Thursday, March 5, 2009

Obama-Reagan Debate

The most chilling words in this video—among many—are Obama talking about "fundamental change" to this country.

Unfortunately, that's one campaign promise that he intends to keep.

Friday, February 20, 2009

CNBC Reporter is Mad as Hell; You Should Be, Too

In case you haven't seen it, here is CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's rant on the floor of a stock exchange in Chicago. It's five minutes, but you should watch the whole thing, it's worth it.

If you want to know what Santelli is so worked up about, here's a quick run of some numbers:

This $75 billion program will cost $100 billion because of interest on the borrowed money (and that's a conservative estimate—do you really think that this program will go away when the current "crisis" is over?).

Let's say that the average, productive, mortgage paying citizen in his/her peak earning years from age 41-65 pays $5,000 a year in federal taxes. That comes out to $125,000 paid in taxes per person over those 25 years.

At that rate, 25 years of taxes paid by 800,000 productive citizens will go to pay the mortgages of other people. That's the entire population of Fresno, CA or New Haven, CT.

Many of these people struggle every day to pay their mortgages and their other bills. They now will be required to work for a quarter of a century to pay for the houses of those who don't pay their mortgages.

And I bet none of them ever get a thank you card.

Or you can look at it in terms of opportunity cost. Social Security, of course, comes from the general fund. That $100 billion could provide a monthly benefit check of $1,000 for 555,000 citizens for 15 years. That money is likely to be gone when the citizens of Greenville, SC or Denver CO try to get it.

Ten billion here, ten billion there, pretty soon you're talk about real money for which a whole lot of real people work a lifetime.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Excessive compensation for government executives apparently OK

News article, from the Washington Times:
Postmaster got $800,000 in pay, perks: "Postmaster General John E. Potter recently warned that economic times are so dire that the U.S. Postal Service may end mail delivery one day a week and freeze executive salaries. But his personal fortunes are nonetheless rising thanks to 40 percent in pay raises since 2006, a $135,000 bonus last year and several perks usually reserved for corporate CEOs."
So we are limiting pay and perks for CEO's of private companies who accept govenment bailouts but compensation for those in the government, in "public service" goes unchecked? A $135,000 bonus for an outfit that's bleeding red ink?

Shameful and disgusting.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Steele has no use for old school

News Item:
Inside the Republican National Committee's first-ever Tech Summit.: "'There are two things that will get you kicked off the team,' Steele says. (No idle threat—fired RNC staffers spent the day clearing out their offices.) 'One is to say, We've always done it this way.' The other is to reject an idea because it's never been done before. In either case, he says, 'I don't want to have anything to do with you.'"
You have to like this mindset by Steele. The GOP can't mosey along doing things the same way it has been. Sure the message needs to be fixed and voters have to be given actual choices instead of one between a Democrat and a Democrat Lite. But the way things are done, the way the message is spread, has to be updated. "The way we've always done it" has cost us both houses and the presidency.

That's just a sidebar in the article, well worth a read. There is a long way to go in catching up with the Obamaites but having key people like Steele and Newt on board is a big, big plus.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

OK, so let me get this straight. . .

News item:
Geitner needs help, can't get it:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, under intensifying pressure from Wall Street and Congress to complete his financial-rescue plan, is being handicapped by a dearth of staff experts critical to the effort.

Geithner’s strategy of forging a partnership with private investors to buy toxic assets would benefit from aides steeped in law and finance to thresh out the competing interests in the plan. Yet the administration has yet to nominate people for any of the Treasury’s financial posts as the White House seeks to avoid Senate confirmation battles.
Comment: So, let me get this straight.

When it comes to passing a massive chunk of legislation loaded with pork, pet projects and throw-ins that add significant chunks of power to the feds, it has to happen now, not next week, not 48 hours from now, to avoid a “catastrophe”.

But when it comes to getting people who actually might be able to get to the root of the problem and solve it, well, what’s the rush.

On top of that, what confirmation battles? Over undersecretary positions? As long as they can find a man or woman with an IRS bill stamped "Paid In Full", the Democrats' large Senate majority should be able to ramrod through virtually any nomination with minimal RINO assistance.

It's becoming more and more obvious that Obama is an eloquent hack who is in way, way over his head.

Thursday, February 12, 2009


American Thinker: Murphy's Law, the Peter Principle and Barack Obama: "What happens when everything that can go wrong in a person's character formation does go wrong, and that person continues to be promoted to his level of incompetence?

President Barack Obama happens."

Comment: My only quibble here is when the author says that Obama's elevation to the presidency came thanks to the Peter Principle. I would argue that something else is at work here as Obama reached his level of incompetence as a US Senator, perhaps even as an Illinois State Senator.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Dems drop, "none of the above" gains

News item:
GOP within a point in generic ballot.: "Are Republicans winning the public relations battle over spending in the $800-billion-plus economic stimulus package? Democrats and Republicans are nearly even in this week's edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that the Democrats’ lead is down to just one percentage point. Forty percent (40%) of voters said they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 39% said they would choose the Republican (see crosstabs).

This marks the lowest level of support for the Democrats in tracking history and is the closest the two parties have been on the generic ballot."

Comment: Too bad the election isn't being held tomorrow.

The Dems in Congress have dropped seven percentage points since election day but the GOP has gained just a statistically insignificant two points. The current mess seems to be driving many into the "none of the above" category.