. And Obama’s still-high popularity among the Democratic base also exacerbates the gap.

For believers in bipartisanship, the next nine months are going to be tough sledding, as the already-gaping partisan divide between the two parties will only grow as the 2012 election draws nearer. And, if the last decade of Gallup numbers are any indication, there’s little turnaround in sight

.
Vote: Is Obama the Nation's Most Polarizing President of All Time?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html

Angry about inequality? Don’t blame the rich.

2012-02-02T18:08:00.000-08:00

Angry about inequality? Don’t blame the rich.

By James Q. Wilson
There is no doubt that incomes are unequal in the United States — far more so than in most European nations. This fact is part of the impulse behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose members claim to represent the 99 percent of us against the wealthiest 1 percent. It has also sparked a major debate in the Republican presidential race, where former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has come under fire for his tax rates and his career as the head of a private-equity firm.

And economic disparity was the recurring theme of President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday. “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” the president warned, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share.”

But the mere existence of income inequality tells us little about what, if anything, should be done about it. First, we must answer some key questions. Who constitutes the prosperous and the poor? Why has inequality increased? Does an unequal income distribution deny poor people the chance to buy what they want? And perhaps most important: How do Americans feel about inequality?

To answer these questions, it is not enough to take a snapshot of our incomes; we must instead have a motion picture of them and of how people move in and out of various income groups over time.

The “rich” in America are not a monolithic, unchanging class. A study by Thomas A. Garrett, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found that less than half of people in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still there in 2005. Such mobility is hardly surprising: A business school student, for instance, may have little money and high debts, but nine years later he or she could be earning a big Wall Street salary and bonus.

Mobility is not limited to the top-earning households. A study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that nearly half of the families in the lowest fifth of income earners in 2001 had moved up within six years. Over the same period, more than a third of those in the highest fifth of income-earners had moved down. Certainly, there are people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are ensconced in the top tier, but far more common are people who are rich for short periods.

And who are the rich? Affluent people, compared with poor ones, tend to have greater education and spouses who work full time. The past three decades have seen significant increases in real earnings for people with advanced degrees. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that between 1979 and 2010, hourly wages for men and women with at least a college degree rose by 33 percent and 20 percent, respectively, while they fell for all people with less than a high school diploma — by 9 percent for women and 31 percent for men.

Also, households with two earners have seen their incomes rise. This trend is driven in part by women’s increasing workforce participation, which doubled from 1950 to 2005 and which began to place women in well-paid jobs by the early 1980s.

We could reduce income inequality by trying to curtail the financial returns of education and the number of women in the workforce — but who would want to do that?

The real income problem in this country is not a question of who is rich, but rather of who is poor. Among the bottom fifth of income earners, many people, especially men, stay there their whole lives. Low education and unwed motherhood only exacerbate poverty, which is particularly acute among racial minorities. Brookings Institution economist Scott Winshiphas argued that two-thirds of black children in America experience a level of poverty that only 6 percent of white children will ever see, calling it a “national tragedy.”

Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce. It is easy to suppose that raising taxes on the rich would provide more money to help the poor. But the problem facing the poor is not too little money, but too few skills and opportunities to advance themselves.

Income inequality has increased in this country and in practically every European nation in recent decades. The best measure of that change is the Gini index, named after the Italian statistician Corrado Gini, who designed it in 1912. The index values vary between zero, when everyone has exactly the same income, and 1, when one person has all of the income and everybody else has none. In mid-1970s America, the index was 0.316, but it had reached 0.378 by the late 2000s. One of the few nations to see its Gini value fall was Greece, which went from 0.413 in the 1970s to 0.307 in the late 2000s. So Greece seems to be reducing income inequality — but with little to buy, riots in the streets and economic opportunity largely limited to those partaking in corruption, the nation is hardly a model for anyone’s economy.

Poverty in America is certainly a serious problem, but the plight of the poor has been moderated by advances in the economy. Between 1970 and 2010, the net worth of American households more than doubled, as did the number of television sets and air-conditioning units per home. In his book “The Poverty of the Poverty Rate,” Nicholas Eberstadt shows that over the past 30 or so years, the percentage of low-income children in the United States who are underweight has gone down, the share of low-income households lacking complete plumbing facilities has declined, and the area of their homes adequately heated has gone up. The fraction of poor households with a telephone, a television set and a clothes dryer has risen sharply.

In other words, the country has become more prosperous, as measured not by income but by consumption: In constant dollars, consumption by people in the lowest quintile rose by more than 40 percent over the past four decades.

Income as measured by the federal government is not a reliable indicator of well-being, but consumption is. Though poverty is a problem, it has become less of one.

Historically, Americans have had an unusual attitude toward income inequality. In 1985, political scientists Sidney Verba and Gary Orren published a book that compared how liberals in Sweden and in the United States viewed such inequality. By four or five to one, the Swedish liberals were more likely than the American ones to believe that it was important to give workers equal pay. The Swedes were three times more likely than the Americans to favor putting a top limit on incomes. (The Swedes get a lot of what they want: Their Gini index is 0.259, much lower than America’s.)

Sweden has maintained a low Gini index in part by having more progressive tax rates. If Americans wanted to follow the Swedish example, they could. But what is the morally fair way to determine tax rates — other than taxing everyone at the same rate? The case for progressive tax rates is far from settled; just read Kip Hagopian’s recent essay in Policy Review, which makes a powerful argument against progressive taxation because it fails to take into account aptitude and work effort.

American views about inequality have not changed much in the past quarter-century. In their 2009 book “Class War? What Americans Really Think About Economic Inequality,” political scientists Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacobs report that big majorities, including poor people, agree that “it is ‘still possible’ to start out poor in this country, work hard, and become rich,” and reject the view that it is the government’s job to narrow the income gap. More recently, a December Gallup poll showed that 52 percent of Americans say inequality is “an acceptable part” of the nation’s economic system, compared with 45 percent who deemed it a “problem that needs to be fixed.” Similarly, 82 percent said economic growth is “extremely important” or “very important,” compared with 46 percent saying that reducing the gap between rich and poor is extremely or very important.

Suppose we tax the rich more heavily — who would get the money, and for what goals?

Reducing poverty, rather than inequality, is also a difficult task, but at least the end is clearer. One new strategy for helping the poor improve their condition is known as the “social impact bond,” which is being tested in Britain and has been endorsed by the Obama administration. Under this approach, private investors, including foundations, put up money to pay for a program or initiative to help low-income people get jobs, stay out of prison or remain in school, for example. A government agency evaluates the results. If the program is succeeding, the agency reimburses the investors; if not, they get no government money.

As Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman has pointed out, for this system to work there must be careful measures of success and a reasonable chance for investors to make a profit. Massachusetts is ready to try such an effort. It may not be easy for the social impact bond model to work consistently, but it offers one big benefit: Instead of carping about who is rich, we would be trying to help people who are poor.

outlook@washpost.com

James Q. Wilson, a former professor at Harvard University and UCLA, is the Ronald Reagan professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. He is the author of “American Politics, Then & Now,” “The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families” and “The Moral Sense.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/angry-about-inequality-dont-blame-the-rich/2012/01/03/gIQA9S2fTQ_print.html

Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming”

2012-02-02T15:07:00.000-08:00

Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming”

by Anthony Watts

This is quite something. Sixteen scientists, including such names as Richard Lindzen, William Kininmonth, Wil Happer, and Nir Shaviv, plus engineer Burt Rutan, and Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmidt, among others, write what amounts to a heretical treatise to the Wall Street Journal, expressing their view that the global warming is oversold, has stalled in the last decade, and that the search for meaningful warming has led to co-opting weather patterns in the blame game. Oh, and a history lesson on Lysenkoism as it relates to today’s warming-science-funding-complex. I can hear Joe Romm’s head exploding all the way out here in California.
Excerpts:

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

…
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
…
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
…
Signed by:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Full letter is online here at the Wall Street Journal

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#more-55508

Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional

2012-02-02T09:30:00.001-08:00

Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional

By Chris Cox

Check out TheDC’s new Guns and Gear section for Second Amendment news, gun policy and reviews of the latest guns and gear.

Election season is here, and you might think President Obama would be going out of his way to show voters that he can be trusted with the powers of the presidency. But you would be wrong. Just a few days before Christmas, Obama served notice to all Americans that he will continue to abuse executive privilege by seeking new ways to vilify gun owners and further his anti-gun agenda.

Congress placed a provision in the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill for 2012 designed to bar the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion taxpayer funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” However, upon signing the bill into law, President Obama issued a caveat of his own:

I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

In other words: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

Of course, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the president this power, but Obama won’t allow a little thing like the U.S. Constitution get in his way. And in the present case, Congress is right to try to prevent him from using a federal health agency, not to mention our tax dollars, as a weapon in his ongoing war against the Second Amendment. As The Washington Times reports, NIH has wasted over $5 million since 2002 producing deceptive studies aimed at furthering gun control — including one study that tried “to prove that a home without firearms was essential to a child’s safety and well-being.”

Even more importantly, Congress knows that there is no scheme too radical, or dangerous, for the Obama administration when it comes to using federal agencies to push its anti-gun agenda.

Last month, email exchanges surfaced between employees at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) that show the administration helped illegally transfer guns to violent Mexican drug cartels in order to manufacture a case for gun registration. Now gun dealers in four Southwest border states must abide by a new gun registration requirement, courtesy of BATFE, that forces them to register the sales of any law-abiding American who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within five business days.

Congress never passed any law like this. Rather, Obama’s BATFE orchestrated the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to give cause for its unconstitutional gun-control edict. Given this, how hard is it to envision the Obama administration issuing a phony “health” study that maligns gun owners?

Obama may not have a majority in Congress, or the will of the people, behind his anti-gun agenda. But that isn’t stopping his administration from finding deceitful ways to evade Congress and build public support for gun bans, gun registration and other regulations designed to weaken and destroy our Second Amendment rights.

Chris W. Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

A long interview with Mark Levin--but you will get a great intro to his remarkable book

2012-02-02T07:30:00.000-08:00

Interviewing Mark Levin About His New Book, “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.”

Written By : John Hawkins

I've already read the book, liked it, and yesterday, I had an opportunity to talk to Mark Levin about it. What follows is a slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

All right, first question, Mark: one of the criticisms of the conservative movement often made by the Left and even some people on the Right is that the GOP is anti-intellectual. I have to say that your book, which is number one on politics on Amazon as I write this, seems to be a direct refutation of that idea. Your book is extremely deep, intellectual and philosophical. It’s certainly not pop politics. What do you say to the idea that conservatives aren’t interested in intellectual discussions?

I know the Left isn’t all that interested in it because I’ve never been asked about my books from the Left. Instead people trash my books or me without actually having read them. They don’t get reviewed. By the way, this isn’t a complaint. I could care less. But it is the Left actually that’s anti-intellectual.

As for the Right, I think the Right is where the action is when it comes to ideas and philosophy. And that’s where our strength is as a matter of fact. Now that’s not to say that my book is embraced by everybody on the Right. There are people on the Right who’ll pretend it doesn’t exist. Again I could care less.

On the other hand, it also receives great reception by most people on the Right. But, I write these books not for commentators on the Left or commentators on the Right. I write these books for my audience and for the general public. And I think the people of this country are craving more extensive examinations of philosophy.

That is what folks like we believe and what folks who don’t believe as we believe what motivates them. So I would argue that not only is conservatism a more thoughtful and intellectual philosophy but that our people, Tea Party activists and so forth are craving this information.

In talking about Hobbes, you noted that, “Hobbes seemed to be saying that man’s nature cannot be trusted but the nature of a ruler or a ruling assembly can be trusted. How so?” Along similar lines, you noted that Utopians viewed governance like so, “The individual is to be governed, not represented. His personal interests are of no interest. They are dismissed as selfish, unjust, and destructive.” Isn’t this a constant failure of Utopians? They believe we can’t trust individuals to make their own decisions, but government officials and bureaucrats in DC can be trusted not only to make the right decisions for themselves, but to make the right decisions for everyone, everywhere, all across the country?

That’s quite right. It really is bizarre that we live in a society in which we have enough wisdom to choose our rulers, but we don’t have enough wisdom to choose our light bulbs. This is intentional. It’s not so much, I don’t think, that the Utopian mindset believes that individuals are incapable of making decisions. It’s more that the mastermind, the self-appointed, really delusional masterminds who manage to get in very significant positions; positions of great power, that they think they’re smarter than everybody else. Not based on any record or experience or knowledge or anything of the sort; just based on the fact that they have this notion of how people should behave, in the ideal society.

So they seek to as Obama said, “fundamentally transform” — and I will say destroy this society, reject our history, reject our legacy and start with something new. And they believe that something new is a model society and that you cannot have individuals on their own acting freely, pursuing their own interests and reach the Promised Land. That is, accomplish something that cannot be accomplished and never will be accomplished, and that is the construction of a paradise. It’s an impossibility and yet it is an abstraction, it is a dogma and it is where they seek to take us.

If you asked the Left Wing Utopians, they’d tell you they’re just trying to make people’s lives better and fair. They’re not hurting anything. Everything they do is positive. There are no negatives to what they’re doing. Describe some of the real world consequences in this country that have occurred because of the Left’s quest for Utopia?

First of all, let me say that totalitarianism is often dressed up as compassion and humanism. And it’s neither.

Let’s take a look at our society today. We have a massive federal bureaucracy — what I call the fourth branch of the government, this administrative state which issues thousands of laws every year and increasingly so. And they’ve piled upon law and piled upon law and these laws have penalties and fines which include criminal penalties for which people are held strictly liable and can be imprisoned. So it is a complete disconnect between enfranchisement, that is our ability to influence our government, and what our government is doing to the people. So when we vote every election cycle, the fact of the matter is there is a significant part of our government that is largely unaffected.

This is why, among other reasons, I talk about us living in a post-Constitutional America. We’re not strictly a Constitutional republic anymore because so many of our so-called leaders have managed to evade the Constitution. This has been a process that’s been going on gradually for about 100 years and it’s more aggressive today. We’re not really a federal republic anymore because the states that gave birth to the federal government are now really the children of the federal government. And we’re not really a representative republic for the reasons I just said. So much of what goes on in the government has nothing to do with who we vote for or how we vote or whether we vote at all.

So the Utopians pushing this radical statism have institutionalized their policies in this sort of permanent part of the government. So where are we? And I think we are more an Ameritopia than an America. I’d like to see us get back to an America, obviously. But I think we’re more of an Ameritopia.

We are deviating in many respects from the Constitution. As a result, we have individuals making decisions that are imposed on us because they think they know better than us. Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is a perfect example of this mentality. He goes on and on and on about who should have money, who shouldn’t have money, which businesses we should support, which businesses we shouldn’t support, how he’s going to rearrange the deck chairs on the deck and on and on and on.

You think to yourself, “Gee, I look at the Constitution and the president doesn’t have the power to do all these things. He shouldn’t have the power to do all these things and yet he does these things. And if he could do more, he would do more of those things.”

One of the theories I have, Mark, is that a lot of the people we think of as the conservative elite, many of the people in DC, many of the people in power, have already accepted the idea of Ameritopia. I think a lot of these people are content to hold the line and try to keep the country from going further to the Left, but I’m not sure they still have the courage and the will to support people who want to actually move the country back towards the Right. Now I know you don’t have that mentality, but you roll in those circles, so what do you think?

First of all, just so you know, I talk to as few of these people as possible. The word’s gone out; so they don’t really try to talk to me that much anymore. You’re right again; I mean the rhetoric that we hear from a lot of Republicans running for office is that they claim to support free markets, they claim to support individual sovereignty in the Constitution. And they get into power and they do absolutely nothing, not only to begin the long, formidable, daunting process of reversing course — but they won’t even stop what’s going on so that we can take a breath and begin that process.

That’s why I think if the Republican Party is not careful, the Republican Party is going to die because it is so far behind what conservatives see and what conservatives know to be happening and if it doesn’t have answers, or if it has leaders who aren’t willing to take steps that are absolutely crucial in order to reestablish our Constitutional system and to protect individual sovereignty, it’s really quite pointless.

It can even get worse because if you look at George Bush, TARP was George Bush’s creation. He used TARP money and subsidized GM and Chrysler even though Congress had refused to do so. So there you have a clear violation of separation of powers. He expanded Medicare. He ran up the debt. With so much of what Obama is doing, the foundation was laid by his predecessor. Obama took the ball and ran with it and, of course, being the fanatical Utopian that he is, meaning he wants ever more concentrated, centralized government — he took that precedent and the precedent even before his predecessor and has been running wild with it. So, yes, if Republicans are going to start the process of not just stopping what’s going on, but reversing course, we have to come up with another means for addressing it if they’re not going to do it.

Last question and it’s the 64,000 dollar question, Mark. Utopianism has never worked anywhere, throughout history. Moreover, there’s no promising success story on the horizon. When you look at Western Europe, where the countries are further down the road to what people like Obama would consider a utopian paradise, you see anemic economies, demographic death spirals, pitiful militaries, and increasingly untenable levels of debt. So, there’s no reasonable reason at all for anyone to think the path we’re going down is going to be successful. So, why does the Left keep pursuing unachievable utopias?

Because if they accept that this ideology can’t work, then they diminish themselves because….let me explain it to you this way. This has been going on for thousands of years, which is the reason I go all the way back to Plato’s Republic and Thomas Moore’s Utopia. and I go back to Thomas Hobbes Leviathan — those are hundreds of years old. Of course, the Communist manifesto with Marx and Engels. The fact is that wittingly or unwittingly, the modern day masterminds who push this agenda, they always believe the world begins with them and it begins today.

They always believe they have a better notion of an ideal society than the guy before them. So Obama is smarter than Plato, you see. Pelosi is smarter than Hobbes. Reid is smarter than Moore. They’re not really interested in history. As a matter of fact they have to break from our history in order to advance what is a very alien notion — which is why I get into the philosophical underpinnings that seem to allure millions of people while it is destroying those people.

And one of the ways they do this is by making these far off promises and predictions — big, ambitious images of what the world would be like and how mankind would be if only the individual was squelched, if only you surrendered more of your liberty and private property to the central authority, to the mastermind, the experts and their army of bureaucrats — then they could rearrange society in a way in which we have equality of income and equality of social outcomes. Then we could build this rainbow to paradise. This is how they argue. This is what you heard in State of Union Address in so many words.

I get into John Locke and get into Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville so we can explain to people again why we have a better message and that is, we actually believe human beings have value. We actually believe individuality needs to be protected from all powerful Leviathan. We actually believe in the worth of the individual and the family. So if we understand our philosophical underpinnings to the foundation of our government, I think we will not only cherish it more, we’ll be in a better position to argue.

Look, the Founders didn’t wake up one day and come up with the idea of unalienable rights, consent of the governed, natural law, man’s nature, and three branches of government. They found that persuasive philosophy elsewhere. So I just decided that we the people in America today, we have to look at those philosophers, too, and see what’s so compelling about it and once we do, I think we’ll have a chance.

Mark, outstanding I appreciate your time.
Well, John, I am a big fan. I love reading your stuff.

Great interview. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Mark.
God bless you, man. Take care, bye-bye.
Once again, Mark Levin’s new book is called, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-mark-levin-about-his-new-book-ameritopia-the-unmaking-of-america/

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

2012-02-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

by Conn Carroll

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

(here's most of the Gallup article, chart and map):

January 31, 2012

Obama Approval Above 50% in 10 States and D.C. in 2011

District of Columbia, Hawaii most approving; Utah, Idaho, least

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- In 10 states plus the District of Columbia, a majority of residents approved of the job Barack Obama was doing as president last year, according to aggregated data from 2011. His greatest support came from District of Columbia, Maryland, and Hawaii residents, while Utah and Idaho residents gave him his lowest levels of support -- below 30%.

Explore complete state data >

These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking data from 2011, which include interviews with just under 180,000 U.S. residents and no fewer than 500 residents in any state (the sample for the District of Columbia was 356). State samples are weighted so they are demographically representative of the population of each state. Full data for each state appear on page 2.

Eastern states largely make up the list of those with the highest approval ratings of Obama -- those above majority approval. Eight of the top 11 are from the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic areas of the country. The exceptions are Obama's birth state of Hawaii, his home state of Illinois, and California.

The states with the lowest approval ratings are more regionally diverse, with the greatest number -- five, including Alaska -- in the Western part of the United States.

Obama Approval Ratings Down in Most States

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico. ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval

Obama attacks handouts -- and then adds handouts

2012-02-01T20:53:00.000-08:00

Obama attacks handouts -- and then adds handouts

byTimothy P. Carney

President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012. (AP Photo/Saul Loeb, Pool)

When President Obama promised "no more bailouts, no more handouts" in his State of the Union address, and declared "it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom," he was either prescribing a total reversal of his current industrial policy, or he was once again using words to mean something they've never meant before.

The rest of Obama's speech suggests the latter: He plans to continue his pattern of subsidizing, regulating, mandating and picking winners and losers, all the while calling it "fairness" and "a level playing-field."

When liberals speak of "fairness," conservatives tend to hear "redistribution" and "welfare," but Obama's fairness talk is not just code for liberal class warfare. He's also trying to tap into a broad sense that right now, the game is rigged -- that the insiders get special treatment and regular folks get short shrift. This is a real problem, and it's prudent to tap into this dissatisfaction. It's too bad all his policies just rig the game even more.

Obama opened his discussion on industrial policy Tuesday night by bragging about how the taxpayer bailouts of Detroit had helped put General Motors "back on top as the world's number one automaker." In other words, if the government stacks the deck sufficiently in favor of one huge, politically connected corporation, that corporation can beat other, huge, less politically connected corporations.

Then Obama promised, "What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries." The meaning was clear: With enough handouts, enough bailouts, enough mandates, government can prop up all sorts of manufacturing corporations.

Although Obama did not explicitly lay out new subsidy programs, he painted a picture of the sort of government backing he wants to preserve and expand. He touted his Export Initiative, the centerpiece of which is a subsidy agency called the Export-Import Bank. Last year Ex-Im issued more than $15 million in new taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, with two-thirds of that money subsidizing Boeing sales.

In Obamaland, putting taxpayer money at risk in order to benefit the world's largest jetmaker somehow doesn't count as a "handout."

Obama also promised he would "not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany."

China and Germany, of course, subsidize their renewable energy companies even more than we do. To compete for more solar and wind business, we will need more Solyndra-type loan guarantees, and we'll need to extend and probably expand current tax credits and grants for "green energy."

But again, the president doesn't consider these "handouts." The policies Obama does call "taxpayer giveaways" are often nothing of the sort. He railed against oil subsidies and called on Congress to end them. But Democratic legislation purportedly ending oil subsidies mostly targeted broad-based production subsidies, and rather than ending these, Democrats propose to merely exclude the five biggest oil companies.

Obama hasn't shown any willingness, for instance, to repeal the law that results in the single largest oil subsidy -- the domestic production tax credit. In fact, that credit is a key part of his campaign to subsidize manufacturing. He only wants to freeze a few oil companies out of it.

Giving a subsidy to coal mining and some oil drilling but denying it to oil drilling by big companies is pretty Orwellian definition of "apply[ing] the same rules from top to bottom."

The same is true for his "Buffett tax," named after billionaire Obama fundraiser Warren Buffett who laments that his taxes are too low. "If you make more than $1 million a year," Obama decreed, "you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes." This would have to take the form of another alternative minimum tax. In other words, he wants to deny tax deductions and change the treatment of investment income only for those who earn too much. This isn't graduated tax rates Obama's talking about -- this is two different tax codes.

To believe Obama wants "fairness" you have to pack that word with all the subjective judgments Obama makes about who deserves what. To believe Obama wants to end "handouts" and "bailouts," you must redefine the words to exclude Obama's favorite subsidies and to include some profits made through free enterprise.

When Obama says "it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom," however, he means it. But these are the rules: Do what Obama likes, get favors. Do what Obama doesn't like, get punished.

Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obama-attacks-handouts-and-then-adds-handouts/338751

Romney Ties Obama in Swing States; Gingrich Trails

2012-02-01T13:48:00.000-08:00

Romney Ties Obama in Swing States; Gingrich Trails

Gingrich performs worst against Obama in swing states and nationally

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters in 12 key swing states are almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in their 2012 presidential election preferences, while giving a 14-percentage-point lead to Obama over Newt Gingrich. Swing-state voters also prefer Obama to Ron Paul and to Rick Santorum. Registered voters nationally express similar preferences, although Paul does slightly better at the national level than he does in the swing states.

See all election 2012 data >

These "swing state" results are from the third USA Today/Gallup Swing States poll, based on Jan. 24-28 Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters in 12 states that will be among the most crucial to winning the 2012 presidential election.

The states include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The national results are based on Jan. 27-28 Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters.

Obama and Romney have been closely matched in each of the three swing-states polls, conducted in October, late November/early December, and now in January. Obama and Romney have also been statistically tied in each of five polls conducted among national registered voters dating back to August.

(use link for chart) http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

The Obama-Gingrich matchup was not included in the October swing-states or national poll, but in late November/early December, Gingrich was slightly ahead of Obama in the swing states, while trailing by six points nationally. Now, Gingrich's position has worsened on both fronts, as the former House speaker trails the president by 14 points in the swing states and by 12 points nationally.

(use link for chart) http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

The late January polling marks the first time Gallup has measured Obama against Paul and Santorum in the swing states, and the president leads each by a margin of seven points. Nationally, Paul does slightly better, trailing Obama by only three points. Santorum's deficit to Obama nationally is essentially the same as his deficit in the swing states.

Romney Almost Back to Even With Gingrich Among Republicans Nationally

Gallup Daily tracking of national Republican registered voters' preferences from Jan. 24-28 shows that Gingrich and Romney are now essentially tied, with Gingrich at 28% and Romney at 26%. This is the latest development in a race whose lead has swung back and forth several times over the last two months. Gingrich had previously moved back into the top position after strong debate performances and securing a 12-point win in the South Carolina primary.

Prior to that, Romney had led by as much as 24 points, which itself followed as much as a 15-point Gingrich lead in early December.

Polls in Florida show Romney with a substantial lead going into that state's Jan. 31 primary, and a Romney win there would likely bolster his standing among Republicans nationally.

Republicans More Likely to Be Extremely Enthusiastic About Voting Next November

Republicans remain slightly more enthusiastic about voting for president in this year's election than are Democrats or independents -- both in swing states and nationally.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

Republicans are particularly more likely than the other two groups to say they are "extremely" enthusiastic about voting, although Democrats make up most of the difference by being more likely than Republicans to say they are "very" enthusiastic.

Bottom Line

Gallup trial heats for the 2012 general election between Obama and Romney have consistently shown a close race across five national polls conducted in August, September, October, December, and now in January, as well as in three swing-state polls conducted since October. Thus, even as Republican voters' support for various candidates for their party's nomination has fluctuated substantially, the preferences of all registered voters for Obama or Romney nationally and in key swing states have remained quite stable.

In contrast to Romney's stable positioning against Obama, Gingrich's strength in swing states and nationally has deteriorated since late November/early December. Obama now leads Gingrich by double-digit margins in both. Additionally, Gallup Daily tracking of national Republican preferences for their party's nominee over the weekend shows Gingrich's lead over Romney slipping, with the two nearly back to a tie.

These results, coupled with Gallup's latest measure of the two candidates' images among Americans, lend support to the Romney camp's argument that Romney is the more electable of the two.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

More #Greenfail--running out of other people's money

2012-02-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

More #Greenfail

by Steven Hayward in Energy Policy

The green energy bubble continues to burst in about the same fashion as the housing bubble. The other day we noted here the collapse of German solar power subsidies, and now Spain is following suit:

Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011.
“What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem,” Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.
The system’s debts were racked up as revenue from state- controlled prices failed to cover the cost of delivering power.
Costs have swollen in the past five years because of an increase in regulated payments for the power grid, support for Spanish coal mines and subsidies for renewable energy plants. . .
The Spanish action follows Germany’s announcement last week that it would phase out support for solar panels by 2017 and the U.K.’s legal battle to reduce its subsidies for the industry.

Meanwhile, Barclays Bank announced last week that it is closing its U.S. emissions trading desk, which had been a cornerstone of the northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or “reggie”):

Investment bank Barclays Capital has closed its US emissions trading desk in New York, sources said Wednesday, a move that takes one of the primary traders of California carbon allowances (CCAs) out of the emerging market.
The London-based bank has decided to focus on more standard markets in the U.S. like power, coal and oil, said Kedin Kilgore, the former head of US Emissions Trading at Barclays, who has left the bank to explore other opportunities.

But wait! Isn’t California, which is trying to launch an emissions trading program, going to save us?

“Clearly, if they thought California was going to be a liquid, viable program anytime soon they wouldn’t be shutting down,” he said.

Another blogger comments:

How times have changed. Back in 2007, Barclays said: ”The market fluctuated greatly during 2006, but we believe in its long-term importance.”

The face plant of the green energy sector wholly dependent on subsidies is one the easiest calls you could make the last few years.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/more-greenfail.php

Warren Buffett: Shut up, he explained

2012-02-01T09:30:00.000-08:00

Warren Buffett: Shut up, he explained

by Scott Johnson in Obama administration, Taxes

We tried to back into an estimate of the income of Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, in “Analyze this.”Ms. Bosanek was one of the stars of President Obanma’s State of the Union address. Buffett and Obama portray her as the victim of an unfair tax code.

As I noted in an update to the post, it turns out that Ms. Bosanek reportedly makes about $60,000 a year. When they suggest that she pays 35 percent of her income in federal income taxes, Obama and Buffett are apparently taking her federal marginal tax rate, adding both sides of the payroll tax, and comparing it to what must be Buffett’s effective tax rate. Megan McArdle observed: “That comparison is beyond bizarre.” It is a farcical mistake to take anything these folks say at face value.

Buffetts’s hometown paper tried to follow up on the questions left hanging:

Debbie Bosanek and her boss both declined Thursday to disclose how much she’s paid, saying it’s private.
In an interview with The World-Herald, Buffett also said none of the online guesses about Bosanek’s salary is right, and the critics are missing his point.
“I’m saying she is being treated unfairly in the tax code, as are tens of millions of others, compared to me,” Buffett said. “They shouldn’t change the rates on all the other people. They should change mine.”

The pseudonymous Jim Treacher expertly translates: “No fair asking why we should take his word for any of this. No fair asking why, if he’s so worried about not paying enough taxes, he doesn’t pay the $1 billion — that’s $1,000,000,000 — he already owes. No fair. No fair. Shut up.” Citing Politico, Treacher adds that the White House isn’t much interested in exploring details either. Politico explains that “for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.” My translation: The White House wants to keep the propaganda undiluted.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/warren-buffett-shut-up-he-explained.php

TV News Bashes Romney, Boosts Horse Race

2012-02-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

CBS Is More Positive Than FOX Toward GOP Field

Contact: Rachel Salabes

Study: TV News Bashes Romney, Boosts Horse Race

Frontrunner Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field, according to a new study of television news coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. The study also found that the campaign horse race is getting over six times as much coverage as the candidates’ positions on policy issues. According to CMPA director and George Mason University professor Robert Lichter, “The media love a horse race and hate a frontrunner.”

This study covered 118 stories on the Republican primaries from January 1 to the January 10 New Hampshire primary on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation). This is the first release from CMPA’s ongoing 2012 Election News Watch Project. For information on our methodology see: http://cmpa.com/about_methods.htm

Bad News for Romney Mitt Romney was the only major candidate to receive a majority of negative evaluations by sources and reporters, on both the broadcast network nightly news and FOX “Special Report.” (We measured evaluative comments about the candidates’ behavior, past records, issue positions, personal character, etc. However, we excluded comments about how they were faring in the campaign horse race.)

Examples: "Many of the most conservative elements of the party... do not trust him." - election analyst, NBC

"I think he's lying to get elected." - voter, FOX

Broadcast Results On the broadcast networks, evaluative comments of Romney were 78% negative vs. only 22% positive. By contrast, on-air judgments of Ron Paul were 73% positive vs. 27% negative, evaluations of Jon Huntsman were 71% positive vs. 29% negative, Rick Santorum’s evaluations were 56% positive vs. 44% negative, and comments about Newt Gingrich were 52% positive vs. 48% negative. Other candidates received too few evaluations to be statistically meaningful.

FOX Results Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage -- 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.

Examples: "[Paul is] in a category of his own as a libertarian and may prove to be fatally flawed." - Charles Krauthammer, FOX

"I like Newt Gingrich because to me Newt has the experience." - voter, CBS

Network Differences However, the various networks differed sharply from one another in their combined evaluations of the entire Republican field. A majority of all candidate evaluations aired on CBS and FOX were positive, while comments were 3 to 1 negative on NBC and 2 to 1 negative on ABC.

CBS had the most positive portrayals -- 57% positive vs. 43% negative, partly because of its highly favorable (89% positive) evaluations of Ron Paul. FOX had the most balanced overall coverage with 52% positive vs. 48% negative comments. NBC was the most negative overall with 27% positive vs. 73% negative coverage, followed closely by ABC with 32% positive vs. 68% negative coverage. Both NBC and ABC featured 85% negative comments on Romney.

Example: "I love his foreign policy because... if you stick your nose into other people's business, you're going to get punched eventually." -- college student, CBS

The Horse Race Wins There were over six times as many stories on the campaign horse race as there were on the policies of the candidates (105 vs. 16 stories). Even when the candidates’ backgrounds are added to the comparison, the horse race outpaced coverage of their records, personalities, and policies by a margin of over 3 to 1 (105 vs. 31 stories). In this respect FOX and the broadcast networks were very similar.

The major topics of the coverage, measured as the number of stories about each, were as follows:
1. Campaign horse race - 105
2. Policy issues - 16
3. Voters - 11
4. Candidates’ professional backgrounds - 8
5. Candidates’ personal backgrounds - 7
6. Campaign conduct - 7
7. Debates - 5

Note: Some stories had more than one major topic.

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html

No-Class Warfare

2012-01-31T20:33:00.000-08:00

No-Class Warfare

by John Hinderaker in Obama administration

Before Barack Obama, have we ever had a president who divided the country for political gain; who pitted some Americans against others; and who tried to scapegoat unpopular groups of Americans for his own failures? Yes. It was Franklin Roosevelt. But that doesn’t excuse Obama’s reprehensible practice of the politics of division. Michael Ramirez editoria:

Of the Ignorant, By the Ignorant, For the Ignorant

2012-01-31T13:30:00.000-08:00

Of the Ignorant, By the Ignorant, For the Ignorant

by John Hinderaker in Energy Policy, Obama administration, The sick left
President Obama’s State of the Union address was a sorry performance in many ways, but let’s note just one Big Lie that he tried to get away with. In the course of defending his administration’s disastrous record on energy, Obama said:

Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration…. But with only two percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.

Obama has trotted out this canard before; we and many others have exploded it. In fact, the United States has more fossil fuel resources than any country in the world–more than Russia, more than Canada, more than Saudi Arabia. The problem is that terrible policies at the federal level prevent us from developing our own resources and employing many thousands of Americans in doing so.

Why does Obama think he can get away with this Big Lie? Because he knows that very few Americans are aware of the technical definition of oil “reserves” that is enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under American law (other countries record as “reserves” whatever is in the ground), oil isn’t counted as part of our “reserves” unless it can legally be developed under current regulations, and it would be economic to develop at current prices. So when Obama says we only have two percent of the world’s oil “reserves,” he is documenting the extent to which the Democratic Party, by blocking energy development, is destroying jobs and making us all poorer.

Obama’s Big Lie on energy is supported by lots of little lies on the part of his minions in Congress. The Democrats believe that their voters are ignorant, and they do their best to keep them that way. A case in point: the Democrats know that their killing of the Keystone pipeline is unpopular and will hurt them in November. So they are desperately trying to change the subject. The House Energy and Power Subcommittee is holding hearings on Keystone, and the appalling Henry Waxman weighed in this morning to try to distract voters from the damage the Obama administration is doing to our economy:

House Democrats are using the billionaire Koch brothers to score political points in their fight against the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) suggested at a hearing Wednesday that Koch Industries — the Kansas-based conglomerate helmed by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch — could benefit financially from approval of the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline. By linking the Keystone XL pipeline to the Koch brothers, who have supported a slew of conservative causes, Democrats are hoping to raise questions about Republicans’ motives in supporting the project. …
Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Wednesday for a minority hearing on Keystone, with testimony from Koch Industry officials.
In a letter requesting the hearing sent Wednesday to committee Republicans, Waxman pointed to documents filed with the Canadian government by Flint Hills Resources Canada, a Koch subsidiary, that say the company has a “direct and substantial interest” in developer TransCanda Corp.’s pipeline application.

Waxman’s grandstanding is contemptible for at least two reasons. First, no doubt some companies–along with millions of Americans–would benefit from construction of the pipeline. So what? Other companies (like Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe) will benefit if the pipeline is not built. Since when does the issuance of a permit depend on which companies will benefit?
But, second, Waxman knows perfectly well that Koch Industries has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline. We wrote about this here. Koch has taken no position on the pipeline. It would not ship oil on Keystone, and Keystone would not deliver oil to any Koch refinery. If anything, as we explained, Koch’s financial interests would be advanced if the pipeline were not built.
Further, the language quoted by Waxman about “direct and substantial interest” is the legal recitation that goes with intervening in the Canadian administrative proceeding concerning the pipeline, which Koch did in order to monitor the status of the proceeding before Canada’s National Energy Board. Being an intervenor in the administrative process does not mean that Koch has a financial interest in the pipeline; other intervenors include Sierra Club Canada and the Alberta Federation of Labour, along with many companies and individuals who, like Koch, have zero financial interest in the project. You can read Koch’s response to Waxman’s demagoguery here.

Like Barack Obama, Henry Waxman is lying. He knows he is lying. He is doing it to mislead voters in the desperate hope that the Democratic Party can hang on to power in Washington. The Democrats count on the belief that voters are ignorant–a condition they try to perpetuate. All too often, they are proven correct. But the shamelessness of the lies the Democrats are now telling, large and small, becomes more evident with each passing day.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/of-the-ignorant-by-the-ignorant-for-the-ignorant.php

Romney stronger in FL than Gingrich against Obama by 14 points

2012-01-31T09:00:00.000-08:00

Suffolk poll: Romney stronger in FL than Gingrich against Obama by 14 points

by Ed Morrissey

Despite Newt Gingrich’s momentum within the Republican Party, he would be a weaker contender than Mitt Romney in a general election contest against President Barack Obama, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WSVN-Miami) poll of likely voters in Florida.
Romney led Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama topped Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.
“Newt Gingrich is weak among Florida independents and likely Democratic voters compared to Romney,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “If Florida is one of six key states that swings the national election, independents in Florida hold that key, and this poll suggests that Newt won’t be able to secure Florida for his party.”

That’s a difference of 14 points between the two head-to-head matchups (Romney +5, Gingrich -9). This poll comes as Gingrich’s momentum has slowed with Republicans in the state, and it reflects the wide disparity in favorability between the two men in Florida. Mitt Romney has a positive but somewhat weak 44/37 favorability rating, but Gingrich’s is deeply negative at exactly a 2:1 ratio, 29/58 in a sample that is only a D+4, 41/37/23. Barack Obama’s job approval rating among likely Florida voters is only a 40/49, which means that Obama only outperforms his job approval by two against Romney but nine against Gingrich. Obama’s favorability numbers are also underwater at 47/48, which means voters aren’t inclined toward him anyway.

Plenty of speculation surrounds Marco Rubio as a running mate for Republicans to help keep Florida in the red column in November, but the Suffolk poll suggests that may be a bad idea. The survey only polled head-to-head with running mates with Romney as the nominee, and adding Rubio makes it a slightly closer race. As popular as Rubio is with conservatives nationwide, his favorability in Florida is just 43/32 — not bad, but not explosively great either. Romney goes from a +5 at 47/42 against Obama to a +2 for a Romney-Rubio vs Obama-Biden ticket. If Obama picks Hillary Clinton to replace Joe Biden, it swings the polling significantly to a seven-point lead over Romney-Rubio, 49/42. Interestingly, having Chris Christie on the ticket for Romney makes it a one-point race with Biden or Clinton on the ticket for Obama, although with Clinton, Obama gets a one-point lead rather than a deficit.

Gingrich might still win a Florida primary, which is closed to all but Republicans, but he’s going to make it significantly more difficult to win Florida in a general election, unless his numbers change a lot.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/26/suffolk-poll-romney-stronger-in-fl-than-gingrich-against-obama-by-14-points/

40 Years After The 1972 Campaign, "Dirty Tricks" No Longer Matter To MSM

2012-01-31T06:00:00.000-08:00

40 Years After The 1972 Campaign, "Dirty Tricks" No Longer Matter To MSM

Hugh Hewitt

The single biggest storyline out of Florida and concerning the GOP presidential nomination isn't getting much attention.

It is the attempt by President Obama and his allies to pick the Republican nominee.

It is the manipulation of the Tea Party by the hard-left activists of the ACORN-wing of the Democratic Party.

The president and the Chicago Gang as well as their allies in Big Labor want the GOP nominee to be Newt Gingrich.

This is a fact and isn't intended as a slam on the former Speaker. He and his supporters can easily say "President Obama had better watch what he wishes for," and leave it at that.

But there is no denying the president's campaign of what we used to quaintly call "dirty tricks."

Here's how the Orlando Sentinel's Scott Powers put it in yesterday's front page story: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has an unlikely ally this week in his Florida primary battle against Mitt Romney: the Democratic National Committee.

The Democrats are targeting Mitt Romney as if he were already the Republican nominee running against President Barack Obama, with campaign ads, Internet videos, daily news conferences and dozens of news releases attacking the former Massachusetts governor.
Traditional Democratic partners are jumping in, too. Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' and Service Employees International Union's political-action committees are running their own TV commercials in Florida this week — attacking Romney.
Gingrich and the other two Republican candidates, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas U.S.Rep. Ron Paul, are being all but ignored by the DNC and its allies.

Richard Nixon's operatives have long been accused of pushing George McGovern on the Democrats in 1972, a result of the campaign of "dirty tricks" the Committee to Re-Elect the President waged on Ed Muskie.

Now, because President Obama is cheating in plain sight, campaign skullduggery doesn't interest the Manhattan-Beltway media elites.
AFSCME has bought nearly $1,00,000 in television time to hit Romney with negative ads.

SEIU has bought $800,000 in negative radio spots to hit the former Massachusetts governor.

And those are just the "above the horizon" expenditures that can be tracked from various sources.

Democrats are trying to Muskie Romney. But with much larger dollars and an obviousness that hides the audacity of the maneuver in plain sight.
Does anyone think the DNC operatives quoted in the Sentinel are acting without the president's approval? Does anyone think that Big Labor isn't at least taking its cues if not its outright marching orders from David Axelrod? Axelrod wants the president to run against Gingrich. The Chicago kingmaker is making a bold play to take out the strongest of the GOP candidates, and MSM doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

Had Karl Rove orchestrated millions in hit pieces on John Kerry or Howard Dean in early 2004, would the moral authorities of MSNBC and the New York Times have objected?

We know the candidates cannot tell the "super PACs" what to do or say, but we know that what the candidates or their operatives do or say directs their allies from a convenient distance. That is the First Amendment at work and it is fine.

But we have never, ever before seen and shrugged off such a blatant manipulation of the other party's nomination processor.

Why isn't this news? Why isn't every detail of the unions' massive expenditures and the DNC's concerted effort to direct their fire being picked over by MSM? And more to the point, where is the Manhattan-Beltway media elite reserve of outrage that used to pour out at the names of Donald Segretti or Dick Tuck, famed for their rather low-level mischief.

They don't see it the problem, and they don't see the story because they are simply blind to anything the president and his team comes up with. "Fast and Furious?" Recess appointments when there is no recess? The vast reaches of the crony capitalism endemic to this Administration?

It has been 40 years since the "Watergate Campaign" of 1972. The hardball hasn't changed, just the MSM's interest in being outraged by it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2012/01/26/40_years_after_the_1972_campaign_dirty_tricks_no_longer_matter_to_msm/page/full/

Support for Renewable Energy Yields ‘Poor’ Results

2012-01-30T18:16:00.000-08:00

Support for Renewable Energy Yields ‘Poor’ Results

Renewable electric energy from nonhydroelectric sources — chiefly wind and solar — contributed only 3.6 percent of total U.S. generation in 2010 — yet received 53.5 percent of all federal financial support for electric power.

And wind power alone, which provides 2.3 percent of generation, received 42 percent of all support.

Wind and solar renewable energy have failed to thrive despite government support because they face substantial “market impediments,” according to Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

“Energy policies in the United States for decades have pursued energy sources defined in various ways as alternative, unconventional, independent, renewable, and clean in an effort to replace such conventional fuels as oil, coal, and natural gas,” Zycher states on the AEI website, and “renewable electricity receives very large direct and indirect subsidies from the federal and state governments.

“These long-standing efforts have, without exception, yielded poor outcomes.”
Among the “market impediments” to large-scale development of renewable energy resources is the amount of land required for wind farms and solar facilities.

A wind farm would require 500 windmills, each producing 2 megawatts (MW) of energy, to generate 1,000 MW — assuming the farm operates at full capacity, which would be virtually impossible. Since wind turbines must be spaced apart to maximize production, a 1,000 MW farm needs from 48,000 to 64,000 acres of land — from 75 to 100 square miles.

In contrast, a 1,000 MW gas-fired plant needs about 10 to 15 acres.
As for solar facilities, it takes a square meter of solar energy-receiving capacity to produce, at best, enough power for a single 100-watt light bulb, according to Zycher.

Renewable energy also presents transmission problems. Wind farms are best suited for the Midwest and solar facilities for the Southwest, far from the coasts where most electricity is consumed, and this creates significant transmission costs.

One survey found that wind projects would have a median transmission cost of $15 per megawatt hour, compared to $3.60 in transmission costs for coal and natural gas.

Looking ahead to 2016, “the projected cost of renewable power is at least five times higher than that for conventional electricity,” says Zycher, author of the new book “Renewable Electricity Generation: Economic Analysis and Outlook.”

He concludes: “Despite these excess costs, political support for wind and solar power remains strong. No state has formally abandoned or weakened its renewable electricity requirements, and federal policies to promote renewable technology in electricity production remain in place.”

Newt goes nuclear: Gingrich slams Romney over the unfairness of it all

2012-01-30T16:00:00.000-08:00

Newt goes nuclear: Gingrich slams 'pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro tax-increase moderate' Mitt Romney

The obituaries for his campaign are already being written and Newt Gingrich doesn't like it one bit. Yesterday, an event at a Spanish-speaking church billed as a "Hispanic town hall" drew about 80 people, a number of whom had left by the time the candidate rolled in 55 minutes late.

Gingrich looked crestfallen. He spoke desultorily for just over six minutes and then abandoned the Question and Answer format, instead deciding that "Callista and I will come down and get pictures with each and every one of you and have a chance to say hi".

At the back of the hall, the small band of travelling reporters were in open revolt over chaotic arrangements that had left some facing bills of several thousand dollars just to fly from Orlando to Palm Beach and then on to Tampa.

Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista at a Hispanic event in Orlando. Photo: Toby Harnden.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond, unshaven, exhausted and evidently under pressure, was peppered with questions about botched campaign logistics and poor organisation. Initially, he insisted that his tetchy responses were all off the record but he gave up as more and more tape recorders came out.

Politically, it was an event suffused with the sickly stench of death. The next stop in Orando, at an evangelical church, had an enthusiastic crowd of over 1,000 who gave Gingrich several standing ovations.

But there is not getting away from the fact that Gingrich is not getting the crowds he did when he arrived as the conquering hero of South Carolina. And the polls now seem to spell doom next Tuesday: NBC/Marist has Romney up 15 and Miami Herald/Mason-Dixon has Romney up 11.

Just as he did when he began to tank in December after briefly leading the polls in Iowa and nationally, Gingrich has become increasingly, visibly frustrated. His language about Romney has got tougher and more extreme and, at times, uncontrolled. On Saturday, he was seething and today he blew his top and went nuclear.

When asked by Jake Tapper of ABC News on the This Week programme whether Romney had the character to be president, Gingrich said that his opponent had a "very serious problem" in this area and "would not be where he is today" (presumably Gingrich meant leading in the polls) "if he had told the truth".

He groused about Romney's "relentlessly negative campaign" and the "carpet-bombing" of him with attack ads that were "breathtakingly dishonest".

And then he went even futher in a media availability after attending a service in a megachurch in Lutz, Florida this afternoon."I believe the Republican Party will not nominate a pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro-tax increase moderate from Massachusetts." The phrase was deliberate because he repeated it minutes later.

He thundered: "I have had a long record as a very hard-hitting Reagan conservative and the idea that that record would be deliberately falsified by a Massachusetts moderate using money from Wall Street, from the very companies who have been getting money from the federal government, is really about as big an outrage as I've had in my career."

At the next stop at The Villages, a swathe of intrer-connected retirement communities in which sun-tanned seniors zip around on golf carts, Gingrich decided that he was mincing his words by calling Romney moderate and instead branded him "liberal".

This seems to be about where the Romney campaign wants Gingrich - steam blowing out of his ears and hyperbole spitting from his lips as he rails against the unfairness of it all.

A central part of Romney's strategy this week has been to rattle Gingrich - "rushing the quarterback", as Romney adviser David Kochel put it - by goading him with congressmen Jason Chaffertz and Connie Mack (the so-called "proxies with moxie") goading his staff at events, and Romney teasing him as being like Goldilocks and the like on the stump.

Pushing Gingrich into casting aspersions on Romney's character was exactly what Team Romney wanted. Given Romney's sober lifestyle, 42-year marriage and unquestioned wholesomeness, his character is always going to be a strong point with voters, especially when compared to the tempestuous life of the thrice-married Gingrich.

Just as George W. Bush responded that John McCain was "over the line" when he said in a 2000 campaign ad that Bush "twists the truth" like Bill Clinton, Romney's surrogates came out one by one today to express faux horror that Gingrich would attack Romney's character. Tim Pawlenty used the term "over the line".

To goad your opponent into saying something intemperate and then smack him in the chops the moment he does it is an old trick in politics. And Stuart Stevens, the Bush campaign ad man who cut the 2000 Bush ad hitting back at McCain, just happens to be chief strategist of the 2012 Romney campaign.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/newt-goes-nuclear-gingrich-slams-pro-abortion-pro-gun-control-pro-tax-increase-moderate-mitt-romney.html/

Dem lawmaker says 20,000 Keystone XL jobs 'not that many'

2012-01-30T11:30:00.000-08:00

Dem lawmaker says 20,000 Keystone XL jobs 'not that many' - The Hill's Floor Action
By Josiah Ryan

Chicago Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) drew fire from Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) on Wednesday when she dismissed the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, suggesting the 20,000 jobs it could create were relatively insignificant in the scheme of the greater economy.

“Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs, and investing in green technologies will produce that and more,” she said on Chicago’s WLS Radio Don Wade and Roma Show on Wednesday morning. “But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.”

Schakowsky contacted The Hill on Thursday to clarify that she supports job creation but thinks it ought to be done on a larger scale.

"We need to be talking about millions of jobs and that’s what the American Job Act does," she said, speaking of the latest iteration of President Obama's job plan, presented at the State of the Union on Tuesday. "[W]e have to be thinking big."

Coats, a vocal proponent of the Keystone project, which would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to America’s Gulf Coast, swiftly responded in a separate interview on the same show later on Wednesday morning, suggesting Schakowsky has spoken insensitively.

“Tell that to the 20,000 people that woke up this morning and didn’t have a job to go to,” said Coats. “ ‘Well, these don’t really matter’ — I mean, this not only is jobs, this is less dependence on Middle East oil.”

“And here we have, you know, the president talking about becoming energy independent, but he turns down the easiest way to do that,” the freshman senator continued.

President Obama has frustrated Republicans by standing by his decision to delay construction of the proposed pipeline while studies of its environmental impact are completed.

Schakowsky also told The Hill on Thursday that she believes Congress should focus primarily on creating government jobs "in order" to jump-start the economy. As such she authored legislation last summer that would create 2.2 million government jobs.

"I am all for private sector jobs but there are a few ways to stimulate the economy," she told The Hill. "Lets help grow the economy, put people to work so they can actually go out and spend some money."

This story was updated on Thursday to reflect comments Shakowsky's made to The Hill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/206593-dem-rep-says-20000-keystone-xl-jobs-not-that-many#.TyHFA8xTOTg.blogger

The right drops a bomb on Newt

2012-01-30T09:00:00.000-08:00

The right drops a bomb on Newt: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen

Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the “elite media” and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning.

Or the National Review. Or the American Spectator. Or Ann Coulter.

If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.
It’s as if the conservative media over the past 24 hours decided Gingrich is for real, and they need to come clean about the man they really know before it’s too late. This is just a sampling of what’s hitting Newt:

• The overnight Drudge Report banner: “Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.

• Drudge also linked prominently to the American Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s similarly harsh takedown of Gingrich over character: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” In it, Tyrrell writes: “Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping… His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.”

Drudge runs hundreds of links to stories of all stripes about candidates, but has been seen by Republicans as favorable to Romney in the past.

• Bob Dole issued a scathing statement Thursday that the Romney campaign provided to the National Review in which he said “it is now time” to rally to stop Gingrich, blamed the former Speaker for losing House Republican seats in 1996, and warned that it could happen again, at all levels of government.

“I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late,” Dole said. “If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”

Dole added, “In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year.”

• Conservatives are circulating a piece written by the editors of the National Review: “The Hour of Newt.” The editors, who have been extremely critical of Gingrich for weeks, waved conservatives off the Gingrich bandwagon. “Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.”

• Ann Coulter, the conservative columnist writing on her self-titled website, warns: “Re-elect Obama, Vote Newt!” She, too, gets Drudge promotion, with a column punctuated with this punch: “Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.”

• Tom DeLay, a top deputy to Gingrich during the Republican revolution of the mid-1990s, joined the chorus of other conservative members breaking their silence about Gingrich’s erratic leadership style. In a radio interview with KTRH, DeLay said: “He’s not really a conservative. I mean, he’ll tell you what you want to hear. He has an uncanny ability, sort of like Clinton, to feel your pain and know his audience and speak to his audience and fire them up. But when he was speaker, he was erratic, undisciplined.”

A top conservative media figure said the flood of attacks reflects a “Holy crap, it could happen” moment in the movement, as Republican leaders began to realize after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory that he could become the nominee, the global face and voice of their party and theology.

“It could happen, and it would be a disaster,” said the conservative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect private conversations. “All of us who were around and saw how he operated as speaker — there’s no one who’s not appalled by the prospect of what could happen. He thinks he embodies conservatism and if he wakes up one day and has a grandiose thought, he is going to expect all of us to fall in line behind him.

“There’s just so much risk on so many levels,” the official continued. “Everyone’s thinking, ‘It could really happen.’ He could win the presidency if there’s a way to win with 45 percent — a second recession or a third-party candidate. The immediate worry is him winning the nomination and losing the election, tanking candidates down-ballot. In a worst-case scenario, you could see unified Democratic governance, and we’d be back where we were in ’09 and ’10. It’s insane.”

The conservative media is voicing what dozens of Republican lawmakers, governors and top establishment have told POLITICO in recent weeks in private conversations. Because Gingrich looks like he could win, many of these elected officials are reluctant to go public with their concerns.

As POLITICO reported on Monday, Romney allies are putting pressure on conservatives to break their silence, and do it quickly before the Florida primary, because a Gingrich win would virtually guarantee a very long, divisive race.

A super PAC supporting Romney, Restore Our Future, is running ads in Florida that echo many of the charges mentioned above, especially Gingrich’s claim that he is the logical successor to the Reagan legacy. “Reagan rejected Newt’s ideas. On leadership and character, Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan,” the group’s ad says. Romney himself is hitting on the same themes in speeches, with an edge rarely seen by the cautious former governor.

Gingrich, who has shown a sharper instinct than Romney and the establishment for playing the rawest frustrations of activists, will crank up his Newt vs. the establishment rhetoric to beat back the attacks.

Remember 2010 (Gingrich certainly does): The establishment doesn’t have a great track record in picking candidates and warned primary voters against tapping Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware because they were too radioactive and couldn’t win in the November general elections. The voters didn’t listen, and it cost Republicans the Senate.

Remember 2010 (Romney certainly does): Republicans lost two elections they should have won.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html

2012-01-30T08:06:00.000-08:00

Swing States poll: Romney and Obama tied; Gingrich trails

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON–Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney essentially ties Barack Obama in the nation's key battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States survey finds, while rival Newt Gingrich now trails the president by a decisive 14 percentage points.

That reflects a significant decline by the former House speaker since early December, when he led Obama by three points.

The poll of the dozen states likely to determine the outcome of November's election addresses the electability argument that has driven many Republicans: Which GOP contender has the best chance of denying Obama a second term?

In a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by a statistically insignificant percentage point, 48%-47%, the survey finds.

But Obama leads Gingrich, 54%-40%. The president's standing against him has risen nine points since early December; Gingrich has fallen by eight.

Gingrich fares less well than Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who trails Obama by seven points, 50%-43%, and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who also trails by seven points, 51%-44%.

Gingrich's efforts to win the Republican nomination have set back his efforts to win the general election," says political scientist Larry Jacobs of the University of Minnesota. Trying to appeal to Tea Party conservatives has "moved him out of the mainstream of American politics."

The Swing States survey focuses on the nation's most competitive battlegrounds: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The findings presumably reflect the barrage of attacks on Gingrich's temperament and record by Romney and other prominent Republicans, from Arizona Sen. John McCain to former Senate majority leader Bob Dole. The former House speaker has drawn fierce fire since winning the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21 and surging to the top of national polls.

In Florida, which holds its primary Tuesday, Romney led Gingrich in a Marist Poll released Sunday by 15 points, 42%-27%.

Gingrich blamed his fall on negative TV ads aired by Romney and his allies. "He has a basic policy of carpet bombing his opponent," Gingrich said on Fox NewsSunday. "It has an effect."

Romney, campaigning in Naples, Fla., said Gingrich should "look in the mirror" to see why his support has dropped.

Voters in both parties rate Romney higher than Gingrich on a series of positive characteristics. Nearly six in 10 say Romney has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; 42% say Gingrich has those qualities. Fifty percent call Romney sincere and authentic; 38% say that of Gingrich.

Neither does particularly well when asked whether they understand the problems Americans face in their daily lives: 44% of those surveyed say that applies to each.

The survey of 737 registered voters, taken Tuesday through Saturday, has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/swing-states-poll/52871890/1

White House/DOJ Working with ACORN, Massive Voter Registration Fraud

2012-01-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

White House/DOJ Working with ACORN, Massive Voter Registration Fraud

by Tom Fitton

With the 2012 elections just months away, the ACORN-connected group Project Vote (and Obama campaign ally) is redoubling its efforts to undermine the integrity of the 2012 elections – and they are evidently doing it with the participation of the Obama White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In January, Judicial Watch obtained additional documents about meetings held between Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy for the ACORN organization Project Vote, and officials from the Obama White House and the DOJ.

Judicial Watch is investigating the extent to which Project Vote, which once employed Barack Obama, has been working with the Obama administration to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.

Judicial Watch was already well aware that the DOJ was heavily involved in this scheme based on documents previously obtained, but the latest batch of records implicates the Obama White House directly!

According to the records, obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed on August 19, 2011:

On April 27, 2009, Estelle Rogers wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sam Hirsh regarding an upcoming meeting on April 30, 2009. In addition to Rogers and Hirsh, other attendees included: Nicole Kovite, Director of Public Agency Project for Project Vote; Spencer Overton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy; and two officials from the Obama White House: Celia Muñoz, then-Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and recently promoted to Director of the Domestic Policy Council; and Tino Cuellar, Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy. (Muñoz, you will recall, is the former senior vice-president of the National Council of La Raza who has been funneling tax dollars to radical Mexican separatists ever since she joined the Obama White House.)In her email, Rogers referenced documents she forwarded in preparation for the upcoming meeting on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to which Hirsch replies that he looked forward to “reading these materials” and to “seeing everyone on Thursday.”

On February 23, 2011, Rogers wrote to Associate Deputy Attorney General Robert Weiner, asking him to “make some headway with Attorney General [Eric] Holder in enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA.” The email notes that the DOJ had not yet filed any Section 7 lawsuits, which Rogers dubbed “deeply disappointing.” The first such DOJ lawsuit (against Rhode Island) was filed on March 18, 2011, less than one month later. Of particular note, is Rogers’ comment that “We have received oral assurances from [Assistant Attorney General Thomas] Perez on several occasions that enforcement action was imminent,” suggesting that Rogers was privy to internal discussions inside the DOJ regarding pending legal action.

On March 29, 2011, Rogers wrote to Associate Attorney General [Thomas] Perrelli, urging him to review and “make improvements” to a document she was sending following another meeting held on March 17, 2011, between Project Vote and the DOJ on Section 7 compliance with the NRVA. Accompanying the document was a previous letter she had sent to the Civil Rights Division plus “additional comments on the Q and A.”

These documents raise fundamental questions about the politicization of the DOJ under Eric Holder and demonstrate that the ACORN-connected Project Vote is throwing its weight around the DOJ and driving the agency’s voting rights agenda.

And, evidently the Obama White House is now directly implicated in this growing scandal. It is now clear that Project Vote and the Obama/Holder DOJ are conspiring to file DOJ lawsuits to help re-elect Barack Obama. This collusion between Project Vote and the Obama administration is a significant threat to the integrity of the 2012 elections.

To have Project Vote involved in DOJ voting rights enforcement is like having the Mafia run the FBI! And Estelle Rogers is one of Project Vote’s key “bosses.”

As Director of Advocacy for Project Vote, Estelle Rogers ‒ a former attorney for ACORN, which was besieged with charges of corruption before declaring bankruptcy in November 2010 ‒ is a primary contact person on policy matters at Project Vote at both the state and federal levels and has been actively involved in voter registration issues. Using the threat of a lawsuit under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), Project Vote has aggressively sought to manipulate voter registration laws in various states in an effort to increase the registration of people receiving public assistance.

On August 4, 2011, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average. Project Vote also sought a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.
I
n addition to pursuing public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and New Mexico, Project Vote and the NAACP filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the NVRA. Less than three months later, on July 12, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Voting Section sued Louisiana on the same grounds, claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.”

The DOJ’s March 11, 2011, lawsuit against Rhode Island led to policy changes intended to increase the number of voter registration applications processed by “public assistance and disability service officers.” These two lawsuits, filed within five months of each other, are the first such lawsuits filed by the DOJ since 2007.

Project Vote and ACORN have both been linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. And as documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid. (And don’t believe the line that ACORN is dead. As we documented in our special report “The Rebranding of ACORN,” the corrupt organization is alive and well and ready to wreak havoc in the 2012 elections.)

A storm is fast approaching in 2012. The integrity of our elections is under attack by ACORN and Project Vote. And it now appears that the Obama administration is complicit in a plot by these community organizations to steal the elections. Trust Judicial Watch to do what it can to uphold the rule of law against this very real challenge to our election system.

http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2012/01/25/white-housedoj-working-with-acorn-massive-voter-registration-fraud/

36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes

2012-01-29T14:00:00.000-08:00

36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes
Andrew Malcolm

Pete Souza / White House (Obama addresses his White House staff, file)

How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Because how unfair -- indeed, un-American -- it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet's secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate.

Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama's White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That's up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration's last year.
Nearly one-third of Obama's aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

The IRS' 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees' tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.
The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That's up 3% in the past year.

That scale of delinquency could annoy voters, hard-pressed by their own costs, fears and stubbornly high unemployment despite Joe Biden's many promises.

The tax offenders include employees of the U.S. Senate who help write the laws imposed on everyone else. They owe $2.1 million. Workers in the House of Representatives owe $8.5 million, Department of Education employees owe $4.3 million and over at Homeland Security, 4,697 workers owe about $37 million. Active duty military members owe more than $100 million.

The Treasury Department, where Obama nominee Tim Geithner had to pay up $42,000 in his own back taxes before being confirmed as secretary, has 1,181 other employees with delinquent taxes totaling $9.3 million.

As usual, the Postal Service, with more than 600,000 workers, has the most offenders (25,640), who also owe the most -- almost $270 million. Veterans Affairs has 11,659 workers owing the IRS $151 million while the Energy Department that was so quick to dish out more than $500 million to the Solyndra folks has 322 employees owing $5 million.

The country's chief law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, has 2,069 employees who are nearly $17 million behind in taxes. Like Operation Fast and Furious, Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently missed them too.

As with ordinary people, the IRS attempts to negotiate back-tax payment plans with all delinquents, whose names cannot be released. But according to current federal law, the only federal employees who can be fired for not paying taxes are IRS workers.
http://news.investors.com/Article/599002/201201260818/obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes.htm

Gingrich Slams Romney Over Immigration

2012-01-29T10:00:00.000-08:00

Gingrich Slams Romney Over Immigration

By Danny Yadron

DORAL, Fla. — Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Mitt Romney lacks concern for some illegal immigrants’ “humanity” and chided the former Massachusetts governor for how he makes money.

: AP; Newt Gingrich speaks with Univision News anchor, Jorge Ramos at the “Meet the Candidates” forum, hosted by Univision, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Miami Dade College in Miami. ( Photo/Jeffrey M. Boan)

Speaking at a GOP candidate forum put on by Univision, the Spanish-language television network, Mr. Gingrich mocked Mr. Romney for suggesting at Monday’s debate in Tampa that illegal immigrants would self-deport for their own benefit. And at the same time, he got a dig in at President Barack Obama.

“You have to live to in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million a year income for no work to have a fantasy this far from reality,” Mr. Gingrich said. “This is an Obama-level fantasy… He certainly shows no concern for the humanity of people who are already here.”

The Gingrich campaign is trying to make inroads with Miami’s large Cuban population as it tries to gain momentum in Florida. In a Spanish-language radio ad, the campaign refers to Mr. Romney as “anti-immigrant.”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams shot back at Mr. Gingrich, saying “He is using dishonest, liberal attacks to smear Republicans.” He called Mr. Gingrich “a failed leader who is desperately trying to prop up his sinking campaign.”
In the past, Mr. Romney has countered that he supports “legal immigration” while the former House speaker is proposing “amnesty” for many who entered the country illegally.

Mr. Gingrich is suggesting a path to residency, not citizenship, for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for at least 20 years. Pressed by moderator Jorge Ramos about what he would do with the millions of others in the country illegally, Mr. Gingrich suggested work permits, but it was unclear who would receive them.

Mr. Romney will speak at the forum this afternoon.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/25/gingrich-slams-romney-over-immigration/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

Fact Checking President Obama’s Claims About Domestic Energy Production

2012-01-29T07:41:00.000-08:00

Fact Checking President Obama’s Claims About Domestic Energy Production

The Obama campaign just released a website that purports to provide “the facts of President Obama energy record.” This is an intentional effort by the Obama campaign to distort the President’s abysmal energy record. After all, energy production on federal land is down under President Obama and the Obama campaign is trying their hardest to hide and obfuscate this basic fact.

Obama Claim: “Since President Obama took office, oil imports have been reduced by an average of 1.1 million barrels per day.”

Reality: A reduction of imports has happened without President Obama, not because of him. More than half of the reduction is because the ongoing recession and much higher price have made fuel so expensive that consumers are using less of it.

In January 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. produced 5,154,000 barrels of oil a day.[1] By November 2011, the last month for which we have data, the U.S. was producing 5,874,000 barrels of oil a day. This 700,000 barrel a day increase isn’t happening on federal lands, for which President Obama would justifiably claim some credit, but on private and state lands.

The reality is that oil production on federal lands is falling, while production on private and state lands is rising.[2] There is a long term trend of decreasing oil production on federal lands. In fact, oil production on federal lands has fallen by 43 percent over the past 9 years according to the Obama administration’s Energy Information Administration.[3] And it has dropped rapidly on President Obama’s watch.

In fact, because of the actions taken by the Obama administration such as severely limiting the offshore areas where oil can be produced, cancelling oil leases, and withdrawing other oil leases, oil production on federal lands will most likely continue to fall. (More of the Obama administration’s anti-energy actions can be found here.)

Not only is the Obama administration making it more difficult to produce energy on federal lands, they are leasing much less lands than the past. The following chart shows the decline in leasing on onshore lands over the past 30 years. This lack of leasing on federal lands will only result in lower production on federal lands in the future.

Obama Claim: 2010 domestic crude oil production reached its highest levels since 2003.

Reality: This is true, but the average production per day for 2011 is only 0.3 million barrels per day higher than in 2009. And, as noted above, the reason that U.S. crude oil production is increasing is because of production on private and state lands while production on federal lands is decreasing. The President cannot honestly take credit for the production on private and state lands, but he can take partial credit for decreasing production on federal lands.

Obama Claim: 2010 natural gas production reached its highest level in more than 30 years.
Reality: Yes natural gas production is up, but this is because of production on private and state lands because production on federal lands is decreasing. [4]

Obama Claim: The U.S. has become a net energy exporter.

Reality: This claim is 100 percent false. Because the Obama campaign does not provide a single citation or source for their information, it is impossible to know how great its ignorance of energy facts extends. Every year, the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the Obama administration’s Department of Energy, publishes an Annual Energy Review. If the Obama campaign understood energy facts, they would have looked at Table 1.4 of the 2010 Annual Energy Review. They would have found a table titled, “Primary Energy Trade by Source, Selected Years, 1949–2010.” That table shows that in 2010, far from being a net energy exporter, the U.S. had net imports of 21 quadrillion Btus of energy of the 98 quadrillion btus used.

Obama Claim: The Obama administration has proposed a five-year offshore drilling plan that makes more than 75 percent of undiscovered oil and gas resources off our shores available for development, while putting in place common-sense safety requirements to prevent a disaster like the BP oil spill from happening again.

Reality: When President Obama was inaugurated nearly 100 percent of the offshore areas were available for exploration and development. Since then, the Obama administration has imposed limitations and made it far more difficult to produce energy on offshore areas. For example, even though there is bipartisan support from the Virginia delegation, including the state’s Democratic Senators, the Obama administration refuses to allow energy exploration off Virginia’s coast.

Politicians taking credit for something good happening on their watch is nothing new, but as we have shown, the reduction in oil use is because of economic dislocation visited upon millions of American families by the longest sustained economic downturn since World War II, while the increase domestic production is occuring on state and private lands, while production on government lands over which he has control is going down. In this sense, the president’s claims are simply breathtakingly in their apparent assumption that no one will bother to fact-check his numbers.

[1] Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1 Petroleum Overview, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf.

[2] See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 1.14, Fossil Fuel Production on Federally Administered Lands, Selected Year 1949–2010, http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_31.pdf.

[3] Id.

[4] See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 1.14, Fossil Fuel Production on Federally Administered Lands, Selected Year 1949–2010, http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_31.pdf.

Tags: Domestic Energy Production, energy issues, Fact Check, Obama, Obama Campaign, Offshore Drilling, president obama

Author:
Daniel Simmons

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/20/fact-checking-president-obamas-claims-about-domestic-energy-production/

Obama’s Government vs. Your Family

2012-01-28T14:00:00.000-08:00

Obama’s Government vs. Your Family

by John Hinderaker in Liberals, Obama administration

Today Barack Obama released a proclamation commemorating the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the low water mark of American constitutional jurisprudence since the Dred Scott case. Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:

I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.

So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.

Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.

You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.
The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.

How about the electricity that your family uses? If you have a large family, or one with a lot of computers and other electronic equipment, you probably use more electricity than your neighbors, and are willing to pay for it. But in many communities, there is a sliding scale for usage, so that if you consume, say, 20% more electricity than your neighbors, you pay a 40% higher bill. This is because liberals believe it is their business how we live, and how much power we consume.

Electric power reminds me of light bulbs. Did you think that your choice of light bulbs is a “private family matter?” Until a few years ago, it would not have occurred to anyone to disagree with you. But not today, as President Obama and his allies in Congress now dictate what light bulbs your family can use to illuminate your house.

Disposing of garbage used to be a “private family matter.” Not anymore. Every community has laws and regulations about recycling that inject the government into your garbage.

One might have said that providing for your family’s health was the quintessential “private family matter.” But that was before Obamacare, which not only will require you to buy health insurance, but will require it to be in a form dictated not by you and the insurance company, but by the federal government, so that you pay for dozens of coverages that your family doesn’t want or need.

Did you think that how your children plan their futures is a “private family matter?” That isn’t what the Democrats believe. If you have children in public schools, you are aware that they are constantly bombarded with global warming propaganda. Several years ago, when my youngest child was in the 4th or 5th grade, she had a homework assignment in which a series of questions hectored her as to what she intended to do in her future life to combat global warming. I was proud of her when she wrote answers like, “I will never fly in more private aircraft than Al Gore,” and “I will never live in a bigger house than John Edwards.” (That, by the way, was before we suspected that Edwards was destined for the Big House.)

Speaking of school: is where you send your children to school a “private family matter?” Of course not! The District of Columbia had a school choice scholarship program that allowed parents some discretion in selecting schools for their children, but Barack Obama and the Democrats killed it.

When parents think about private family matters, one thing that comes to mind is babysitters. Until now, you could negotiate a reasonable fee with a 16-year-old neighbor and, if you live in a neighborhood like ours, feel confident that your kids will be well cared for. No longer; not here in Minnesota, anyway: Minnesota’s Democrats are pressing for unionization of all child care workers! If they have their way, you and your wife won’t be able to go out to dinner without dealing with union bosses–not because of your free choice, but because of government intervention into private family matters.

The idea that liberal Democrats like Barack Obama regard anything as a “private family matter” is ludicrous. As far as they are concerned, every single thing that you and your family do is a proper subject for government regulation. The doctrine of “choice” ends once your child is born. If you think that there is some other aspect of your life, or your family’s that is so personal and so private that the Democrats couldn’t possibly want to regulate and control it–well, then, you are a fool.

But Barack Obama utters bullshit like today’s Roe v. Wade proclamation, secure in the knowledge that no one will call him on it except for a few amateurs like us, who, for whatever reason, are willing to spend our Sunday evenings calling the president on his whoppers, rather than pursuing private family matters.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/obamas-government-vs-your-family.php

Can a Standing O Shake a Worldview?

2012-01-28T10:00:00.000-08:00

Can a Standing O Shake a Worldview? UPDATED

by Elizabeth Scalia

If you did not see the standing ovation given Newt Gingrich when went “smackdown” on John King during last night’s debate, here it is:

I came to the debate afew minutes late so I didn’t see it live. At the end of the debate, when CNN replayed “highlights” the standing-O wasn’t included (it certainly seemed like a “highlight” whether one liked it or not), so I only became aware of it thanks to the internet, and social media.

This morning I got an email from a friend who scours the papers, and he wrote:

AP and others did not even mention the standing O

I took a quick look around at various mainstream reports and discovered that my friend was correct. Even pieces identifying themselves as analysis of “winners and losers” or “views from the bleachers” made no mention of the standing ovation that accompanied Newt’s smackdown of King. From the bleachers, this is what it looked like to CNN:

He opened by offering Newt Gingrich a chance to respond to his allegations from his ex-wife in an interview on ABC. Gingrich delivers a flat “No” and the segmented crowd becomes uniform in its applause as Gingrich attacked the media.

The writers, Soledad O’Brien and Rose Arce (two sets of eyes!) were in the bleachers and saw the crowd “become uniform,” but they can’t bring themselves to report what they actually saw.

Several reports did make mention of the other unusual moment of the night, when John King asked Santorum, Gingrich and Romney about their pro-life positions and then then moved on. The audience (and even my husband and I at home) yelled at the moderator, “what about Paul! He’s a doctor!” And King was forced to allow Paul to be part of the discussion. The press was right to mention the moment, but — as my friend said — they seem to be determined to ignore Newt’s standing-o, which is something completely foreign to debates; in my memory it has never happened before. That alone makes it news-worthy and yet it’s not considered mentionable. To the press, it was not a “highlight.”

Which means we must ask, why is that?

Perhaps they are in denial. They have a very tidy playbook about how to go about destroying Republican candidates: you call them stupid; you call them crazy; you feature ugly or unflattering pictures of them; you delve into their trash and their college transcripts (but only theirs) or you expose their sins (but only theirs), confident in the knowledge that people are sheep, susceptible to gossip and the media’s leading leash; conservatives, after all, are judgmental “values voters” who will (according to the playbook) be repelled by tawdry stories of narcissistic (Republican, only) politicians who serially cheat on their wives!

And last night, John King asked a question about Newt Gingrich’s past marriage issues — this is a big gun that’s supposed to do serious damage — and the thing backfired on them; it blew up in their hands as the audience “became uniform” in expressing its disgust not for the tawdry politician, but for the press that has become so nakedly overt in its bias, and so selective in what it finds newsworthy and what it does not.

The standing ovation for Newt’s remarks were not an endorsement of his behavior — many conservatives are troubled by Gingrich’s past and character does matter to them, while other conservatives are remembering their own sins and falling back on what they know of mercy, for the time being. No, that ovation was an endorsement of Gingrich’s disdain for the mainstream media, which they share, and a declaration to that same media that their playbook is played-out. It said:

“We are done responding like Pavlovian dogs to your bells; we no longer trust you; we understand that you are no longer a press that is free, but one that is enthralled to its own ideologies and agendas. From this point on, a candidate is going to rise or fall on the substance of their ideas and abilities, not on your prosy gushes about his brilliance, or stern warnings about her stupidity. You savaged George W. Bush you savaged Sarah Palin and you got away with it. You carried your own preferred, utterly inexperienced, passionate ideologue into the White House with over-effusive rhetoric and you have buffeted him from inquiry (tax returns? Hell, we’d just like to see Obama’s college transcripts!), or what you perceive to be damaging stories, but you elevated your favorite at the cost of your own credibility, and now it comes back to bite you. Because a press with no credibility has nothing to offer us. It has nowhere to go, now, except into the arms of the political machine it has loved. Just like Pravda, actually.”

The mainstream press does not want to discuss last night’s standing ovation because it shakes their worldview. They were supposed to be able to control the narrative; they were supposed to be able to corral the sheep. And last night, the sheep indicated that they’re no longer willing to be herded, no longer going to allow their own moral judgments to be exploited in a time when the nation is facing serious issues. They’ve decided they’re going to make up their own minds, thank you, about who they think is up to dealing with those issues. They’re looking at the press and saying, “Scallywags, heal thyselves!”

This has to be a true shake-up for the press. No wonder they don’t mind, so much, the idea of the government being able to shut down the internet at will. Without it, it will be so much easier to hide what they’d rather not have to discuss.

Which is precisely why we really need to make sure the internet remains unencumbered. Shutting it down may be the only play the mainstream media has left.

Understand, this is not about loving or hating Newt; this is simply a look at the press and where it’s at and how it got here.

UPDATE: In the combox, Kathy Shaidle from Five Feet of Fury has a different interpretation of the ovation, one that I admit did not occur to me, likely because I am (as usual) part of the stone-throwing rabble, and I think her point is certainly one that is worth consideration:

To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury:
Yeah, we know he’s guilty, but THIS is for all the innocents (we think) were “wrongly accused”/roughed up by cops, etc
That is not the dignified, intelligent position, no matter how deeply tempting it is and no matter whose side adopts it.
The response was one of a team scoring a touchdown. And the Blue/Red “team” mentality of electoral politics is part of what’s wrong with it, not something to be encouraged.
Yes, the media is hopelessly biased and corrupt. I’ve been blogging for 12 years and bow to no one in my championship of alternative media. Everything you’re saying about them is 100% true. I don’t even believe in “not stooping to their level” — I say stoop away. Anything else is a mug’s game.
And yet: that standing o was so “reptilian brain” it curdled my stomach.

A bit of conscience-singe for Christians? Perhaps. As I said, it’s worth pondering, and asking, “is it me, Lord?” We are, after all, supposed to be better than all that.

UPDATE II:
Meanwhile Francis Beckwith, who before the debate wondered if some think it’s better to be an adulterer than a Mormon, has a followup: on Gingrich, Romney and the Evangelicals

The slings and arrows of Christianity, kids — we have to ask these questions seriously and answer them honestly. Otherwise we’re just clanging gongs.
A look back: at how we got here

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/01/20/can-a-standing-o-shake-a-worldview/

Obama's Energy Claims Are Dishonest--First Obama Re-Election Ad Filled With Fibs

2012-01-28T06:06:00.000-08:00

Obama's Energy Claims Are Dishonest - Investors.com
First Obama Re-Election Ad Filled With Fibs

View Enlarged Image

Energy: In his very first TV ad of the 2012 campaign, the president is feeding the public false information about America's dependence on foreign fuels. His twisted statistics actually celebrate the Obama recession.

The Obama re-election campaign is already shaping up as the most deceitful in American electoral history. "For the first time in 13 years our dependence on foreign oil is below 50%," the commercial declares, accompanied by goose-bumpy music.

Major economic downturns, in fact, unfailingly produce declines in oil imports. And so do higher gas prices — which went from an average of less than $2 a gallon at the time Obama took office to nearly $4 in the middle of last year and remain well above $3 today.

How could gasoline demand not drop with so many people out of work, businesses dying and jittery investors sitting on a trillion dollars?

Obama's ad dishonestly suggests he's been engineering an alternative energy economic renaissance in America. As hard-hatted workers are shown assembling solar panels, the ad says, "America's clean energy industry? 2.7 million jobs and expanding rapidly."

It's saying Obama created — or "saved" — 2.7 million new clean energy jobs, right? Uh-uh. Turns out that the Brookings Institution report that the ad cites as its source on the 2.7 million was referring to already-existing green jobs.

You'd never know from the Obama commercial that what Brookings actually said was: "Overall, today's clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 %" — a half-million over eight years being a tiny gain. And that "this performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2% annually over the period."

You wouldn't know, Brookings said, that "many longer-standing companies in the clean economy — especially those involved in housing- and building-related segments — laid off large numbers of workers during the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008, while sectors unrelated to the clean economy (mainly health care) created many more new jobs nationally."

And Brookings' assessment that the green economy is "expanding rapidly"? Its report's conclusion actually warns "against excessive hopes for large-scale, near-term job-creation from the sector" because "the U.S. clean economy remains small where it is fast-growing and relatively slow-growing on balance ... their status as major employers remains a few years off."

In truth, Obama's energy policy is a disaster as to reducing foreign energy dependence. As the Institute for Energy Research points out, "oil production on federal lands has fallen by 43% over the past nine years, according to the Obama administration's Energy Information Administration. And it has dropped rapidly on President Obama's watch."

Dan Simmons, IER's director of regulatory and state affairs, told IBD he's convinced "President Obama is afraid of charges of crony capitalism regarding Solyndra," the solar panel company that got $535 million in taxpayer-funded stimulus loan funds from the administration, then soon went bankrupt.
That's why the Obama re-election campaign's first big lie is that he is the energy president.
http://news.investors.com/Article/598518/201201201917/obama-energy-claims-celebrate-recession.htm?src=IBDDAE

Obama the Job-Killer

2012-01-27T13:30:00.000-08:00

Obama the Job-Killer

by John Hinderaker in Economy, Energy Policy, Obama administration

Republicans shouldn’t let a single day go by without reminding voters of the Keystone pipeline, the most visible symbol of the Obama administration’s hostility to economic growth and job creation. Today’s contribution comes from Michael Ramirez, who depicts Obama stubbornly blocking the jobs pipeline:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/obama-the-job-killer.php

RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!

2012-01-27T10:49:00.000-08:00

RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!

To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by "the Establishment" -- with "the Establishment" defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, "when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt]," but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment" -- because, again, "the Establishment" is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers" and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a "moderate," and Gingrich the true conservative -- a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says ... and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

-- Romney's one great "flip-flop" is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to "flip-flop" on this issue. Sometimes it works!)

Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.

(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)

Romney changed his mind on abortion -- not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and "worked closely" with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, "since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life."

He didn't defend his changed position by saying he was a "historian," or denounce people who raised the switch as "fundamentally" dishonest asking "absurd" questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.

Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

-- Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (Ever since President Bush's amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word "amnesty," despite wanting to keep illegals here -- just as Democrats refuse to say "abortion," while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)

Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver's licenses.

At the same time, Romney says he'd like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.

Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a "guest worker" program and wants to create government "citizen review boards" to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

-- Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.

Just last year, Gingrich went on "Meet the Press" and called Ryan's plan -- supported by nearly every House Republican -- "right-wing social engineering."

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan "suicide," and now -- currently, but it could change any minute -- Gingrich supports Ryan's entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt's position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

-- As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent -- even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He's never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.

Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the '70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)

If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

-- Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it's a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.

It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare" is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun" has the same properties as a "gunny sack," or "fire" is the same thing as a "firefly."

Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)

For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit -- even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy -- that doesn't help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we're on the subject, the nation's leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage's senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago -- i.e., at least until a "Meet the Press" appearance just last May.

Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as "absurd" and said he would need a "several-hour period" to answer it.

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the "moderate" in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of E-Verify by employers, which means he doesn't want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)

Romney is "moderate" only in demeanor -- which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich's, but he doesn't scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.

Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/#AnnCoulter

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html

2012-01-27T07:44:00.000-08:00

PLEASE NOTE: THE RADIO CLIP PLAYS AUTOMATICALLY--SCROLL DOWN TO DRUDGE PIECE AND PAUSE OR MUTE IT. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. USE LINK TO GO TO BLOG POST. http://donpolson.blogspot.com/2012/01/obama-has-heated-argument-with-az-gov.html

Germany’s Answer To Our Ethanol Folly

2012-01-27T07:43:00.000-08:00

Germany’s Answer To Our Ethanol Folly

by Steven Hayward in Energy Policy, Environment

I thought it would be a tall order to have a greater energy folly than our ethanol scam, which cost taxpayers billions in direct and indirect subsidies over the last decade or two, but it turns out the Germans have figured out how to do it—through solar power. Der Spiegel online has a devastating article out this week on Germany’s manic obsession with solar power, whose price tag has now topped $100 billion over the last decade (see the figure below). For this massive amount of money, solar power only provides about 3 percent of Germany’s total electricity. That is the equivalent of about two of Germany’s nuclear power plants, which cost a lot less than $100 billion to build.

Some of Der Spiegel’s story could have come straight from Monty Python:

The only thing that’s missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.

Germany has announced that it is going to have to scale back its lavish solar subsidies, and guess what? Share prices for solar power companies are collapsing. As one knowledgeable observer of the scene put it:

The scale of the [solar subsidies] is of unprecedented stupidity, a folly that will certainly go down in German history textbooks. The backpedaling away from solar subsidies in Germany is now happening so fast that it’s making people’s heads spin. Call it the reverse energy supply transition – one from fantasy back to reality.

Meanwhile, there’s still plenty of residual stupidity in the German government. A few weeks back Der Spiegel interviewed German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, who offers these gems of wisdom:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, why is there such resistance in the US to climate protection policies?
Röttgen: . . . [T]he American way of life is very strongly rooted in individual freedom and consumption, which makes it difficult to push through a lifestyle based on resource conservation and efficiency.
SPIEGEL: If you were the president of a global government, and you alone could determine the course of international climate policy, what would you do?
Röttgen: The ultimate objective would then be a per capita budget for greenhouse gas emissions, which would apply to every person on the planet. It’s ultimately also a matter of justice.

To paraphrase one of Glenn Reynolds’ favorite signoff themes, Germany is in the very best of hands.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/germanys-answer-to-our-ethanol-folly.php

Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Pipeline Winners

2012-01-26T12:00:00.000-08:00

Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Pipeline Winners

By Jim Efstathiou Jr

Enlarge image

Warren Buffett

Nati Harnik/AP

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett with model railroad featuring BNSF trains in Omaha.

Enlarge image

Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Winners From Keystone

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Soybeans and dried distillers grain are loaded into shipping containers bound for a nearby Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. intermodal facility.

Enlarge image

Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC stands to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to deny the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Photo: Jonathan Alcorn/Bloomberg

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”

The State Department denied TransCanada a permit on Jan. 18, saying there was not enough time to study the proposal by Feb. 21, a deadline Congress imposed on President Barack Obama. Calgary-based TransCanada has said it intends to re-apply with a route that avoids an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska, something the Obama administration encouraged.

The rail option, though costlier, would lessen the environmental impact, such as a loss of wetlands and agricultural productivity, compared to the pipeline, according to the State Department analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions, however, would be worse.

If completed, Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, crossing 1,661 miles (2,673-kilometers) over Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Tanker Car Bottleneck

Investors such as John Stephenson, who helps manage $2.7 billion for First Asset Management Inc. in Toronto said he anticipated the project would move forward next year. Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck.

The availability of tank cars may create a temporary “hiccup” in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are “a pretty hot commodity,” as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.

Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. (GBX) and American Railcar Industries Inc. (ARII) expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.

‘Long-Term Solution’

Rail-car suppliers can add capacity, Hatch said.

“Railroads are not just a stopgap while we wait for a pipeline,” Hatch said in an interview. “They are potentially part of the long-term solution.”

Railroads are being used in North Dakota (STOND1), where oil producers have spurred a fivefold increase in output by using intensive drilling practices in the Bakken, a geologic formation that stretches from southern Alberta to the northern U.S. Great Plains. During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL.

Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential “unlikely” to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said.

Berkshire Hathaway fell $945 to $118,830 in New York trading today.

‘Ready to Haul’

Burlington Northern carries about 25 percent of the oil from the Bakken, said Krista York-Wooley, the railroad spokeswoman. The company can carry higher volumes from North Dakota or Alberta, she said.
Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP)’s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada.

“With an extensive rail network and proven expertise in moving energy, CP offers a flexible option for transporting crude oil and other energy-related products to and from key locations in North America,” Vice President Tracy Robinson said in an e-mail. “Rail is scalable, allowing CP to effectively keep pace with the shipping needs of producers.”

Oil Sands

Canadian National Railway Co. (CNR), the biggest Canadian railroad based on annual sales, considers Alberta’s oil sands a chance to expand its business, according to company filings.

“CN continues to work closely with customers in Alberta to capitalize on oil-and-gas related opportunities,” the Montreal- based company said. “CN sees potential for the outbound movement of oil sands products such as bitumen and synthetic crude to refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast region, or eventually through West Coast ports to offshore markets.”

Imperial Oil Ltd. (IMO), a Calgary-based unit of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), will consider “various transportation options” for oil sands exports, according Pius Rohlheiser, a spokesman. Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) uses railroads to bring in dilutants needed to mix with heavy crude before it can be shipped by pipeline, and to export oil from the Bakken formation in Canada, according to Jessica Wilkinson, a spokeswoman.

Environmentalists’ Opposition

Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have campaigned to stop Keystone XL because leaks could threaten drinking water supplies and processing Alberta crude produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.

Railroads too present environmental issues. Moving crude on trains produces more global warming gases than a pipeline, the State Department said.

Union Pacific Corp. (UNP), based in Omaha, Nebraska, anticipated an increase in rail traffic with or without Keystone, Chief Executive Officer Jim Young said in an interview.

“We would have been involved with moving the pipe and a lot of the construction business in building it,” Young said. “On the other hand, if you don’t build any pipeline capacity, you’re going to be moving a lot of crude by train.”

It will take five to eight years before oil sands production outstrips existing export capacity, the State Department said.

Tank car utilization is at “record levels” fueled by demand from oil and natural gas producers, according to Doug Reece, director of marketing for Oakville, Ontario-based Procor Ltd., a rail-car leasing company. The soonest new cars will be available is 2013, he said.

“In western Canada, shippers and third parties are investing in the necessary infrastructure and we see strong growth ahead,” Reece said in an e-mail. “We are having regular dialog with customers about their potential needs, as collaboration and fleet planning have become critical.”

Rail allows shippers to reach different markets and capture better prices at refineries, said John Mims, a transportation analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co. in Arlington, Virginia.

“It’s a good secular growth story for the railroads,” Mims said in an interview.“They’re playing an increasing role, especially as you see this push back from a regulatory standpoint on the pipelines.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Efstathiou Jr. in New York at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

2012-01-26T10:10:00.000-08:00

OBAMA HAS HEATED ARGUMENT WITH AZ GOV Wed Jan 25 2012 18:33:56 ET POOL REPORT President Obama arrived in Phoenix at 3:15 pm local time, finding the chilly weather of Iowa giving way to sunny skies and temperatures in the high 60s. He stepped off Air Force One at 3:28 pm and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer. She handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope and they spoke intensely for a few minutes. At one point, she pointed her finger at him. Afterwards, your pooler spoke with the governor. "He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So." Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: "That he didn't feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn't get my sentence finished. Anyway, we're glad he's here. I'll regroup." On the letter, she said it was personal letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the "Arizona comeback." She said she "reiterated an invitation that I've extended to him before with regards to coming to arizona and going to the border with me." She said she would take him to lunch. "We've had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him." She said the president brought up the book. "I thought we probably would've talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country." It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn't finish her sentence. When Brewer spoke with your pooler, the AP and an NBC producer for several minutes afterwards, she appeared a bit flustered and taken aback by the conversation. Asked if she was, that's when Brewer said, "I'll regroup." Developing...
UPDATE: POOL REPORT Your pooler asked a White House official for comment on the Brewer encounter, and received this statement on background: The governor handed the President a letter and said she was inviting him to meet with her. The President said he'd be glad to meet with her again, but did note that after their last meeting, a cordial discussion in the Oval Office, the governor inaccurately described the meeting in her book. The President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona's economy grow.

Brewer On Heated Argument With Obama: "He Was A Little Tense"

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) phoned in to the Mike Broomhead Show to talk about her confrontation with President Obama when he landed in Phoenix earlier today.

Host: Tell us what happened.

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ): Well, I was there to greet him. I was the first in line as he came off the plane. He came down, he said 'Hello Jan.' I told him, 'Mr. President, welcome to Arizona and we kept the sun up for you.' And it was a beautiful day in Arizona. And I said, 'We appreciate you being here and the bottom line is I'd like the opportunity to sit down to talk to him about the great Arizona comeback and the things that we have done here and job growth, etc. etc.

I explained to him how we have turned Arizona around and that we both love our country. I know that he loves our country, I love our country. And he brought up my book. And he was a little tense.

He said that he had read the excerpt and he didn't think that I was very cordial. And I said, 'Well, we agreed on that day to disagree.' And he was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense, to say the least. And I don't remember -- I was trying to be calm. You know, that picture (Brewer pointing her finger at Obama) is very interesting but I don't remember actually doing that. And he moved on down the line.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Thou Shalt Not Write Bad Things About Obama

2012-01-26T09:54:00.000-08:00

Thou Shalt Not Write Bad Things About Obama

By JONATHAN V. LAST

Sound familiar? Bobby Jindal got the same treatment when Obama came to visit Louisiana and the governor met him on the tarmac. Jindal would later recount in his book:

I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.
The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. . . . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.
But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.
There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter. “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.”

If only he'd be so assertive with America's enemies. But then again, I suppose, an "enemy" is really in the eye of the beholder.

Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Journalists Act Like an Obama Protection Racket - Obama's Button Men (And Women)

2012-01-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

Journalists Act Like an Obama Protection Racket - Investors.com

Obama's Button Men (And Women)

Media Bias: Journalists like to claim they speak truth to power. But when Barack Obama wields that power, they're all too willing to do his bidding, even if it means attacking one of their own. Just ask Jodi Kantor.

Kantor's book, "The Obamas," is hardly some right-wing hit piece. She's a New York Times correspondent who spent years interviewing hundreds of Obama staffers and associates to compile a book focused on Michelle and Barack's relationship and the inner workings of the White House.

But Kantor did manage to unearth some less than flattering tidbits, such as the Halloween extravaganza the Obamas threw themselves in 2009 — when unemployment was 10% — and then hushed up; or the strife between Michelle and former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel; or the fact that former press secretary Robert Gibbs "had a tense relationship" with the first lady.

There's nothing particularly earth-shattering in any of this, but it was enough to set the White House at Defcon 1, launching an "early and often" attack on the book that culminated with Michelle's complaint that it made her look like "an angry black woman."

And that was enough to get Obama's media goon squad to start attacking Kantor.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien dutifully followed the White House spin, ripping into Kantor and ranting, "You have not interviewed her. You have not interviewed her!"

Piers Morgan later called Kantor a "controversial author" and suggested the focus on Michelle was unfair, since she's not president. (Morgan apparently missed the media's fixation on Nancy Reagan.)

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple said Kantor had "abandoned her journalist senses" and turned in a half-baked tome with unreliable revelations because she got paid big bucks in advance.

The same unhappy fate befell Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who described discord among Obama's economic team in his book "Confidence Men." Suskind was savagely attacked by the administration (which "carpet-bombed" the book, according to Politico). But instead of recoiling at this display of White House paranoia, a compliant press instead followed up with killer blows.

Suskind was pummeled by "Today Show" host Ann Curry, who hit him repeatedly over the head with White House talking points. Mika Brzezinski angrily grilled him on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

And various news reports focused on nit-picking inaccuracies in the book while ignoring its troubling portrayal of an inexperienced president in over his head.

Contrast this with the reception Suskind got on the "Today Show" a few years earlier when his unkind book about the Bush economic team came out.

Then-host Katie Couric lobbed one softball after another, along the lines of "What, in your view, are the bombshells here?"

Indeed, when reporters attack Republicans, they're feted by their colleagues. The more vicious the attacks, the bigger the rewards.

David Gregory's belligerent questions during the Bush years won him a coveted spot as host of "Meet the Press. And Couric temporarily salvaged her dying career as CBS News anchor with a perfectly executed slam job of then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

For most reporters, none of this is a problem. Despite endless protestations of fairness and balance, they're so liberal and agenda-driven that their only abiding interest is in digging up dirt on all those evil, miscreant, Neanderthal Republicans.

But for any honest journalist who just wants to ferret out the truth and keep politicians — on both sides of the aisle — honest, the message is crystal clear. If you want a future in mainstream journalism, you'd better not train your sights on a Democrat, particularly when he's sitting in the White House.

http://news.investors.com/Article/598316/201201191838/journalists-attack-their-own-to-protect-obama-WEBTITLE-Journalists-Act-Like-an-Obama-Protection-Racket.htm

The State of the Election Address--(must read to grasp the hypocrisy of Obama)

2012-01-25T14:35:00.000-08:00

The State of the Election Address

America faces large problems: A soaring national debt, chronic unemployment that may become systemic, government services at the breaking point, a regulatory state that is verging on predatory, a Middle East falling increasingly into the hands of America’s enemies as America’s international peacekeeping becomes ever more unaffordable, and a world economy on the brink of catastrophe. In this moment, America needs a big thinker who can project confidence and inspire and unify the American people, but instead we have President Barack Obama. He is not only too small a thinker for the moment, he is simply too small for it, too venal, too divisive, too skeptical of economic freedom and of America’s role in the world.

Tonight’s State of the Union address was not an address on the status of our country. It was truly a State of the Election speech, focused on Obama making the pitch to keep his job rather than standing as a president of all the people. This president has never seen himself as that, a president of all the American people. He called for everyone to work together, for instance, but as a citizen of a state that did not support him in 2008, I have never seen a president more hostile to me or the state in which I live in my entire life. He has sent the regulatory state to stifle the energy industry here, mocked the desire for a more secure border with Mexico at a time when the drug war to our southwest has become as violent as any war in the world, and used his partisan health care law to push the federal government deeper into our personal lives and family choices.

Tonight’s speech followed the pattern of previous SOTU addresses, in being more about politics than about the state of our union. Barack Obama did not establish that pattern, but he did nothing to change it either. If anything, by showcasing a dishonest case for increasing taxes on the wealthy, he exacerbated it. By calling for what amounts to legislating profitability for “green” energy companies that haven’t proven they can stand on their own he proposes putting tax dollars toward partisan ends, when the nation is broke and the government has never made the case that it chooses more wisely than the market.

By calling for more government intervention in the US economy, he called for more government, and less freedom. Even when he lauded MasterLock bringing jobs back to the United States, the president went out of his way to note that they were union jobs. Was that a signal that, as long as the jobs created are unionized, he will not sick his National Labor Relations Board on the job creator? He said the US auto industry was “back” while the American people continue to lose money on our forced investment in it. He proposed a new international trade bureaucracy, without detailing the costs. He claimed that the economy has created 3 million new jobs in 22 months, but left out the fact that many Americans have simply given up looking for work at all. When he did get around to mentioning the unemployed, it was in the context of proposing a government re-training program. Again, no details on how it would be paid for. He did eventually propose one way to pay for some of his ideas: Cutting the military.

The president who has increased the national debt by 50% in three years wants the authority to spend even more. The president with no private sector experience wants Congress to let him use the tax code to manipulate the private sector even more. The president who seized the entire student loan industry called on Congress to keep student loan interest rates low. He called for making it illegal for students to drop out of school before they’re 18. There is no problem that he believes that his government cannot solve by passing another set of laws. He lauded innovation, but only in our “federally funded” labs, and while his regulators stifle innovation. He called for an “all of the above” strategy on energy, which was John McCain’s strategy in 2008, and which this president opposed but now supports as a cover to “invest” in more Solyndras.He spent an hour bashing Republicans, then lamented Washington’s “broken” politics and called for unity — around his proposals, naturally. He lectured about deficits, which Tim Graham tweeted was like Kim Kardashian lecturing on marriage.

He mocked old regulations while offering a pile of new ones, which he promises will be better than those old silly ones, just because. He even bragged about his illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the controversial and unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , as if to rub that act into the faces of his opponents. Obama’s ultimate faith is in his own wisdom and in the almighty state. He never mentioned “free enterprise.” Not once. But he did call for “nation building right here at home.” The only thing built to last in this speech is the national debt that it will increase.
The president spoke for more than 65 minutes and his tone throughout most of the speech was edgy, aggressive, full of the self and partisan. Andrea Tantaros tweeted that he bookended his divisive speech with false platitudes on unity. The president’s staff claimed that tonight’s speech was not political, yet he leaves after the speech to visit a handful of swing states to echo the same themes in the speech, themes he has struck for months now and will continue to strike through November. This was the president’s final State of the Union address before facing the voters in November. Hopefully it will be his last.
by
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/24/the-state-of-the-election-address/?singlepage=true

William Jefferson Gingrich--be careful Repubilcans

2012-01-25T11:40:00.000-08:00

William Jefferson Gingrich

By R. EMMETT TYRRELL, Jr.

How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire.

Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping. It is not as egregious as Bill’s, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.

If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more. Nancy Pelosi’s intimations are timely. Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 — all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths.

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.

He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

After Newt’s and Bill’s disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, “Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare.” Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider.

Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador the United Nations, and John Lehman, President Reagan’s secretary of the navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Mr. Kudlow calls Mr. Romney “Reaganesque.” Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. That is good enough for me.

Back in 1992 I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag’s television show. Was it Donohue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet.

Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him. Those of us, who raised the question of character in 1992, were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, treating the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the “c” word of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it. By now we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton’s character.

Mr. Tyrrell, Jr. is founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/william-jefferson-gingrich/87674/

Obama is ignoring his own jobs council’s recommendations

2012-01-25T06:47:00.000-08:00

Obama is ignoring his own jobs council’s recommendations

By Phil Kerpen

On Tuesday, President Obama met with his so-called Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to discuss its recommendations for the U.S. economy. Despite the panel being stacked with cronies and rent-seekers, its recommendations were mostly sensible. The council recommended aggressively pushing to develop U.S. energy resources, streamlining federal regulations and reforming the corporate tax code to reduce the rate and spur international competitiveness.

In his opening comments Obama said, “I’ve personally emphasized to the White House team and to the cabinet the importance of aggressively implementing the recommendations of this job council.” The facts suggest otherwise.

On Wednesday, the president spiked the Keystone XL pipeline, preventing tens of thousands of jobs from being created and weakening precisely the type of energy infrastructure that the jobs council recommended. To quote the council’s report, “Policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary.” But what if such a development comes into conflict with ideologically motivated, powerful environmental special interests? We now know where Obama comes down.

What about streamlining federal regulations? On Tuesday Obama said, “I tasked federal agencies to cut inefficient or excessively burdensome regulations, and … the preliminary results are exciting.” But nobody other than Obama’s left-wing base has found the progress particularly exciting.

Obama touted estimated 10-year savings in compliance costs of $10 billion, or $1 billion per year; even if the annual federal regulatory burden stayed at the 2008 level of $1.75 trillion per year, that would mean virtually indiscernible savings of 0.057%. But the federal regulatory burden is hardly standing still; it’s actually skyrocketing at an unprecedented pace, led by an EPA regulatory onslaught that includes dozens of rules that impose billions of dollars in new costs.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that just through the first half of last year new Obama regulations added $38 billion in compliance costs. The EPA’s newly finalized Utility MACT rule, its most expensive rule in history, will cost as much as $11 billion according to the EPA’s own estimates.

That’s more than all of the savings Obama is touting from regulatory reform. More realistic estimates suggest the cost of Utility MACT and other new EPA rules could be more than $300 billion, putting millions of jobs at risk.

An analysis of just this year’s new regulations — and we’re only 18 days into the year — by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute confirms that Obama’s regulatory rampage continues unabated, notwithstanding the recommendations of the jobs council. Crews reports that in the first 18 days of the year, there are already 115 new final regulations that occupy 2,609 pages in the Federal Register. Eighteen of those rules have been designated economically significant, generally indicating an economic cost of $100 million or more.

The biggest regulatory laugher was Obama’s comments on the Federal Communications Commission: “The FCC, prompted by our request but also due to some excellent work by Julius Genachowski, they’ve already eliminated 190 rules.”

Because Genachowski has visited the White House about a hundred times and is clearly taking his marching orders from Obama, we can stop pretending like the FCC is an independent agency.

The key point is that this is the same FCC that manufactured for itself from whole cloth the authority to regulate broadband Internet providers, despite the fact Congress and the American people resoundingly rejected the idea. Over time, that regulation could crush the most vibrant sector of the American economy. The FCC broke with all precedent to release a staff report to kill the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment to reward left-wing ideological interests. The FCC has also implemented mandatory data roaming requirements. And the FCC has relentlessly attempted to transfer ill-fitting regulatory frameworks from the old monopoly telephone system into the competitive broadband world.

In short, it simply doesn’t matter how many old regulations are cleared off the books when an agency is implementing an aggressive slate of new rules that dwarf them in cost and complexity.

Obama isn’t doing any better on tax reform. While bipartisan efforts to make the U.S. more competitive by broadening the base and lowering the rate on the corporate income tax have gained momentum on the Hill, the president has been missing in action. And the president’s budget is widely expected to again propose ending the deferral of taxes on foreign-sourced income, making matters worse by driving corporate headquarters abroad instead of taking the more sensible approach of allowing tax-free repatriation of foreign-sourced income the way the rest of the world does.

The bottom line is that Obama continues to pay lip-service to job creation, but his actions betray his contempt even for the job creation policies recommended by his own jobs council.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and author of “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him,” available at www.DemocracyDenied.org.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/obama-is-ignoring-his-own-jobs-councils-recommendations/

Toward A Fairer America

2012-01-24T22:04:00.001-08:00

Toward A Fairer America

by John Hinderaker in Economy, Obama Administration Scandals

News reports say that the theme of President Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight will be fairness. I take this as an admission of failure. If his economic policies were working, he would be talking about growth. By focusing on fairness, he is implicitly admitting that things aren’t going to get any better. Not while he is in charge, anyway.

Of course, by “fairness” Obama means raising taxes on those who are already paying them, and spending even more money on those who aren’t. The problem with this approach is that the United States already over-taxes its higher income citizens more than any other developed country. The last thing we need to do is make that disproportion even worse.

Which is not to say that our country is perfectly fair, by any means. There are some things we can and should do. First, let’s have tax fairness: we have tens of millions of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal taxes, or even profit via the earned income tax credit, while consuming vast amounts of government services. That should stop. If you are a citizen, and you earn money, you should contribute something.

Second, our economy is considerably less fair today than it was when Barack Obama took office. This is because of the pervasive cronyism that the Obama administration has introduced. For the first time in our history, the best way to make money is not to work hard, to innovate, and to supply goods and services that consumers want. Rather, the best way to make money is by having political connections with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. One of the most shocking of the many appalling facts related in Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out is shown in this chart. For every dollar that a member of President Obama’s campaign finance committee contributed to his campaign, that member’s company has received nearly $25,000 from the Obama administration. How’s that for a return on investment?

Another example: General Motors’s bondholders had a contractual right to be paid ahead of union members if the company got into financial trouble and went into bankruptcy. But, as part of his bailout of GM, Obama lawlessly crammed down the bondholders, violating their legal rights in order to compensate his political cronies. That was completely unfair, and it was the episode that caused Michael Barone to label the Obama administration “gangster government.”

Such examples could be multiplied endlessly, but the point is simple: if Obama really wanted a fairer society, he would abjure crony capitalism and return to the basic principles of free enterprise, where competition is fair and whoever works hardest and serves the public best profits the most. Somehow, though, I don’t think that is the sort of fairness we will hear about tonight.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/toward-a-fairer-america.php

Mitch Daniels Responds

2012-01-24T22:04:00.000-08:00

Mitch Daniels Responds

by John Hinderaker in 2012 election, Conservatism, Obama administration

Mitch Daniels will deliver the GOP’s response to Obama’s State of the Union speech. You can read excerpts here. I have not been a particular Daniels fan–he’s Tim Pawlenty without the charisma and the consistent conservatism–but this is good stuff:

As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves. …

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years. …
It’s not fair and it’s not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions. They and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down nearly time and again by the President and his Democrat Senate allies. …

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have. …

2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. The year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world’s premier land of opportunity. Republicans will speak for those who believe in the dignity and capacity of the individual citizen; who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them; who trust Americans enough to tell them the plain truth about the fix we are in, and to lay before them a specific, credible program of change big enough to meet the emergency we are facing.

As I said, good stuff. Just one more thing: I am really, really tired of hearing about Warren Buffett’s secretary. She will be seated in the White House box tonight. It is time, as Glenn Reynolds wrote, to put up or shut up. If she is going to be made into a political figure, I want to see her tax returns for the last five years. If she agrees to produce them, I will offer a substantial wager that they do not show what her boss claims they do.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/mitch-daniels-responds.php

Rather Than Create A Green Economy, The Government Produced A Wreck

2012-01-24T15:30:00.000-08:00

Rather Than Create A Green Economy, The Government Produced A Wreck - Investors.com

Industrial Policy: The Obama administration promised a future with a clean, green economy. Instead, it's left us with failed government "investments" in projects driven by politics rather than prudence.
While campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama swore he'd create millions of green jobs.

"We'll invest $15 billion a year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating 5 million new green jobs that pay well, can't be outsourced and help end our dependence on foreign oil," he said that fall.

Three years into the Obama presidency, the country has yet to see a wave of green-collar jobs. What it has seen is government pouring taxpayers' money into pet projects that wasted the cash. A particularly sore example is Solyndra, which not only went bankrupt after taking in more than $500 million in taxpayers' dollars, but also became the target of an FBI probe.

According to one analysis, at least 12 clean energy companies "are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance."

"Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra," CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reported last week.
Also in trouble, says CBS, are:

• Nevada Geothermal, which "was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees."

• SunPower, which "landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall," yet now owes more than it is worth.

• First Solar, "the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011," which has $3 billion in taxpayer-backed loans.
Not listed by CBS is Willard & Kelsey Solar Group. The Toledo Blade reports that the Ohio company, which has raked in more than $15 million in local government aid, said this week it was laying off 40 employees — about half of its workforce.

This is a company whose CEO and chairman said would be employing 250 employees by the end of last year.

Nor did CBS list Green Vehicles, the Salinas, Calif., business that shut down after spending more than $500,000 in city money; the flawed federal green weatherization program paid for by $5 billion in stimulus funds; or the Johnson Controls plant in Michigan, toured by Obama, where $300 million in conservation grants produced a mere 150 jobs.

Failed green energy programs aren't uniquely American. Der Spiegel reported this week, "For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity."

Why? "The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast." One would think the Germans would have considered their climate before sinking $129 billion into a program some on Chancellor Angela Merkel's staff refer to as "a massive money pit."

Spain has had a similarly painful experience. For every green job that country created, it destroyed 2.2 jobs in the real economy.

Same in Scotland, where each alternative energy job has displaced four in the rest of the economy.
While the future of green jobs is still vague and dreamy, real jobs in the conventional energy sector are being killed by this administration.

Had the president approved the Keystone XL pipeline rather than scrap it, as many as 20,000 real jobs would have been created almost immediately.

That's just the short term. The Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that by 2019, employment directly related to Keystone XL would reach 179,000.

Then there's the Perryman Group's review. Robert Bradley of the Cato Institute wrote in Forbes last fall that Perryman found that "across the entire economy, an increase in stable oil supplies," a benefit Keystone would provide, "would create 250,348 permanent jobs from gains in U.S. economic activity."
And none would have to be bought by taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the jobs will have to wait until the current White House occupant is replaced by someone who won't make a political decision on Keystone.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=598318&p=1&ibdbot=1

NYC Business Bled to Death Over Toy Guns

2012-01-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

NYC Business Bled to Death Over Toy Guns

Once again liberals willfully fail to distinguish between the real and the unreal, as police state style gun laws are applied even to toys in the People’s Republic of New York:

The owner of a discount store in Brooklyn says the city is holding him up for $30,000 in fines he can’t afford — all because he stocked six toy sheriff sets that included plastic guns.
And now the .44-caliber fines for the orange-tipped, obvious fakes are forcing him to close for good.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Khaled Mohamed, 23, manager of 99¢ Target in Flatlands, which has been ordered to pay a staggering $5,000 fine for each gun offered for sale — the maximum under the law.

Sure it makes sense, once you understand that the objective of authoritarian liberal regimes is to make it impossible to earn a living through non-coercive economic activities. Only when the last 99¢ store has been fined into bankruptcy can we at last enter into moonbat utopia.

Congratulations to the Bloomberg regime on subjecting another capitalist exploiter to The People’s justice. Don’t worry about Mohemed; he can always sign up for welfare.

Pretext enough to destroy a business in NYC.

On tips from Mickey Shea and Sean.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=6973

Not the Conservative Movement’s Finest Hour

2012-01-24T09:30:00.000-08:00

Not the Conservative Movement’s Finest Hour

Peter Wehner

I know that the conventional wisdom is that in answering last night’s question from CNN’s John King, about whether he had asked his then-wife to enter into an open marriage, Newt Gingrich “hit it out of the park.” He certainly brought the GOP audience to its feet. He’s winning praise from all sides for how he turned the question into an assault on the mainstream media.

I accept the fact that Gingrich helped himself politically with his answer. He may even win the South Carolina primary tomorrow. (Indeed, I think it’s quite likely that will occur.) But I do think that it’s useful to excerpt the debate transcript and analyze what it might tell us.

Here’s how the exchange went:

MR. KING: As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
MR. GINGRICH: No — but I will. (Cheers, applause.) I think — I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. (Cheers, applause.)
MR. KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?
MR. GINGRICH: Let me finish.
MR. KING: Please. (Boos, cheers, applause.)
MR. GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (Cheers, applause.) My — my two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC, and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it. And I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (Cheers, applause.)

The language Gingrich used to describe the media – “destructive,” “vicious,” “negative,” and guilty of reporting “trash” — is typical of the understatement we’ve come to expect from him. But I want to focus on Mr. Gingrich’s claim that to report this story two days before the South Carolina primary is “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Really? Anything Mr. Gingrich can imagine? More despicable than, say, rape? Or murder? Or genocide? Or – just to pull an example out of mid-air — serially cheating on your wives? And to do so when you’re, say, Speaker of the House? During the impeachment of Bill Clinton over crimes that grew out of an affair with an intern? Reporting that story was more despicable than any of these things?
I’m sorry, Gingrich supporters throughout the land, but words have meaning. And for Mr. Gingrich to make the claim he did – and to win thunderous applause for it – is both amazing and somewhat dispiriting.

My guess is that Mr. Gingrich’s words were completely heartfelt. It’s not that what he said was in any sense objectively true; it’s that from his perspective, they are true. Given his absolute certitude in his own greatness – he is, after all, the man who once told a reporter that it’s people like him who “stand between us and Auschwitz” – Gingrich believes any charge against him is a dagger aimed at the heart of Western civilization.

It was quite revealing to me that Mr. Gingrich, in his answer, didn’t show any contrition or remorse. Instead, he reacted with indignant self-righteousness. So think about this: Mr. Gingrich, a candidate for the presidency, is enraged because the press interviewed his ex-wife and, in the process, has drawn attention to his own infidelity and mistreatment of his ex-wife, which no one disputes. And in all of this the injured party isn’t Marianne Gingrich but rather Newt Gingrich. The offending party isn’t the former speaker; it’s the press for daring to raise this matter.

For the record, I believe in, and have written often about, liberal bias in the news media. I also think Mr. Gingrich is a man in possession of some very impressive political talents, some of which have been on display during the last week. He ranks as one of the more significant conservative political figures in the last several decades. He’s capable of offering piercing insights. And he’s a person of almost supernatural resilience. But he’s also a man of flawed character and temperamentally unequipped to be president. Time and again he’s shown himself to be erratic and alarmingly undisciplined. And the fact that his answer last night – which I will concede worked brilliantly for him – brought a conservative audience to its feet was not one of the conservative movement’s finest hours.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/20/newt-gingrich-marianne-press-debate/#.TxrjtLEZ8KU.blogger

You can make him decide, but don't blame him for the decision.

2012-01-24T06:30:00.000-08:00

The Passive-Aggressive Presidency

You can make him decide, but don't blame him for the decision.

By JAMES TARANTO

The Obama administration today denied a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring crude from Canada's tar sands to Texas' refineries. But as National Journal reports, that doesn't mean the pipeline will never get built. "The Obama administration has said it simply could not adequately review the proposed project in time to meet a 60-day deadline for a decision on the permit imposed by Congress in the payroll-tax package enacted in December."

This looks to be a reasonably effective parry. The administration had initially said it would delay the decision until after the election for what critics took to be political reasons. On the one hand, the pipeline would create thousands of jobs and increase the supply of energy--and labor unions, which would fill some of those jobs, like it. On the other hand, environmental fundamentalists hate it. Thus either a "yes" or a "no" would carry risks for a Democratic president seeking re-election.

Its hand forced, the administration formally rejected the permit request. But by attributing the decision to a lack of time and leaving open the possibility of a reversal, it blunted Congress's ultimatum. Things now stand pretty much where they did before the payroll tax deal.

Congress's aim was to force Obama either to approve the pipeline or take the blame for rejecting it. He has managed to do neither, and the Hill reported yesterday that Republican lawmakers, anticipating a rejection or a punt, have been exploring options to force approval of the pipeline. But such a measure would be "highly unlikely to clear the Senate." Thus it appears the president has escaped the trap the Republicans laid for him.

Associated Press

No decision and that's final.

One way of thinking about the administration's approach is that it reflects a passive-aggressive attitude.

Congress obliges the president to make a decision, so he makes one, but he also makes clear that it isn't really a decision and he doesn't appreciate being rushed. The administration's approach to the economy has been consistently passive-aggressive. First it was "we inherited this mess." Then, as time passed and that claim became decreasingly plausible, the bad economy became the fault of the "do-nothing Congress."

Obama's supporters in the media likewise try to shift responsibility away from the president. And while they sometimes have a point--the president's power over the economy is limited--the passive-aggressive approach is even used to explain away Obama's policy decisions. In an editorial today, the New York Times tries to absolve Obama for the dramatic increase in food-stamp dependence, which GOP candidate Newt Gingrich has been emphasizing. Amid a lot of racial cant is this paragraph:

The fact is that Mr. Obama has "put" no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance, known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, because they're poor or out of work and their families are hungry. The number of people using the program, which is now at a peak, began rising with the recession, in 2007, and continued through four of the toughest years ever faced by the poor and near-poor in modern history. Mr. Obama eased the eligibility requirements as part of his stimulus program, a desperately needed measure that helped struggling families and the economy.

The last sentence contradicts the first, unless the Times editorialists construe "put" in a ridiculously narrow way. (An analogous argument would be: "The fact is that George W. Bush did not 'go to war' in Iraq. He did not so much as set foot in Iraq until November 2003.") If Obama eased the eligibility requirements, then his decision (for which the 111th Congress presumably shares responsibility) did indeed put some number of people on food stamps.

Another example appears in a CBS story, which seems to have come from a reporter at the White House:

For the most recent month with available data, October 2011, 46.2 million people were enrolled in the food stamp program, which is formally known the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Since Mr. Obama took office, the percent increase in enrollment has been 44.5 percent.

However, that percentage increase hardly makes Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," at least when you look at the question proportionally. The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama: The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008--an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary.

Although that 63% increase is nothing for Bush to be proud of, CBS presents these statistics misleadingly to make Obama look better. First, given CBS's numbers, the rate of increase in food-stamp enrollment has been almost twice as great under Obama than Bush. A 63% increase over seven years works out to 7.2% annual growth. A 44.5% increase over three years is an annual rise of 13.1%.

Second, this is arguably a case in which the increase in numbers means more than the increase in percentages. In the three-year period CBS ascribes to Obama, the food-stamp rolls have increased by 18 million people, or 6 million a year. In the seven years attributed to Bush, the increase was 10.9 million, or 1.6 million a year. Almost four times as many Americans have gone on food stamps every year during the Obama years than during the Bush years, and the percentages are not increasing as quickly precisely because the numbers are.

Perhaps it's good to have more people on food stamps, but if the administration and its defenders really thought that was a compelling argument, they wouldn't go to such lengths to try to minimize the numbers and the president's responsibility for them. More broadly, we're not sure the passive-aggressive approach is a good way to win re-election. It strikes us as the opposite of leadership.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168992521313420.html

Now, it's a three-front war in the GOP

2012-01-23T16:00:00.000-08:00

Now, it's a three-front war in the GOP Hugh Hewitt Columnists Washington Examiner

By: Hugh Hewitt Examiner Columnist

Given that everything changed every 48 hours during the 10 days that separated New Hampshire from South Carolina, predictions about Florida are risky.

But it does seem likely that the winner of the GOP presidential primary race there will be the GOP's nominee.

Florida is a major swing state in the fall. It has many major media markets. It requires campaigns in two languages. It rewards the sort of organization that will be necessary for the Republican candidate to beat President Obama in November.

And it will feature two more debates, run, again, by Manhattan-Beltway media elites, who will also be running the fall debates, if indeed Obama agrees to any.

Nixon in 1972 didn't, and there is no law compelling anyone to do so. It would be good to push the MSM to push the president for an ironclad commitment to participate, but keep in mind the president's ironclad commitment that if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it.

Saturday's big win in South Carolina for Newt Gingrich was not an endorsement of the former speaker's resume or his platform. You would be hard-pressed to find many voters who could tell you what Newt is actually committed to doing.

But even the 60 percent who didn't vote for him in the Palmetto State can tell you what Newt is committed to being: aggressive, assertive, and especially confrontational with the Beltway-Manhattan media elite when the MSM manipulates the news and the debates, distorts the process, and repeatedly covers the president's rear.

No questions on Iran in the CNN, ABC and NBC debates? No questions about the president's treatment of Netanyahu? No questions about the veto of Keystone XL pipeline?

No questions about Solyndra, Operation Fast and Furious," Joe Biden's serial inanities, the unconstitutional recess appointments? Gibson Guitar, Boeing, the Environmental Protection Agency's generation and cement rules?

Nothing about cutting 20,000 Marines and up to 100,000 soldiers?

Newt's ex-wife is tracked down, but we never got an interview with Bill Ayers or saw the Rashid Khalidi tape? Romney's tax returns are demanded again and again, but we never saw the president's college or law school transcripts?

Newt's display of anger -- even the over-the-top characterization of John King as despicable -- got cheering from everyone who had wanted the GOP candidates to run straight at the MSM and their deeply corrupt insularity and embedded biases.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum should not and will not attempt to imitate Newt because the former speaker's incendiary style on all things at all times is of a piece with who he is and who he has been.

But in quieter but no less firm and specific a way, they should simply reject most of the questions and explain at length why the bizarre spins attached to the MSM's coverage of the campaign are in fact pages from the Obama playbook, perfectly executed for the president they created and are now protecting, either consciously or as cogs in an unthinking, self-perpetuating, perpetual motion machine.

"Let me tell you why that question lets the president off the hook. ..."

"Let me tell you how this subject drains time from Iran and the accelerating collapse loss of Egypt to the Islamists. ..."

"I can't help but think that Mark Steyn or Mark Levin might have phrased that question in a neutral fashion, but stripping away the liberal spin you put on it. ..."

Each of the would-be nominees is fighting a three front war -- with his GOP competitors, with the president, and with the big media.

Newt won because he has, alone, fought on that this third front, the proverbial "Russian front" for all GOP candidates in all races. It is Newt's singular contribution to have opened that campaign. Mitt and Rick should join that fight as well.

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

A PolitiFact case study

2012-01-23T12:30:00.000-08:00

A PolitiFact case study

by Scott Johnson in Media Bias

We took a look at the phenomenon of political fact-checkers in “Who will fact check the fact checkers?” The post drew attention to Mark Hemingway’s Weekly Standard cover story “Lies, damned lies, and ‘fact-checking.’” Hemingway traced the rage for political fact-checking back to PolitiFact:

Launched in 2007, PolitiFact purports to judge the factual accuracy of statements from politicians and other prominent national figures.
A statement is presented in bold type at the top of the page, usually accompanied by a picture of the speaker. Off to the side is a “Truth-O-Meter” graphic depicting an old-school instrument gauge. The Truth-O-Meter displays a red, yellow, or green light depending on whether the statement is rated “true,” “mostly true,” “half true,” “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire!” (To drive the point home, on the website the “pants on fire!” rating is accompanied by animated flames.) Below the Truth-O-Meter is a short explanation from PolitiFact’s editors justifying their rating.
The feature quickly gained popularity, and in 2009 the St. Petersburg Times won a Pulitzer Prize for PolitiFact, endowing the innovation with a great deal of credibility. “According to the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact . . . ” has now become a kind of Beltway Tourette syndrome, a phrase sputtered by journalists and politicians alike in an attempt to buttress their arguments.
If the stated goal seems simple enough—providing an impartial referee to help readers sort out acrimonious and hyperbolic political disputes—in practice PolitiFact does nothing of the sort.

Now comes Tom Bruscino to provide “A PolitiFact example.” Bruscino was solicited by PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson to assess Mitt Romney’s assertion that Our navy is smaller than it’s been since 1917.

Our air force is smaller and older than any time since 1947.” Bruscino is assistant professor of history at the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the author, most recently, of A Nation Forged in War: How World War II Taught Americans to Get Along.

It seems obvious that the powers-that-be at PolitiFact were looking for a predetermined answer.

Bruscino’s response shows a judicious assessment of questions posed, including the question of overall context. Bruscino finds the assertions essentially accurate while the overall context renders them difficult to assess.

PolitiFact finds no such ambiguity. The Truth-O-Meter finds Romney’s “Pants on Fire,” because while the numbers are basically accurate, the context makes Romney’s claim a lie. Jacobson refers to Romney’s statements as “meaningless,” “glib,” “preposterous,” and “ridiculous.”

While crediting Jacobson with performing “a remarkable bit of research in a very short period of time,” Bruscino found the questions posed to be leading and comments:

To be frank, I’m a little surprised by that wording ["meaningless," "glib," "preposterous," and "ridiculous"], especially in writing for a site that strives for objectivity.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that since Romney’s base statement was factually accurate when it came to most numerical metrics, it would seem that he could be given credit for a half-truth, even if the context complicates the matter.
In any event, that is how PolitiFact worked in this case. Just in case you are interested.

http://by%20scott%20johnson%20in%20media%20bias/

White House Keystone Cops, Continued

2012-01-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

White House Keystone Cops, Continued

by Steven Hayward in Energy Policy, Environment, Obama administration

I can’t add much to John’s indignation about the economic illiteracy of Obama’s craven decision to block the Keystone pipeline, but I can note how it is also environmentally stupid. First, even if you’ve drunk double-shots of the climate change Kool Aid, blocking the Keystone pipeline not only won’t have any effect on greenhouse gas emissions, it will actually increase them, along with environmental risks generally.

Why? Simple: Canada will now ship their oil to China by tanker, which will involve higher greenhouse gas emissions from shipping that you’d wouldn’t have by sending it to us by pipeline. Second, instead of importing 1 million barrels of day of oil by pipeline from Canada, we’ll substitute that million barrels by importing it by tanker from the Middle East and Africa, thereby doubling the shipping-related greenhouse gas emission over the pipeline option.*

Second, Canada is going to ship out their oil from a northern latitude port in British Columbia.

Shipping oil by tanker has a spill rate about six times higher than spills from offshore oil rigs or pipelines. You’d think after the ExxonValdez environmentalists would be able to calculate the simple risk tradeoff here involving a northern cold water port, except that environmentalists believe in a sentimental world without tradeoffs. (I like the Wall Street Journal’s turn of phrase this morning about environmentalists making Keystone “a station of the green cross.” Yup, that about nails it.)

Third, anyone think China will refine the oil the same way as the U.S.? That is, do you think China will use their Canadian-sourced oil with the same emission reduction requirements for conventional air pollutants as we do? Yeah, me neither.

Finally, let’s have a look at the data on oils spills from pipelines in the U.S. and all sources. As with air travel, automobile fatalities, and other mass risks, the long-term trend of oil spills from tankers and pipelines alike has experienced a long-term declining trend. According to research by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, the leading researcher on oil spill statistics, between the decade of the 1970s and today, average annual oil spill amounts from all sources (oil well blowouts, tanker accidents, refinery spills, rail transit accidents, etc.) fell 77 percent, and spills from pipeline accidents fell 70 percent (see Figure 1). (See Analysis of U.S. Oil Spillage, API Publication 356, August 2009.)

Figure 1: Average Annual Petroleum Industry Oil Spillage by Decade

The environmental risk of pipeline spills is also overblown. A break in an ExxonMobil oil pipeline on July 1 of last year near Billings, Montana, released about 1,000 barrels of oil into the Yellowstone River and deepened the controversy over Keystone. The EPA reported that its water pollution sampling of the affected area of the river found “no petroleum hydrocarbons above drinking water standards in that region,” while its air pollution tests finds that “there continues to be no public health concerns resulting from the release of oil into the river.”
That sure doesn’t fit the disaster narrative.

* I note even the Washington Post editorial board sees it our way:

Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

One last footnote: Since this was formally a State Department recommendation to President Obama, I suppose we should revive the old line about needing to install an “American Desk” at the State Department to stick up for the interests of the American people.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/white-house-keystone-cops-continued.php

Age Of Austerity? House And Senate Lawmakers Proposed $1 Trillion New Spending Last Year

2012-01-23T06:38:00.000-08:00

Age Of Austerity? House And Senate Lawmakers Proposed $1 Trillion New Spending Last Year - Investors.com

By JOHN MERLINE

View Enlarged Image

Despite endless talk of spending cuts and fiscal restraint in Washington over the past year, lawmakers continued to act as though the government doesn't spend nearly enough.

They introduced 874 bills in the House and Senate that would have boosted annual federal spending by more than $1 trillion if they'd all been signed into law, according to an analysis done for IBD by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

In contrast, lawmakers offered up just 215 bills to cut spending last year that would have reduced federal outlays by about half a trillion had they all been signed into law.

The analysis also found that for every dollar in cuts, lawmakers in the House proposed nearly $3 in spending hikes, and in the Senate $1.40 in hikes.

"Even at a time of massive deficits, Congress is still mostly occupied with pushing ideas to expand government spending," said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst at the NTUF, which has been tracking spending bills for more than 20 years through its BillTally project.

Brady notes that a big chunk of the spending tab comes from proposals by liberals in Congress that would transform the nation's health care into an entirely government-run "single payer" system. Absent those single-payer bills, the net effect of all the legislation introduced would be close to a wash.

The analysis also found a shift, at least, toward more spending cuts. "We are seeing more and bigger cut bills," said Brady, "and a smaller ratio of increase to cut bills than in last Congress."

That could change, however, should Democrats succeed in winning back control of the House in November.

The NTUF analysis found that congressional Democrats are by far the biggest spenders. Last year, 692 spending-hike bills had either all or majority Democratic sponsorship. Republicans, in contrast, sponsored just 126 such bills.

At the other end of the spectrum, GOP lawmakers introduced 172 bills that would have cut federal spending, compared with just 33 such bills offered up by Democrats.

Even if few of these bills were likely to make it all the way to the president's desk, they are a sign of the ongoing pressure in Congress to boost spending, budget experts say, since there is far more time and energy spent on proposals to expand government than to shrink it.

It's one reason budget caps have typically failed to hold in the past, and why proposed spending cuts often fail to materialize, these experts note.

For example, presidents routinely offer up dozens if not hundreds of programs they think should get the axe — President Clinton's 1995 budget had 115 of them — but few ever got acted upon and many show up on target lists year after year.

And in the past 50 years, annual inflation-adjusted spending on domestic programs — education, transportation, the environment, etc. — has declined just six times; and five of those years occurred during the Reagan administration.

As a result, spending on these programs as a share of GDP has climbed by more than 26% since 1962. That doesn't include spending on entitlement programs, which has seen its share of the economy nearly triple over those years.

Defense spending, in contrast, is not nearly as immune to spending cuts — the Pentagon's annual budget was cut in 19 of the past 50 years. And even with the recent buildup, defense spending as a share of the economy is about half what it was in 1962.

When President Obama introduced his budget last year, he made it clear that spending cuts were a critical part of getting federal deficits under control.

"All of us agree," he said referring to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, "that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control."

But unless that message sinks in on Capitol Hill, it's not clear that real, deep spending cuts will ever actually materialize.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=597873&ibdbot=1&p=2

Isn't a Bainful Turnaround What America Needs?

2012-01-22T16:48:00.000-08:00

Isn't a Bainful Turnaround What America Needs?

By Larry Kudlow

There's a very troubled company out there called U.S. Government Inc. It's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. And it badly needs to be taken over and turned around. It probably even needs the services of a good private-equity firm, with plenty of experience and a reasonably good track record in downsizing, modernizing, shrinking staff and making substantial changes in management. Yes, layoffs will be a necessary part of the restructuring.

A quick look at the income statement of this troubled firm tells the story. Just in the past year (FY 2011), the firm spent $3.7 trillion, but took in only $2.2 trillion in sales revenues. Hence its deficit came to $1.5 trillion.

Just in the first three months of the new year (FY 2012), the firm's troubles continued. Outlays for all purposes came in at $874 billion, but income was only $554 billion. So the shortfall was $320 billion.

No hope of a self-imposed turnaround here. Indeed, both the senior management and the board of directors show no signs of making major changes to their business strategy.

Hope for future profits? That's out of the question. The firms only chance of survival is a takeover.
Worldwide employment for U.S. Government Inc. is estimated to be over 2 million, a completely unmanageable number for a venture like this. Total compensation for this company is roughly twice the level of its private-sector counterparts. And its retirement and health-insurance benefits are so
large in relation to contributions paid that its benefit plans are careening toward insolvency.

In fact, the total debt of this firm now equals its total income -- an unsustainable position that suggests to many observers that future financing needs will not be met.

The product line of this troubled firm has been rejected over and over by growing segments of its customer base. And its product pricing (taxes) is not even remotely competitive. Even worse, heavily unionized work rules and regulations are so onerous that the prospects for even reasonable productivity and efficiency are long gone.

Its credit rating? That's been marked down, with more downgrades expected in the future.

The very troubled U.S. Government Inc. had long been either number one or in the top three worldwide in terms of economic freedom. But as a result of all these deteriorating conditions, it has fallen four years in a row in this category, slipping all the way to 10th. In fact, over the past 10 years, the firm has barely grown and its share price has been flat. Without the kind of radical change that comes from a takeover and turnaround, more economic slippage is baked in the cake.

Restructuring this company seems a hopeless proposition. But wait a minute. There's a highly regarded private-equity operation located in Boston that has a good (but not perfect) track record in turning around hopeless ventures. Though there have been failures for this firm, notable successes include Staples, The Sports Authority, Domino's Pizza and Steel Dynamics.

Anyone operating in business knows full well that even the smartest reorganizing firms are prone to failure as well as success in our free-market capitalist system. But the customer base of the troubled U.S. Government Inc. seems like it is desperate enough to go the takeover route.

Some are concerned that private-equity specialists are too hard-hearted. But in these tough times, people are willing to take a risk. That even includes the current CEO of the failed U.S. Government Inc., one Barack Obama. He just announced plans to merge the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. In other words, he's borrowing a private-equity tactic.

Alas, this move is way too small and way too late. Much more radical surgery will be necessary.
At a recent family election in New Hampshire, the former head of the Boston takeover firm, one Mitt Romney, emerged victorious with a sweep of all the key voter segments. Sounding like Ronald Reagan on the evening of his victory, the former turnaround CEO expressed confidence that the troubled U.S. Government Inc. could be saved. He was even optimistic.

But he warned that if family members expected a bidding war for more unpaid-for benefits with excessive price tags, well, he wouldn't be the man for that job. Tough measures would be necessary instead.

So now the question is, will America Inc. ask this former turnaround CEO to prevent the bankruptcy of U.S. Government Inc.? Isn't a Bainful turnaround exactly what America needs?

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and co-host of The Call. He is also a former Reagan economic advisor and a syndicated columnist. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/15/isnt_a_bainful_turnaround_what_america_needs_112772.html

The Food Stamp President

2012-01-22T11:30:00.000-08:00

The Food Stamp President

by John Hinderaker in Obama administration, Obama Administration Scandals
Newt Gingrich has labeled President Obama the food stamp president. In last night’s South Carolina debate, Juan Williams, in an already-famous exchange, tried to push back on that characterization, unsuccessfully. “The fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history,” Gingrich told Williams. The White House apparently doesn’t like the association between Obama and food stamps; Jay Carney said that the claim that President Obama’s policies have added to the food stamp rolls is “crazy.”

As happens so often with White House statements, Carney’s characterization had no basis in fact. We wrote about the metastasizing food stamp program in Food Stamp Nation:

Food stamp use has exploded during the Obama administration, reaching an all-time high of 45.8 million in August. This chart, prepared by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee, depicts the extraordinary growth in the program that began when Barack Obama took office in 2009:

That is right: federal spending on food stamps has doubled since George W. Bush left office. In large part, this is due to fraud–another emblem of the Obama administration. As Jeff Sessions said:

The agriculture bill we are considering this week…would result in a quadrupling of food stamp funds from their 2001 levels. At a proposed $80 billion a year, food stamps are becoming one of the largest items in our budget….
There is little if any oversight of the program, resulting in the extraordinary waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. … In some cases, the only thing you need to become food-stamp eligible is have a brochure from the federal government be sent to you in the mail. …
This program is not being run honestly, effectively, or fairly. It is deeply disappointing and extremely telling that the Democrat-led Senate voted down even this modest effort to address the almost shameless mishandling of taxpayer funds. We’re in a fiscal crisis that is already killing jobs, and these bills just increase spending—and destroy confidence—that much more.

Obama, of course, has done nothing to crack down on fraud or try to get a grip on food stamp spending. So, more recently, Sessions has again written to the Obama administration to ask for its cooperation in getting food stamp spending under control. You can read his letter here. An excerpt:

I am writing about widespread reports of fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. At $89 billion, the annual food stamp budget is the largest of nearly eighty federal welfare programs that cost taxpayers around $900 billion a year. Following growing concern over lax oversight, the USDA recently issued a press release announcing “new tactics to combat fraud and enhance SNAP program integrity.”
While the weak economy has increased the number of people on food stamps, spending on the program has dramatically outpaced the rise in unemployment. … [A]ccording to research by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, most of the increased spending on welfare programs (including food stamps) since 2007 is the result of expansions of eligibility, rather than increases in the number of people who would have been eligible under pre-recession rules. …
Records released last month show a couple in Washington State living in a $1.2 million home but still receiving benefits; a Michigan lottery winner was allowed to continue receiving benefits after receiving a $2 million payout (that state also discovered 30,000 ineligible college students its food stamp rolls, later taking action to remove them); and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Wisconsin food stamp recipients routinely sell their benefit cards on Facebook.
As the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have a responsibility on behalf of taxpayers to hold federal agencies accountable for how public funds are being spent. I would therefore ask that the Committee be immediately provided with a thorough explanation of all oversight actions your Department is taking, as well as a list of recommended federal reforms that would reduce waste, inefficiency, and abuse in the food stamp program.

To my knowledge, the Obama administration has not yet responded to this request for accountability, but I will publicize any response the Department of Agriculture makes. In the meantime, was Gingrich correct in dubbing Barack Obama the food stamp president? Actually, Gingrich was being charitable: he could have called Obama the food stamp fraud president.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-food-stamp-president.php

Thou must not question Big Environment

2012-01-22T10:31:00.000-08:00

Rex Murphy: Thou must not question Big Environment

Rex Murphy

TIM DIRVEN/AFP/Getty Images)

Like the Pope speaking ex cathedra, Greenpeace can never be wrong

The environmental movement has enjoyed smooth, mostly untroubled progress since its beginnings in the 1960s, when its activists romped around the northern sea floes off the coast of Labrador. The enviros migrated with almost the same punctuality as the seals: Every spring, you could treat yourself to the sight of them bobbing up and down on the ice-pans, high-bosomed starlets stroking the pelts of large-eyed newsmen and seals alike, whole platoons of photographers aiming for the perfect cute shot, and a kite tail of various enthusiasts and camp followers to give a sense of noise and drama. Labrador is more or less quiet these days: Those Who Care have decamped to the oil sands and other pastures.

Robert Redford, when he can tear himself away from the general dorkiness of the Sundance Festival, is big on saving the planet these days. James Cameron can generally be found rustling the vines somewhere in the Amazon rain forest. Leonardo DiCaprio is always good for a Vanity Fair cover as long as its backlit and there’s a polar bear somewhere. Mixing it up with the environmental crusaders is good PR for Hollywood one-percenters — takes the heat off their monstrous paydays, their jets and, for that matter, most of their silly movies.

Some enviro groups have grown corporate in size, techniques and attitude. Greenpeace is now to the environmental world what GM used to be to the automobile world. The various Sierra Clubs dot the world like McDonald’s. As the example of Canada’s own Northern Gateway pipeline shows, modern environmental protestors have refined a basic set of skills to near perfection: deploying legal challenges to stall a project, taking advantage of hearings to protract and delay, signing on huge numbers of groups and individuals to take part in such hearings. They are expert at singling out one activity and applying all their focus and energy toward stopping it.

The big-name environmental groups are routinely excellent communicators — faster, clearer and quicker with the message than governments or industry. I credit them for this, incidentally. Good for them that they have tuned themselves so finely, learned the game. Businesses and politicians have always been way behind in the new world of publicity and protest, and it is their own fault — half-laziness and half arrogance — that they are.

The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself. And when it was your aunt protesting the incinerator just outside town, well that was enough. But when it’s some vast congregation of 20,000 at an international conference, or thousands lining up to present briefs protesting a pipeline, well, let’s just say this is not your aunt’s protest movement anymore.

There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.

And so the great thing I see about Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s little rant against Northern Gateway pipeline opponents a few days ago — asking whether some groups are receiving “outside money” or if they are proxies for other interests — is not so much the rant itself, but rather the fact that at last some scrutiny, some questions are being asked of these major players. Big environment, however feebly, is being asked to present its bona fides. And that’s a good thing: The same rigor we bring to industry and government, in looking to their motives, their swift dealing, must also apply to crusading greens.

Where does their money come from? What are their interests in such and such a hearing? What other associations do they have? Are they a cat’s paw for other interests? Do they have political affiliations that would impugn their testimony? In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.

No one should be excluded from those hearings — at least, no one who has a solid and honest objection to the project. But some amount of transparency from all those environmental groups that demand “transparency” from everyone else is a reasonable ambition as well. Let us have some vetting of the vetters. To that degree, I applaud the Minister.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/14/rex-murphy-thou-must-not-question-big-environment/

Obama kills a major oil pipeline from Canada with its jobs and implications for national security

2012-01-21T17:00:00.000-08:00

Obama kills a major oil pipeline from Canada with its jobs and implications for national security by Andrew Malcolm - Investors.com

A pretty amazing presidential decision out of the White House today, to kill the Keystone XL Pipestone plan to bring 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to Texas.

Treating Canada, our largest trading partner, next-door neighbor (or neighbour), most trustworthy longtime friend and ally in good times and Afghanistan, as if it can only sell all that oil to us instead of building a shorter pipeline to British Columbia and selling to -- wait for it -- China.

After all, who needs a secure energy source from a best friend when you can pay a fortune to buy it from unfriendly people in faraway unstable places?

This from a president who preaches energy self-sufficiency. But one whose extended-hand policy of engagement hasn't engaged Iran but has allowed it to become near-nuclear and now threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz where 20% of the world's oil supply passes through.

Not to mention not creating thousands of domestic U.S. union construction jobs, which Obama has so often said is his Job #1. (Other than keeping his.)

In a White House statement (full text below, along with text of reactions) Obama tries to blame the rejection on the Republicans, who were trying to force an early decision, which the Democrat had put off until after the Nov. 6 election.

Seriously, the environment? In the interests of the national interest after how many decades with how many pipelines being built better each time?

In purely political terms, it's hard to imagine Obama's play for green voters driving malfunctioning Volts outnumbering those blue-collar voters all across the distressed battleground Midwest. Can you say Teamsters?

(go to link for statements):
http://news.investors.com/Article/598108/201201181904/keystone-pipeline-oil-obama-canada.htm

2012-01-21T14:07:00.000-08:00

Ameritopia: Mark Levin Discusses the Utopian Unmaking of America

MY INTERVIEW with Mark Levin about his new book Ameritopia is now on YouTube.

Posted at 8:55 am by Glenn Reynolds

The Keynesian School of Economics Leads to Violence

2012-01-21T13:57:00.000-08:00

The Keynesian School of Economics Leads to Violence
by Jeff Carter

We are seeing the end game played out over and over in different cultures all over the world. There is one thread of similarity. All of them have practiced Keynesian economics for decades. The belief that more government spending and bigger government to solve society ills has degenerated into a stagnant economy with no growth and in many parts of the world it’s unsafe to walk down the street.

Riots have taken place in “civilized” first world countries. Spain, Italy, Greece, even France and England. Unemployment in some of them is over 20%, and for younger people that have never been hired it can be significantly higher. Even in America, we have seen mini-riots with the Occupy Wall Street crowd and in places like Wisconsin and Ohio that have tried to undo years of bad economic policy. The Arab spring was caused more by economics than it was anything else. An educated populace had no place to work, and no underlying economy to create jobs.

If you don’t understand the technical differences between the Keynesians and the Classical economic principles, you surely have heard iconic words and seen them practiced. You just didn’t realize it. “Prime the pump”, “government stimulus”, “government investment” are typical phrases used to easily translate Keynesian policies. This is just government allocating its resources to different projects. Governments cannot invest. They are not bound by the same constraints as private business.

Classical economics principles rely on the private sector to jumpstart and drive economic growth. Instead of spending money to prime the pump, they adjust tax policy and regulatory policy to change the incentives in the broader economy. Businesses, and people respond to those incentives. Because classical economists see most government spending as relatively useless, they are called “heartless”.

The fresh water economists would slash government spending. Since most government spending is on social welfare, the politicians and bureaucracies that benefit from that spending go on a vicious attack.

The problem is that eventually the socialist/Keynesian school runs out of other people’s money to spend. They can’t raise taxes high enough, and the market forces them to pay ever higher interest rates to access public markets. When governments increase spending, businesses cut back. The net present value tables always catch up to them.

At this point in the cycle, they generally have created a situation where there are haves and have nots. Forced to cut spending on the people that receive a government check, those people riot. In Rome, Italy the streets are becoming unsafe.

The killings were “an offence to the Eternal City” and risked turning the Italian capital into “an immense favela where shoot-outs happen as they did in the Wild West,” said La Stampa, one of the country’s most respected daily newspapers. “In one year, Rome seems to have spun out of control.”
The violence has spread from the graffiti-clad sink estates on the outskirts of the city to the tourist-friendly piazzas and cobbled streets of the centre.
Last year there were two murders and seven kneecappings in Prati, one of the city’s most upmarket areas, lying not far from the Vatican.
Many of the killings have been well organised hits carried out in broad daylight, with few of the culprits caught, spreading fear and trepidation among the city’s nearly four million inhabitants

There doesn’t seem to be a transitional period for this base human behavior to occur. One day things are fine, the next you fear for your life.

When Keynesian economics are practiced, poverty and lower standards of living take hold. I have spoken with college students that spent time in Spain. Every evening people would be scouring city dumpsters looking for morsels to eat. When Oprah visited middle class people in
Belgium

Denmark she asked, “Where’s all your stuff?”. The answer is they don’t have any stuff. They can’t afford it.

When governments ramp up their debt loads and ramp up the amount they spend on government programs, there is only one outcome. Eventually the merry go round stops. People get off and look at each other. Some have enjoyed the ride. They either built a business and got rich, or they used crony capitalism to insulate themselves and are well off. The rest of the poor saps are stuck with nothing.

They have to survive, so basic human survival instincts take over.

That is the danger of accumulating so much debt. We are starting to see it played out in various economies throughout the world. Unless America changes it’s ways, or we get a huge upsurge in economic growth that will placate the debt for the short run, we are on the same miserable trail to nowhere.

http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/01/16/the-keynesian-school-of-economics-leads-to-violence/

Who Is Anti-Science?

2012-01-21T11:00:00.000-08:00

Who Is Anti-Science?

by John Hinderaker in Climate

In the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was, Ken Haapala writes:

As the global climate refuses to obey the global climate models, advocates of the position that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal cause of late 20th century warming are attacking skeptics as anti-science. In effect, they are writing that the skeptics are nihilists – denying that scientific knowledge is possible. These alarmists are misrepresenting the position of most skeptics, namely that climate science as articulated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fails to meet the standards of rigor required by modern science. …

The IPCC has failed to establish a strong link between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and changes in temperatures; contrary to the claims of Al Gore, Antarctic ice cores reveal that B (changes in temperatures) comes before A (changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.)

The first two assessment reports of the IPCC contained the temperature variation of the past 1000 years derived from the best available data. These included the Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age. The Third Assessment Report (AR3) replaced the historic data with the infamous “hockey-stick,” without explanation. The Forth Assessment Report (AR4) dropped the “hockey-stick” without explanation and limited the scope to the past 50 years. This is terribly misleading and clearly indicates the models on which AR4 relies cannot explain historic temperature variation. An examination of the best available data on temperature variation for the past 20,000 years (from Greenland ice cores backed up by other data) shows wild variation unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide, which the IPCC ignores.

As pointed out by Nir Shaviv and others, actual temperatures are significantly diverging from model projections. Warming alarmists are trying to explain away this divergence with irrelevant claims, such as 2011 was the ninth warmest year on (the instrument) record. But as reader Don Rapp points out, it was also the ninth coldest year in the last 13. What the IPCC does in its next assessment report is difficult to guess, but one can expect a clever effort to avoid rigorous science in establishing the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature changes.

However, in the interim, those accusing the skeptics of being anti-science are actually finding fault with skeptics because the skeptics are applying the principles of science far more rigorously than the IPCC applies them. Given the divergence between model projections and actual temperatures, any studies based on IPCC model projections are pure speculation.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/who-is-anti-science.php

Cohen-Head: Defending Big Money in Politics

2012-01-21T07:00:00.000-08:00

Cohen-Head: Defending Big Money in Politics

by Steven Hayward in 2012 Presidential election, Liberals

Power Line has often taken note of the mixed bag of opinions that come from the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen. He frequently departs from the liberal reservation, but usually leaves a marker somewhere in his column that he’s still part of the team. Today he leaves the reservation completely, without even so much as a token gesture to leftist orthodoxy.

Today’s Cohen column dissents from the liberal script that there’s “too much money in politics,” and he defends independent expenditures from the Super-PACs. And he recalls an episode famous in liberal lore—the 1968 insurgent campaign of Eugene McCarthy—that was made possible only by the kind of campaign contributions subsequently made illegal and that “reformers” wish to keep illegal today. Liberal “reformers” always change the subject when you bring up the McCarthy example. Here’s Cohen:

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.
My guess is that a lot of the people who decry what [Sheldon] Adelson has done [for Newt Gingrich through a Super-PAC] loved what Stein, Peretz and the others did. My guess is that they cheered Johnson’s defeat because they loathed the Vietnam War and wanted it ended. My guess is that while they pooh-pooh the argument that money is speech, they cannot deny that when McCarthy talked — when he had the cash for TV time or to set up storefront headquarters — that was political speech at the highest decibel.

Cohen concludes:

Sheldon Adelson is not my type of guy. I don’t like his politics. But he has no less right to try his own hand at history than did that band of rich men who were convinced the war was a travesty-tragedy — and they were right. Since 1968, my views have changed on many matters. But my bottom line remains a fervent belief in the beauty and utility of free speech and of the widest exchange of ideas. I am comfortable with dirty politics. I fear living with less free speech.

And so Cohen comes down at exactly the same point as George Will (pass out the smelling salts in the Post’s editorial offices!!), who remarked on ABC’s This Week Sunday:

[C]ampaign reformers constantly argue that, a) there’s too much political speech in this country, b) they know the right amount and, c) they want to criminalize speech in excess of that.

(By the way, while we’re on the subject of ABC’s This Week, can we give out a hooray for the departure of the egregious Christiane Amanpour? She made the show nearly unwatchable. Even George Stepalloverus is better than her.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/cohen-head-defending-big-money-in-politics.php

11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program

2012-01-20T20:40:00.000-08:00

CBS News: 11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program

CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson takes a look at 11 more Solyndras that were part of Obama's Energy program. Attkisson was one of the original reporters that uncovered the Solyndra scandal.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

According to CBS News, Beacon Power, a "green energy storage company," recieved $43 million from the government. Standard and Poor's had given the project a rating of "CCC-plus."

The Phony Class War--Is "conflict between rich and poor" really on the rise?

2012-01-20T14:00:00.000-08:00

The Phony Class War Is "conflict between rich and poor" really on the rise?

By JAMES TARANTO

"Tensions between the rich and poor are increasing and at their most intense level in nearly a quarter-century, a new survey shows," reports the Associated Press:

The survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center highlights U.S. perceptions of the economic divide, an issue that has moved to the forefront in the 2012 presidential campaign amid stubbornly high unemployment, increasing poverty and protests by the Occupy movement. . . .

The Pew survey shows that younger adults, Democrats and African-Americans remained the most likely as in previous years to cite the existence of strong disagreements between rich and poor. But in the last two years, three important swing groups--whites, middle-income Americans and political independents--registered some of the biggest increases in those who now also hold this view.

As a result, majorities of each political party and ideology all agree that serious disputes exist between Americans at the top and bottom of the economic ladder.

This is no doubt heartening news to President Obama's re-election campaign, and worrying those who oppose it. One reader who is in the latter camp emailed us the AP headline, "Conflict Between Rich, Poor Strongest in 24 Years," with the comment: "Obama's mission accomplished."

That's bunk. The Pew report contains a crucial disclaimer that disproves the AP's thesis:

While the survey results show a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy. It is possible that individuals who see more conflict between the classes think that anger toward the rich is misdirected. Nor do these data suggest growing support for government measures to reduce income inequality.

In fact, other questions in the survey show that some key attitudes toward the wealthy have remained largely unchanged. For example, there has been no change in views about whether the rich became wealthy through personal effort or because they were fortunate enough to be from wealthy families or have the right connections.

In fact, Pew does not claim to have found, as the AP falsely asserts, that "tensions between rich and poor are increasing." It finds, rather, that "perceptions of class conflict" and "the belief that these disputes are intense" have become more prevalent, especially since 2009.

Associated Press

You call that an army?

It isn't hard to understand why that might be the case. After all, what have Americans seen when they turned on the news over the past few years? In the White House, a president who, for want of political or managerial competence, has nothing to offer but bitter partisanship and ideologically driven class resentment. In public parks around the country, professional protesters and ignorant college kids ranting about their grievances against "the 1%." Now, in New Hampshire and South Carolina, even Republicans, led by nonsensical old Newt Gingrich, are getting in on the act.

The perception of "class conflict" has grown because the media have paid the putative conflict so much attention. They have done so in part for ideological reasons--lefty journalists have had a weird preoccupation with "income inequality" for as long as we can remember--but also in part because it's newsworthy, especially when the president of the United States is trying to foment class war.

It would also be newsworthy if he succeeded--and that is the story the AP is trying to peddle. But Pew's findings show it is a phony war. If underlying "tensions between rich and poor" were really rising, the survey would have found some evidence of actual hardening of attitudes across socioeconomic lines.
Further, note the list of "important swing groups" among which the perceptions of "class conflict" have been intensifying: "whites, middle-income Americans and political independents." These are groups among which the president has been polling terribly, suggesting they either are averse to class war or don't think of Obama as an ally.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577156973069237422.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Head Start A 50 Year Flop? Say It Ain’t So, Joe

2012-01-20T09:00:00.000-08:00

Head Start A 50 Year Flop? Say It Ain’t So, Joe

“Head Start” has been the poster child of federal aid to education ever since the Lyndon Johnson administration introduced it as part of the Great Society. And for decades liberals have pointed to it as one of the great advances that the federal government has brought to education, and as evidence that creative social engineering by smart professional interventionists can change the world.

But a long-suppressed government report finally released by the Obama administration report is shaking the foundations of Head Start, and the news isn’t coming from right wing conservatives but from Joe Klein at Time magazine. As Klein reports,

We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program’s effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.

These days, defenders of Head Start say less about what it does for kids (essentially nothing) but about the jobs it creates in poor neighborhoods. This is blue liberal thinking at its most self-parodic: we can’t develop social programs that will accomplish something worthwhile, but we can at least use the illusion that such programs work to create jobs for people who will then vote for the politicians who give them make work jobs.

True enough, as far as it goes, but it would just be cheaper to send them all checks. While it might be utopian to hope that a huge government boondoggle would shut down just because it’s been proven useless, even federal bureaucrats seem disturbed by the thought that limited antipoverty resources are being spent on a known flop. The L.A. Times has the story:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Head Start program, enacted reforms in December to address concerns about quality and accountability, among other things. They include a provision that, for the first time, requires low-performing agencies to compete for funding. Previously, funding for grantees was automatic.

It’s a start. The bigger story, though, is that the fundamental assumptions behind decades of government policy in education are coming unglued. The tools we’ve been using to address some of our most serious social problems don’t work. The money we’ve spent has been wasted.

It isn’t the just the Tea Party and Ayn Rand acolytes saying these things. It’s President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services. It’s Time magazine.
A paradigm is falling apart.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/01/12/head-start-a-50-year-flop-say-it-aint-so-joe/

Avoiding a lost decade --Obama on course to repeat Japan’s errors of the 1990s

2012-01-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

MURRAY AND BIER: Avoiding a lost decade - Washington Times
Obama on course to repeat Japan’s errors of the 1990s

Remember Japan's "lost decade" of the 1990s? For the United States, 2011 was the "lost year." Congress and President Obama are engaged in a standoff that will see 2012 go the same way unless they both get out of the way and let the private economy grow.

Consider what they have spent the past year doing. Mr. Obama proposed a budget so laughable that his own party unanimously rejected it. He has pushed one idea after another to boost government spending. Even after the end of a major war and the announcement that the Army and Marine Corps will be slimmed down, there will be no monetary savings in the defense budget.

The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009, while Congress has funded the government only through continuing resolutions, narrowly avoiding (partial) government shutdowns on at least three occasions. As a whole, neither party has made any serious attempt to reduce the deficit, even as another year has passed with government expenditures increasing.

The Federal Reserve continues its absurd policy of near-zero percent interest rates through 2012. In September, Fed Chairmen Ben S. Bernanke announced the "twist," a $400 billion binge on long-term U.S. bonds - a policy that failed even to receive a token blip from the stock market.

Executive agencies have continued their regulatory assault at a torrid pace: 300 major rules were finalized in 2011 and 144 new major rules are in the works, including ones from the Environmental Protection Agency, Dodd-Frank financial regulations and Obamacare. Last year was another record year for the size of the Federal Register. American business is being strangled by new red tape.

Congress, the Fed and the president have failed to advance any policies that will create long-term stability in the market. Instead, they persist with gimmicks like the "twist" and two-month payroll-tax holidays while accomplishing nothing substantial. It's long past time they got serious.

Japan's 1990s were lost for all the same reasons America's 2011 was lost - the status quo prevailed. In 1986, Japanese economic growth fell from 4.4 percent to 2.9 percent. In response, the Bank of Japan slashed the discount rate in half, from 5 percent to 2.5 percent. During the next three years, Japan created one of the largest economic bubbles in history. It didn't last. Real estate prices fell by 80 percent from 1991 to 1998, and the stock market collapsed to a quarter of its 1989 high.

Throughout the 1990s, Japan tried at least 10 fiscal stimulus programs and left interest rates below zero, while economic growth kept marching southward. None of this did anything other than ruin Japan's fiscal health, taking the country from the best fiscal position in 1990 to annual deficits of 7 percent of gross domestic product and a national debt of 227 percent of GDP. Sound familiar?

The president has vowed that his new pile of programs will be different. He has called for new publicly funded infrastructure projects, and yet that's exactly what Japan tried in the 1990s, repeatedly on a massive scale ($1.4 trillion in 2011 dollars). Rural towns were paved over, given grand new bridges, and a huge highway system was built. All of it failed to spur growth, and similar schemes are bound to fail as well.

Economic growth is not created from the top down. Government's main job is providing a constant, consistent playing field - something Washington lawmakers have done much to undermine over the past decade. Americans can create wealth. Extending unemployment benefits indefinitely, playing around with new gimmicks or suggesting more stimulus won't help in the long run. Leaving individuals free to use their talents and keep what they earn will. The recovery will only start with significant regulatory relief.

Iain Murray is vice president and David Bier a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/10/avoiding-a-lost-decade/#.TxNivGzxlx0.blogger

Obama: EPA Regulations Create Jobs; 'EPA Touches on the Lives of Every Single American Every Single Day'

2012-01-19T15:11:00.000-08:00

Obama: EPA Regulations Create Jobs; 'EPA Touches on the Lives of Every Single American Every Single Day' CNSnews.com

By Terence P. Jeffrey

President Barack Obama with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 10, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) - In a speech to employees of the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said that EPA regulations are good for the economy and create jobs and that the agency "touches" the lives of every American every day.

“We can make sure that we are doing right by our environment and, in fact, putting people back to work all across America,” Obama told the federal workers.

“When we put in place new common-sense rules to reduce air pollution, we create new jobs building and installing all sorts of pollution-control technology,” Obama said.

“When we put in place new emissions standards for our vehicles, we make sure that the cars of tomorrow are going to be built right here in the United States of America, that we’re going to win that race,” the president continued.

“When we clean up our nation’s waterways, we generate more tourists for our local communities. So what’s good for the environment can also be good for our economy,” Obama said.

The president spoke to the EPA employees at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorim in Washington, D.C., to thank them for their work—which he said “touches the lives” of all Americans every day.

“The main reason I’m here is simple: I just want to say thank you,” Obama said. “I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-epa-regulations-create-jobs-epa-touches-lives-every-single-american-every-single

Brown Wants New Anti-Business Agency

2012-01-19T12:30:00.000-08:00

Brown Wants New Anti-Business Agency

By LAER PEARCE

California lost about five and a half companies a week to other states in 2011, as the mass migration to avoid California’s hostile business environment grew. You would think a governor who is hungry for tax revenue — and California has one of the highest corporate tax rates in America — would do something to slow the tide, but Jerry Brown’s new budget proposal tells another story.

First, bureaucracies like the California Air Resources Board that are highly efficient in throttling businesses have nothing to fear in the new budget. Brown is all-in on CARB’s anti-global warming campaign, as AB 32 implementation is unscathed in the budget. Brown is not thinking about the war on greenhouse gases’ expected $180-billion-a year hit on the California economy; rather, he’s focused on the $1 billion in new 2012-2013 tax revenues he anticipates collecting under the state’s new cap and trade law.

But that’s just the tip of the supposedly rapidly melting iceberg. Tucked away in the “making government more efficient” section of the budget is a proposed new anti-business government bureaucracy, the Business and Consumer Services Agency, that should speed up the flight of employers from California.

Super-Agency

Under Brown’s proposal, the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and a handful of business licensing and inspection departments will be merged to form the new agency. Fair enough. Maybe they will be able to find some efficiencies. But the red flag for business owners is this: Into this amalgamation of bureaucracies that fundamentally see business as the enemy, Brown is dropping “the newly restructured Department of Business Oversight.”

Scan the list of 380 state agencies and you’ll find no Department of Business Oversight, so it appears this isn’t a case of restructuring an existing agency, but of creating an entirely new one. California’s already excessive amount of business oversight is one primary reason why CEO Magazine listed California as the worst state for business for the last four years in a row. Creating a new department tasked to impose yet more controls on business, and placing that department in an environment that’s already steamy with anti-business hubris, will only make things worse.

How anti-business are the foundational agencies of the new Business and Consumer Services Agency?
The Department of Consumer Affairs has 40 different regulatory entities like the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, the Telephone Medical Advice Services Bureau and the Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau, each responsible for regulating a segment of the California economy. Under a two-year initiative to increase the oversight it imposes, the department is seeking to quadruple the number of investigators on its staff and to add a new Deputy Director for Enforcement and Compliance.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing opens about 4,000 new cases a month where a business, landlord or lender is charged with discrimination — 195,000 cases in total in 2010. If a complaint goes forward, the department’s attorneys represent the complainant at no charge, and the average settlement against businesses, once charges are filed, is $40,000.

New Parasites

Certainly, there are scoundrels out there, along with bigots and guys who don’t know where to keep their eyes, hands or comments, and any state needs agencies to corral them. But Brown appears to be up to much more with his new super-agency. This new agency would assuredly go well beyond that charter, creating new opportunities for the attorneys that feed off of California businesses — attorneys who gave well over $1 million to Brown’s election campaign in 2010.

If California had a pro-business governor, his budget would have proposed a new pro-business department. That we have instead a new Department of Business Oversight in a new Business and Consumer Services Agency tells us a lot about the kind of governor — and the kind of state — we have.

Laer Pearce, a veteran of three decades of California public affairs, is completing a book on California’s impending collapse, “Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State.”

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/11/brown-proposes-new-anti-business-super-agency/