Wednesday, March 16, 2011

People Are Starting To Notice--O's numbers resume slide

People Are Starting To Notice  by John Hinderacker/Powerline

Recent poll data suggest that Americans have woken up to the fact that Barack Obama is an empty suit, and the Democrats have nothing to offer in terms of policy solutions. First, President Obama.

Today's Rasmussen Reports finds that among likely voters, President Obama has matched his lowest standing ever. He now ranks at -22 on the Approval Index, defined as the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of his performance:
Rasmussen also finds that the voters' preference for Republicans over Democrats is growing, as the current generic Congressional preference survey has Republicans ahead by 46-37. Oh, and 62 percent favor repeal of Obamacare, nearly the highest percentage yet recorded.

Other pollsters are finding evidence of growing pessimism among Americans. Remarkably, the ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans are less confident in "our system of government and how well it works" than at any time since the question was first asked in 1974. Worse, in other words, than in the aftermath of Watergate and than at any time during the Carter administration. And, for good measure, 71 percent "report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices." Shades of the 1970s, only worse; and we have, effectively, no president.

In polls, people tend to cast blame indiscriminately, but when they actually vote, matters are often clarified. Thus, several readers pointed out the result of an election in Dade County, where an overwhelming 88 percent voted to recall Mayor Carlos Alvarez because he raised taxes in order to fund a 3 percent increase in wages for public employees. Alvarez reportedly is the first public official to be recalled since Gray Davis, but one suspects there are more to come, and soon. Let's hope this sends a message to politicians in Wisconsin.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028606.php

http://liten.be//f3UxC

http://liten.be//teOhZ

http://liten.be//XpX2z

Liberals Love Violence. But Why?

Liberals Love Violence. But Why?

We have seen, over and over, how liberals are attracted to violence. Not real violence, necessarily: there, liberals tend to get the short end of the stick. But threats of violence, idle talk about violence, liberals love. Bill Jacobson has the latest from Wisconsin, where liberals yearn for someone to kill Scott Walker:



Professor Jacobson asks, reasonably: Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

I think the answer is that as liberals, they assume they are immune from scrutiny. Glenn Reynolds agrees: "They've lived for years in a culture of impunity. But that's changing faster than they realize." Maybe. But I don't think it's changing fast enough.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028566.php

A European's Warning to America--The perils of following us toward greater regulation, higher taxes and centralized power

A European's Warning to America  The perils of following us toward greater regulation, higher taxes and centralized power..
 
By DANIEL HANNAN

On a U.S. talk-radio show recently, I was asked what I thought about the notion that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya. "Pah!" I replied. "Your president was plainly born in Brussels."

American conservatives have struggled to press the president's policies into a meaningful narrative. Is he a socialist? No, at least not in the sense of wanting the state to own key industries. Is he a straightforward New Deal big spender, in the model of FDR and LBJ? Not exactly.

My guess is that, if anything, Obama would verbalize his ideology using the same vocabulary that Eurocrats do. He would say he wants a fairer America, a more tolerant America, a less arrogant America, a more engaged America. When you prize away the cliché, what these phrases amount to are higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracies, and a transfer of sovereignty to global institutions.

He is not pursuing a set of random initiatives but a program of comprehensive Europeanization: European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas.

No previous president has offered such uncritical support for European integration. On his very first trip to Europe as president, Mr. Obama declared, "In my view, there is no Old Europe or New Europe. There is a united Europe."

I don't doubt the sincerity of those Americans who want to copy the European model. A few may be snobs who wear their euro-enthusiasm as a badge of sophistication. But most genuinely believe that making their country less American and more like the rest of the world would make it more comfortable and peaceable.

All right, growth would be slower, but the quality of life might improve. All right, taxes would be higher, but workers need no longer fear sickness or unemployment. All right, the U.S. would no longer be the world's superpower, but perhaps that would make it more popular. Is a European future truly so terrible?

Yes. I have been an elected member of the European Parliament for 11 years. I have seen firsthand what the European political model means.

The critical difference between the American and European unions has to do with the location of power. The U.S. was founded on what we might loosely call the Jeffersonian ideal: the notion that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect. The European Union was based on precisely the opposite ideal. Article One of its foundational treaty commits its nations to establish "an ever-closer union."

From that distinction, much follows. The U.S. has evolved a series of unique institutions designed to limit the power of the state: recall mechanisms, ballot initiatives, balanced budget rules, open primaries, localism, states' rights, term limits, the direct election of public officials from the sheriff to the school board. The EU places supreme power in the hands of 27 unelected Commissioners invulnerable to public opinion.

The will of the people is generally seen by Eurocrats as an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction. When France, the Netherlands and Ireland voted against the European Constitution, the referendum results were swatted aside and the document adopted regardless. For, in Brussels, the ruling doctrine—that the nation-state must be transcended—is seen as more important than freedom, democracy or the rule of law.

This doctrine has had several malign consequences. For example, it has made the assimilation of immigrants far more difficult. Whereas the U.S. is based around the idea that anyone who buys into American values can become American, the EU clings to the notion that national identities are anachronistic and dangerous. Unsurprisingly, some newcomers, finding their adopted countries scorned, have turned to other, less apologetic identities.

The single worst aspect of Europeanization is its impact on the economy. Many Americans, and many Europeans, have a collective memory of how Europe managed to combine economic growth with social justice. Like most folk memories, the idea of a European economic miracle has some basis in fact. Between 1945 and 1974, Western Europe did outperform the U.S. Europe happened to enjoy perfect conditions for rapid growth. Infrastructure had been destroyed during the war, but an educated, industrious and disciplined work force remained.

Human nature being what it is, few European leaders attributed their success to the fact that they were recovering from an artificial low. They convinced themselves, rather, that they were responsible for their countries' growth rates. Their genius, they thought, lay in having hit upon a European "third way" between the excesses of American capitalism and the totalitarianism of Soviet communism.

We can now see where that road leads: to burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth and rising unemployment. But an entire political class has grown up believing not just in the economic superiority of euro-corporatism but in its moral superiority. After all, if the American system were better—if people could thrive without government supervision—there would be less need for politicians. As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Nonetheless, the economic data are pitilessly clear. For the past 40 years, Europeans have fallen further and further behind Americans in their standard of living. Europe also has become accustomed to a high level of structural unemployment. Only now, as the U.S. applies a European-style economic strategy based on fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing and the regulation of private-sector remuneration, has the rate of unemployment in the U.S. leaped to European levels.

Why is a European politician urging America to avoid Europeanization? As a Briton, I see the American republic as a repository of our traditional freedoms. The doctrines rooted in the common law, in the Magna Carta, and in the Bill of Rights found their fullest and most sublime expression in the old courthouse of Philadelphia. Britain, as a result of its unhappy membership in the European Union, has now surrendered a large part of its birthright. But our freedoms live on in America.

Which brings me to my country's present tragedy. The fears that the American patriot leaders had about a Hanoverian tyranny were exaggerated. The United Kingdom did not develop into an absolutist state. Power continued to pass from the Crown to the House of Commons.

Until now. Nearly two and a half centuries after the Declaration of Independence, the grievances it adumbrated are belatedly coming true. Colossal sums are being commandeered by the government in order to fund bailouts and nationalizations without any proper parliamentary authorization. Legislation happens increasingly through what are called standing orders, a device that allows ministers to make laws without parliamentary consent—often for the purpose of implementing EU standards.

How aptly the British people might today apply the ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence against their own rulers, who have "combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws."

So you can imagine how I feel when I see the U.S. making the same mistakes that Britain has made: expanding its government, regulating private commerce, centralizing its jurisdiction, breaking the link between taxation and representation, abandoning its sovereignty.

You deserve better, cousins. And we expect better.

Mr. Hannan is a member of the European Parliament. This essay is adapted from the Encounter Books Broadside, "Why America Must Not Follow Europe."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576176620582972608.html

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

You have seen the video of Twitter death wishes directed at Sarah Palin, by people who did not feel the need to hide their identities.

So like clockwork, death wishes (threats?) are being tweeted about Scott Walker, again often using real names.

And these were before last night's Senate vote (a Vimeo version is here in case YouTube takes it down):



Since the vote, the death wishes are multiplying. As soon as they have been put in video form, I'll post it.

(added) Here's one example at the link:

Even the people who sent an explicit death threat to Gov. Walker and Republican Senators apparently signed their names.

The Question of the Day, once again, is:

Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-do-these-people-many-of-whom-are.html

Loony left goes from intimidation, to threats of violence/assassination

Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats

By Jon Byman

Story Created: Mar 10, 2011
(Story Updated: Mar 10, 2011 )

MADISON - The State Department of Justice confirms that it is investigating several death threats against a number of lawmakers in response to the legislature's move to strip employees of many collective bargaining rights.

Among the threats the Justice Department is investigationg is one that was emailed to Republican Senators Wednesday night. Newsradio 620 WTMJ has obtained that email.

The following is the unedited email:

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.

We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.

This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

Monday, March 14, 2011

Obama's approval rating drops to 46%, a new low for 2011

Obama's approval rating drops to 46%, a new low for 2011


Gallup reports:

President Barack Obama averaged 46% job approval the week of Feb. 28-March 6, his lowest weekly average since mid-December. Obama's weekly approval rating had steadily improved from mid-December to late January, peaking at 50% during the final two weeks in January, before dropping below that mark in February.

Obama is now essentially back to where he was in the immediate post-election phase of 2010. The decline could be due to a number of issues the administration is dealing with, including the popular uprisings in the Middle East, the resulting higher gas prices, and disagreements with the Republicans in Congress about the best way to rein in federal spending.

The seven-week period from mid-December through the end of January was the longest stretch Obama has had of stable or improving ratings. Prior to that, there were several periods when his ratings either held steady or improved four weeks in a row, including a stretch from April to May 2009 that saw his approval ratings improve by a total of five percentage points.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/b/Obamas-approval-rating-drops-to-46,-a-new-low-for-2011/-86597406102544493.html
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146522/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Retreats.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval

THE HILL POLL: Drill more to ease energy crisis, voters say

THE HILL POLL: Drill more to ease energy crisis, voters say - TheHill.com By Ben Geman

Rising energy prices are prompting support among likely voters for expanding U.S. drilling and releasing oil from the country’s emergency stockpiles, a new poll conducted for The Hill shows.

By a 66-25 percent margin, likely voters say President Obama should encourage more oil and gas exploration offshore, and by a 50-35 percent margin they favor releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to moderate gas price increases....

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/149175-voters-say-drill-more-to-ease-energy-crisis

Breitbart.tv » Tea Partiers Clean-Up Mess Left By Union Protesters in Wisconsin

Breitbart.tv » Tea Partiers Clean-Up Mess Left By Union Protesters in Wisconsin

(Use link to view video of Tea Party members cleaning up and planning to clean up after the mob in Wisconsin)

http://www.breitbart.tv/tea-partiers-clean-up-mess-left-by-union-protesters-in-wisconsin/

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll--Obama's #s back down! Hmm!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


Monday, March 14, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.AdvertisementThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. That matches the president’s lowest ratings of 2011 (see trends).

Most voters continue to favor repeal of last year’s health care law. Sixty-one percent (61%) believe it will raise the cost of health care and 59% believe it will increase the federal budget deficit.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that employee pay should be based upon performance rather than education or seniority.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Wisconsin: The Left’s War On Democracy.

 Wisconsin: The Left’s War On Democracy.

MICHAEL WALSH: Wisconsin: The Left’s War On Democracy. “Let’s call this what it is: a campaign to nullify the 2010 election, by a sore-loser party that doesn’t like the results. . . . What the Democrats are doing in Wisconsin is more than just a disgrace. It’s a danger to our republican form of government, a formula for permanent, no-holds-barred combat long after the polls have closed and the people have spoken.” As I said before, they’re setting precedents here, but they’re as myopic politically as they are fiscally.

UPDATE: Dana Loesch on Facebook: “Right now heads collectively exploding in newsrooms across the country as media grapples with the fact that the mostly-white crowd in Madison breaking things isn’t the tea party.”

 by Glenn Reynolds
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/116537/

(Here's the whole article--worth reading):

Wisconsin: Left's war on democracy

By MICHAEL A. WALSH

With the world's attention focused on Libya and the events in the Arab world, it's easy to forget that, back in Wisconsin, a group of 14 rogue state senators is still holding representative democracy hostage. Worse, the stunt has now morphed into an attack on the legitimacy of elections.

The 14 "fleebaggers" left the state in mid-February in order to stop an impending vote on Gov. Scott Walker's plan to defang the public-employee unions -- a vote they were certain to lose.

Now, their supporters are organizing recall petitions for the governor and eight targeted Republican senators, and claim to already have reached 15 percent of the number of signatures they need. Yet the whole effort, at least as far as the governor is concerned, is illegal. Under Wisconsin law, public officials aren't subject to recall until one year into the term for which they were elected. But the man leading the drive to recall Walker, ex-Rep. David Obey, doesn't care: He argues that Walker's desire to roll back collective-bargaining rights of public-employee unions is "abusive" and thus justifies ignoring the law.

Let's call this what it is: a campaign to nullify the 2010 election, by a sore-loser party that doesn't like the results.

The Democrats are trying to cast themselves as the heroes -- noble prisoners of conscience engaged in an act of civil disobedience by denying Walker a quorum so the vote can be held. But, like the sheriff played by Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles," the gun at their heads is being held in their own hands.

We've seen this act before, and from the same political party. Eight years ago, Democratic state legislators in Texas vamoosed twice, to Oklahoma and later to New Mexico, to avoid voting on a redistricting plan they didn't like. In the end, one returned, the quorum was established, the vote was held and they lost.

This time, however, the stakes are higher: Whatever happens in Wisconsin will set a precedent for the rest of the nation, which is why Madison has become a critical battleground in a fight that neither side can afford to lose.

In a bid to protect one of its core constituencies -- public-sector unions -- the left has thrown a prime temper tantrum within and without the marble halls of the state capitol, trotting out its '60-era playbook of chants, signs and sickouts to create a media narrative that the cruel and heartless governor is trying to "destroy the unions."

But this fight is no longer simply about Walker's attempt to balance Wisconsin's wobbly budget, or even about whether public-employee unions ought to have the right to collective bargaining -- they shouldn't, and in fact they shouldn't even exist, as FDR himself warned.

It's now about whether we are to have an orderly democracy or legislative and executive anarchy, whether elections can be delegitimized and even overturned by the daily plebiscites of the polls, by the flouting of sacred oaths of office and by the trampling on the laws of the state.

It must stop. As President Obama liked to remind the GOP during the first two years of his administration, elections have consequences. From the Republican point of view, there was plenty not to like about Obama's program, including the stimulus and the health-care bill, but they voted anyway and took their lumps like grownups.

What the Democrats are doing in Wisconsin is more than just a disgrace. It's a danger to our republican form of government, a formula for permanent, no-holds-barred combat long after the polls have closed and the people have spoken.

Michael Walsh, a former associate editor of Time magazine, is the author (as "David Kahane") of "Rules for Radical Conservatives."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wisconsin_left_war_on_democracy_I9oFZLDvmyi6EBdk7v8MGM

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Obama's Green-Jobs Fantasies by John Stossel on Creators.com

Obama's Green-Jobs Fantasies by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Anyone who understands basic economics already knows that President Obama's $2.3 billion green-jobs initiative was snake oil. Now, thanks to Kenneth P. Green, we have statistics as well as theory to prove it.


In a new article, "The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience," the environmental scientist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute writes, "Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy."

Ironically, Obama boasts his initiative "will help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations." But Green says, "(C)ountries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren't sustainable and they are obscenely expensive."

Obama claims that if we "invest" more, "the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs — but only if we accelerate that transition."

What could make more sense? A little push from the smart politicians and — voila! — we can have an abundance of new good-paying jobs and a cleaner, sustainable environment. It's the ultimate twofer.

Except it's an illusion, as economic logic demonstrates.

"It is well understood, among economists, that governments do not 'create' jobs," Green writes. "The willingness of entrepreneurs to invest their capital, paired with consumer demand for goods and services, does that. All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others. In the green case, it is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector — and most likely in other industrial sectors — through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs 'created' are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs."

Green is using good, solid economic thinking. Many years ago, Henry Hazlitt wrote in his bestseller, "Economics in One Lesson," "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

In judging any government initiative, such as Obama's green-jobs plan, you can't look just at the credit side of ledger because the government is unable to give without first taking away.

Worse than that: Inevitably, more is taken away — destroyed — than is given because the government substitutes force and taxation for consent and free exchange. Instead of a process driven by consumer preferences, we get one imposed by politicians' grand social designs. It's what F.A. Hayek called "the fatal conceit."

So we shouldn't be surprised that green-jobs programs make energy more expensive. "(F)orcing green energy on the market (is) much, much more expensive," Green said. "Using Spain as a model, when you do the math, you realize that creating 3 million new green jobs could cost $2.25 trillion."

Of course, many people who push "green jobs" want the price of energy to rise so we'll use less. If the environmental lobby wants Americans to be poorer, it ought to come clean about that.

The advocates of such programs don't just misunderstand economics. They have lapsed into a pre-economic mentality. Rulers once believed they could do whatever they wanted, subject only to the physical laws of nature. If things didn't work out as planned, it was because the people had failed to cooperate. But as economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, once economics emerged as an intellectual discipline, "it was learned that in the social realm too there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success ... ."

That "something" is inescapable economic forces like the law of supply and demand.

Green is right when he says, "Central planners in the United States trying to promote green industry will fare no better (than Europe) at creating jobs or stimulating the economy."

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." Web page at http://www.creators.com/.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/obama-s-green-jobs-fantasies.html

Keith Ellison for dummies, cont'd

Keith Ellison for dummies, cont'd  by Scott Johnson/Powerline


Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison embodies the superficially odd alliance between Islamist forces and the left. He is not useful for much, but he is useful to illustrate the phenomenon. He is also useful to those who seek to minimize the threat posed by radical Islam to Americans.

Americans probably don't need to be persuaded that the threat is real. The Christian Science Monitor reports that in the years since 9/11, the number of Muslim-American terrorism suspects and perpetrators has averaged about 16 per year. In 2010, the total was 20; in 2009, 47 Muslim-Americans committed or were arrested for terrorist crimes. Recall, just for example, -- try hard -- recent cases including Nidal Hasan, Abdulhakim Muhammed, Faisal Shahzad, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, Colleen LaRose ("Jihad Jane"), Muhammad Hussain (formerly Antonio Martinez), and Mohamed Osman Mohamud.

One would think the seriousness of the problem posed to Americans by radical Islam would be self-evident. In Minneapolis, we have been contending with the disappearance of Somali immigrants who have been recruited by an Al Qaeda-linked group in their native country. What happens if and when they return to the United States?

As chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King is holding hearings this week on the threat posed by the radicalization of American Muslims. Their official title is "The extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community's response." The hearings might seem to be overdue, but Ellison objects to them. According to Ellison, the focus on the threat posed by radical Islam is unwarranted. Ellison seems to think that terrorism is an equal opportunity employer, or something.

In an appearance on MSNBC that is posted here by RealClearPolitics, Ellison pointed out that King is an old apologist for the IRA. (I should think this would be to King's credit in Ellison's eyes.) King's support of the IRA was misguided, tp say the least, but the IRA wasn't targeting Americans. Ellison indicts King for hypocrisy; Ellison has a hard time dealing with King on the merits of the issue. Indeed, he hardly tries.

Ellison himself plans to testify at the hearings. If one's record on related issues is relevant, as Ellison finds it useful to assert, one might want to consider Ellison's background. There are a few items of interest in it.

Ellison's background includes his work as a local leader of the Nation of Islam in Minneapolis, an ally of convicted gangster Sharif Willis, an agitator on behalf of cop killers, a supporter of SLA terrorist Sara Jane Olson (the former Kathleen Soliah), and a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front group and unindicted Holy Land Foundation co-conspirator CAIR. See my Weekly Standard article "Louis Farrakha's first congressman" and the companion Power Line post "Kieth Ellison for dummies." I should think that these credentials detract somewhat more from Ellison's credibility than King's past support for the IRA.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028541.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/09/015165.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/764obcsx.asp?page=1

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Other People's Money

Other People's Money




I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money. Mary Katharine Ham reminds us how fast that can happen, as she responds to Michael Moore's suggestion that rich people's money is a national resource, and we should solve the country's budget problems by confiscating it.

Moore is a uniquely despicable human being. To find out how despicable, read the chapter on him in Peter Schweizer's excellent book, Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028576.php




Obama's Energy Plan


Saturday Night Card Game (Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes)

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Saturday Night Card Game (Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes)

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

If you have followed this series, you have seen the absurd depths to which liberal pundits and political operatives will go to inject race into non-racial situations, and to explain almost all opposition to Obama as implicitly if not explicitly racist.

This stereotyped view of opposition to Obama derives not only from liberal dogma, but from Obama himself.

Obama's view was evidenced in April 2008, before it was even clear he would defeat Hillary Clinton, and long before substantial anti-Obama sentiment grew in the country.

At a private fundraiser which Obama did not know was being taped, Obama expressed his disdain for Democratic primary voters who opposed him with the now famous "bitter clinger" comments:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Remember, Obama made his bitter clinger comments before there was a Tea Party movement, before there was opposition to what would become Obamacare, before Sarah Palin was a national figure, and before Obama had even won the nomination.

In fact, in April 2008 there was support among Republicans for Obama as a means of stopping Hillary, as reflected in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos and other efforts to make the Democratic primary more competitive for Obama. To the extent there were any questions being raised at that time regarding Obama's birthplace and citizenship, such questions were being raised by other Democrats.

The theme that racism was the source of opposition to Obama was prevalent throughout the primary season and general election. It was a theme used to Obama's great advantage against Hillary and McCain:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Fast forward to May 2010, and Obama asserted a view of the Tea Party movement which was very similar to the bitter clinger view Obama took in April 2008 toward Democratic primary voters.

As reported in U.S. News, at a private dinner Obama asserted that racism was a primary motivation for the Tea Party movement and for opposition to Obama's policies:

In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

While Obama says he wants a post-racial American, in fact Obama bitterly clings to bitter clinger stereotypes.

It seems unfathomable to Obama that people actually oppose his policies on the merits, and he seems not to care that each play of the race card is insulting and infuriating and tears the country a little bit further apart.

We do not cling -- bitterly or otherwise. And we don't like being accused of being something we are not.

[Note: I made a correction as to Operation Chaos because, as a commenter pointed out, the goal was not to help Obama but to keep the Democratic primary competitive, although it defintely was true that for a long time Republicans were focused on stopping Hillary, not Obama.]

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/saturday-night-card-game-obama-bitterly.html

Pensions: Anger Brews Over Government Workers' Benefits

Pensions: Anger Brews Over Government Workers' Benefits - CNBC

PENSIONS, PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS, PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, UNIONS, LABOR UNIONS, GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER, SCOTT WALKER WISCONSIN, WISCONSIN LAYOFFS, STATE BUDGET CRISES, BUDGET CRISIS, WISCONSIN BUDGET CRISIS,

The Associated Press 

When Erin McFarlane looks at public workers, she sees lucrative pension benefits she doesn't ever expect to get. And it makes her mad.

"I don't think that a federal employee or government employee is worth any more than anybody else who does their job and does it well," said the Slinger, Wis., woman. She's been working a couple of bartending jobs since January, when she was laid off from her job at a Harley Davidson plant after almost a decade.

She's not alone in seeing public servants as public enemies in some ways.

It's a case of pension envy.

For McFarlane, 36, it's part of a ubiquitous discussion, at the bars where she works and on Facebook. And it's the center of some of the biggest political battles playing out in state capitals across the country as governors say their states can no longer afford the benefits that public employees have been promised.

Government workers in McFarlane's state have rallied for weeks against Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to take away many collective bargaining rights, saying that would amount to killing the middle class.

A USA Today/Gallup poll last month found show that Americans largely side with the employees, though about two in five that want government pay and benefits reined in.

Barbara Davis, a retiree from Cherry Hill, N.J., has been watching public workers in rallies in Madison, Wis., as well as Trenton. She says the protesters are wrong about tightening benefits hurting the middle class.

"I'm sorry, but what they're doing is telling off the middle class," said Davis, 76, and a co-chairwoman of the Cherry Hill Area Tea Party. "The middle-class people don't get all the goodies that they do."

At its heart, the issue is this: Some public workers get a sweet deal compared to other workers. And it's taxpayers who pay for it.

That's set off resentment in a time when economic doldrums have left practically everyone tightening their belts. Many people have found their tax bills rising even if their earnings haven't.

In Davis' case, it's the property tax that smarts. She and her husband pay about $12,000 per year for the house she describes as a three-bedroom "tract home." That's a high tax even in New Jersey, where the average property tax bill tops $7,000 and where the Tax Foundation has found homeowners pay three and a half times the national median.

A half century ago, industrial jobs at car and steel plants provided high salaries and rich benefits. But as manufacturing moved overseas, many formerly well-paid workers had to take lower-paying jobs. By the end of the Great Recession, the economic order was undeniably changed.

"It's the government sector worker who's the new elite, the highest-paid worker on the block," said David Gregory, who teaches labor and employment law at New York's St. John's University.

For instance, most non-uniformed public employees who have worked in New Jersey for 30 years with an ending salary of $85,000 can look forward to retiring at 55 with an annual pension of about $46,000. Working until age 60 and a salary of $90,000 can bring a pension of $57,000. And many of the New Jersey's public-sector retirees have no or low premiums for their health insurance.

For a private-section worker who retires at 55, relying solely on a 401(k) without an employer match, it would take a $100 contribution to a plan every week for 30 years and getting an annual return over 7 percent to get to the same level of pension benefit as the public worker retiring at that age. Those benefits would run out after 25 years for the 401(k) retiree.

To be fair, most public-sector retirees don't get such rich pensions. New Jersey's Treasury Department says the average annual pension due state workers who retired between July 2009 and June 2010 was just over $30,000 per year; for local government employees, it was about $20,000.

And the members of the state's two biggest public employee retirement systems are required to pay 5.5 percent of their base salaries into the pension funds.

St. John's Gregory says the rest of the benefits are deferred compensation promised to workers instead of better salaries.

National data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that public-sector workers do better when it comes to pensions and benefits.

As of last September, professional and management workers in the private sector were making $34.91 in hourly salary; public sector professionals made $33.17 an hour.

The government entities spent 1.7 times as much on health care per employee-hour worked and nearly twice as much on retirement costs. Public-sector workers—who are more often represented by unions—are far more likely to have defined-benefit pensions with promises to pay for the retirees' whole lives.

Olivia Mitchell, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says the data isn't perfect. It doesn't compare workers with the same education or experience levels, and it covers a broad range of jobs. Also, she said, it doesn't take into account that about one-fourth of public workers aren't covered by Social Security.

There's one clear downside for the public employees: "We also know that the public-sector pensions are in deep trouble financially," Mitchell said, pointing to studies that suggest that they're underfunded by a total of $3 trillion, largely because governments have skipped payments. "Exactly what will be done about that, nobody knows."

Unchanged, those retirement systems could eventually stop paying entirely.

"One way or another, if we don't make changes, the government will collapse," said Abel Stewart, of Toledo, Ohio.

Stewart, 36, the director of contemporary worship at a Methodist church in suburban Toledo, says he has a hard time conjuring up sympathy for the government workers he's seen protesting because of all the time he's spent working with struggling immigrants.

"These are middle class people who have a house, who have enough food, who are complaining they don't have enough," he said. "Instead of fighting for their piece of the political pie, they'd be better looking at how to live within their means."

That's not a unanimous view.

Tony Christoff, a 38-year-old stay-at-home dad in Perrysburg, Ohio, believes public workers like police officers and teachers—including his wife—should be rewarded. "They go over and above and deserve the pay they get," he said.

Jeff Nash is a Democrat elected to the county freeholder board in union-heavy Camden County, N.J., who has come to believe that public employees need to sacrifice.

"The days of government workers receiving free benefits and pensions without risk, those days are coming to an end because everyone else who pays for government services is paying more for their health insurance, like myself, and running the risk of a 401(k) as part of their retirement savings. Government is changing to match what the rest of middle-class America is enduring today."

"It's not a matter of fairness," he said. "It's a matter of evolution."

Hetty Rosenstein, the New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America, which represent New Jersey government workers in several fields, says she gripes about her members' pensions are misplaced.

"There's pension envy because people who are working in the private sector, they're being denied pensions," she said.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41965569

Friday, March 11, 2011

Poll: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Winning Labor, Budget Fight

Poll: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Winning Labor, Budget Fight - Peter Roff (usnews.com) By Peter Roff

A poll of Wisconsin voters released Thursday finds more of them support Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed reforms than oppose them.

The poll, conducted by former Bill Clinton political consultant Dick Morris, finds Walker’s reforms--as a package--are backed by 51 percent of the more than 400 likely voters surveyed while 47 percent indicated they were opposed. [See photos from the Wisconsin protests.]

Taken point by point, however, the news is almost all good for Walker, who has become a national political figure virtually overnight thanks to his effort to reform the way the state government works as part of his efforts to balance the budget.

For example, by a margin of 74 percent to 18 percent, likely voters in Wisconsin back the idea of making state employees pay more for their health insurance. By a margin of 79 percent to 16 percent, they favor asking state workers to contribute more toward their pensions. And, by a margin of 66 percent to 30 percent they support the idea that state workers’ pay increase should be tied to the rate of inflation unless voters approve a higher raise by public referendum. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should public unions keep collective bargaining rights?]

For the moment, however, the core issue of the fight that has paralyzed the state government and led to protesters occupying the state capitol building--the idea that the power of public employee unions to engage in collective bargaining be limited to wage and benefit issues--Wisconsin voters break with the governor, 54 percent to 41 percent. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

That, Morris said in a release, means that while “Voters back the principal of collective bargaining,” the survey indicates they might be willing to back Walker’s proposed changes if it would ensure “they would not impede education reforms.” Meaning that if Walker can frame the debate as one that gives school more flexibility, makes it easier to get rid of bad teachers and retain good ones and pay teachers based on merit, the numbers flip, with likely voters backing Walker’s position 58 percent to 38 percent. [Take the U.S. News poll: Are Wisconsin teachers unfair to skip school for protests?]

The poll was conducted by telephone among 409 likely Wisconsin voters and has an error margin of 4 percent.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/02/25/poll-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-winning-labor-budget-fight

Obama Misery Index hits a record high

Obama Misery Index hits a record high By Mitt Romney
http://www.bostonherald.com/
Op-Ed

The unemployment rate has just fallen one-tenth of a percent, from 9 percent to 8.9 percent. Of course, it is indeed progress, and it is being celebrated in the White House as such. But the celebrations bring to mind what a wit once said: An “acceptable” level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job. Today, as we move into the third year of the Obama administration, we do not have anything resembling even such an “acceptable” level of unemployment. Far from it. As of this month, 14 million Americans can’t find work.

When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he hung the Misery Index around Jimmy Carter’s neck. It consisted of the sum total of unemployment and inflation. Today, we have a different set of ailments. Instead of unemployment coupled with inflation, we have a toxic blend of unemployment, debt, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies. Their sum total is what we can call the Obama Misery Index. It is at a record high; indeed, it makes even the malaise of the Carter years look like a boom. Unemployment has fallen, but it’s fallen to a level that is still, by any historical marker, a national disaster. To suggest it as an achievement is to engage in what Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously called “defining deviancy down.”

Where should we go from here? Having spent my career in the private sector, I know a thing or two about how jobs are created and how they are lost. The most important lesson I learned is that there are three rules of every successful turnaround: focus, focus, and focus. Turnarounds work when the leader focuses on what’s most important. President Obama did just the opposite: he delegated the jobs crisis to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and he went to work on his own priorities, like cap and trade and government-run health care.

I hope we don’t have to wait two years for a new president to fix things, but I fear we might. What the occupant of the Oval Office needs to do, and do now, is focus on getting Americans back to work.

Take taxes. Our employers pay the highest rates in the world, tied with Japan, and higher than such societies top-heavy with government as Italy and France. Our small companies are hit particularly hard. If employers are going to start investing and hiring, we must reduce the burden. We can offset the lost revenue by ruthlessly eliminating corporate loopholes and the special deals that reward political influence and punish productivity. We also need to stop taxing companies that make money overseas if they want to bring it home. Encouraging companies to keep money abroad makes zero sense. As much as one trillion dollars kept abroad may be at stake; a sum that size invested here would create hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of good, permanent, private-sector jobs.

Our out-of-control fiscal policies are also impinging directly on the labor market. The failed stimulus program cost around $800 billion. Obamacare is going to cost another trillion. The denizens of the White House appear not to know it, but employers and entrepreneurs worry a good deal about the federal deficit and the federal debt. They look at the future and see that the government’s spending binge will mean higher taxes, higher interest rates, and a much weaker dollar.

All these things are the direct enemy of long-term investment. The climate of uncertainty they create has an indirect but no less damaging effect on confidence. Historically, federal spending has ranged between 18 and 20 percent of GDP. Today it has soared to near 25 percent. If we want our politicians to end their free-spending ways, we need to establish an iron-clad ceiling on federal spending, setting it at a fixed percent of the GDP.

These proposals may sound wonkish, but let’s keep in mind what is at stake. Behind the unemployment statistics is a lot of heartbreak. Unemployment means children who can’t go to college; marriages that break up under the financial strain; young people who can’t find jobs and start their lives; and men and women in their fifties, in the prime of their lives, who fear they will never work again. Then there are the job fairs where thousands of people are showing up to compete for a few openings that probably are not as good as the jobs they held two years ago.

Unless President Obama changes course, these job fairs, with their day-long lines of unemployed seeking nothing more than a chance to earn a living, are going to be seen as his Hoovervilles. “I’m the only person of distinction who has ever had a depression named for him,” President Hoover once ruefully complained. Obamanomics, which at extraordinary cost has accomplished extraordinarily little, is earning our president his own dubious place in our history books.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1321747
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0308obama_misery_index_hits_a_record_high/srvc=home&position=0

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Farewell, My Lovely--How public pensions killed progressive California

How public pensions killed progressive California


Tim Cavanaugh from the March 2011 issue Reason.com

The Democratic Party has folded Sacramento into one of the tightest one-party grips in contemporary American politics. In November, bucking the national trend, Democrats in California won not just the governorship but 51 Assembly seats to Republicans’ 29, 24 state Senate seats to Republicans’ 14, and every statewide office. With the passage of a referendum lowering the number of legislative votes required to approve a state budget (from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority), California is that rarest of land masses for the 2011 Democratic Party: conquered territory. State Democrats have freedom to rule virtually unchallenged by the scattered, rusticated Republicans.

As 72-year-old Jerry Brown enters his second governorship, he has an agenda to match that power, with visions even greater than those that haunted his two-term administration of the 1970s and ’80s: building 20,000 megawatts of renewable power, laying a new high-speed rail network that will connect the state’s major cities, forging a statewide infrastructure for alternative energy, hiring thousands of green employees. The new governor’s environmental agenda is ambitious, untenably expensive, and indelibly popular with voters and lawmakers.

Yet when Brown looks out on Democrat-controlled California, he seems less like Caesar at the Rubicon than Wojciech Jaruzelski at the Gdansk Shipyard. Brown is champion of a workers’ party with monopoly control, yet all his plans are being derailed by a labor movement nobody can harness.

At press time, California was being governed under a state of economic “emergency” declared by Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in light of a staggering $28 billion budget shortfall expected in the next 18 months.

It gets worse. Medium-term unfunded liabilities for government employee pensions are pegged by the Legislative Analyst’s Office at $136 billion—and that’s a lowball figure. Legislative analyst Mac Taylor acknowledges in his current fiscal outlook report that the estimate leaves out billions in funding shortfalls at the pension funds for public school teachers and University of California employees. In the next 10 years, taxpayers will most likely be on the hook for somewhere between $325 billion and $500 billion. (Over the past five years, state revenues averaged $94.5 billion per year.)

How did this happen?

California’s state and local governments employ somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million workers, representing 4 percent to 5 percent of the state’s total population. When they retire, all of those employees are contractually entitled to generous pension benefits—so generous that, collectively, they can’t be paid even by a pension system that ladles out more than $20 billion a year and is one of the largest investment pools on Wall Street.

California is not the only state infected by pension liabilities, but the size of its economy (generally described as the eighth largest in the world) and its union-dominated politics make it a gravely stricken, and potentially contagious, patient. Organized labor contributed tens of millions of dollars to Brown’s campaign last year, and public-sector unions have long been the largest donors to the Democratic politicians who control the state.

“The unions have a stranglehold on this state,” says Marcia Fritz, a Citrus Heights accountant who serves as vice president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension reform lobbying group. “To engage them you need your biggest strategy. It’s like trying to topple a communist government.” But like communism, which eventually ran out of other people’s money, California is teetering on fiscal implosion.

Voters Demand Pension Reform

Union lobbying can occasionally be broken by direct democracy, although generally not when the stakes are high. In the November election, a total of 13 local ballot initiatives around the state promised to rein in excessive compensation, especially pensions, for government employees. Most of these measures were modest, applying only to future hires or instituting voter-approval requirements for future increases in benefits. In pension-crisis-wracked San Diego, Proposition D wasn’t really a reform at all, just a half-penny sales tax increase pegged to a review of employment practices.

Even these half-measures were popular in towns ranging from Redding, a Republican hamlet of 100,000 in Shasta County, to California’s third-largest city, the Democratic stronghold of San Jose. This popularity was consistent across economic bases: Eight out of Redding’s top 10 employers are governments, schools, and health care establishments, while six out of San Jose’s 10 biggest bosses are private tech companies. Out of the 13 pension reform measures on ballots, even in a pro-Democratic year, a dozen passed by wide margins.

But in San Francisco, where Proposition B would have made real progress by increasing employee contribution requirements for both current and future workers, the unions fired their heaviest weapons. Local firefighters sued to keep the measure off the ballot. The umbrella group Stand Up for Working Families spent more than $500,000 hiring Stearns Consulting and Burson-Marsteller to run a citywide anti-B campaign, and public unions pumped millions into the effort in the days before the vote.

“In San Francisco it’s known that if you want to get into office you’ve got to have labor support,” says Public Defender Jeff Adachi, the author of Prop. B. “Every elected official opposed Proposition B. Our opponents spent $2 million in the last two weeks. I’m told they bused in 400 people to protest, and it certainly appeared that way on the street.” The measure ended up failing, with just 43.3 percent of the vote.

The Democratic Party Class Struggle (Use link for the rest of this fascinating view on the task ahead)

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/16/farewell-my-lovely

Behold! Your Public Sector Unions at Work