A couple of funny and astute observations about Obama and his policy prescriptions by George Will,
Growth supposedly will cut the deficit in half -- growth and the $1.6 trillion "saved" by first assuming, and then "canceling," a 10-year continuation of the surge in Iraq. Why, one wonders, not "save" $5 trillion by proposing to spend that amount to cover the moon with yogurt, and then canceling the proposal?
The first president whose campaign was his qualification for office continues to campaign. And he is overexposed. His schedulers should remember what a contemporary said of Thomas Babington Macaulay, a prodigiously articulate but oppressively constant talker: "He has occasional flashes of silence that make his conversation perfectly delightful."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Obama's Class War
It occcurred to me while reading Daniel Henninger's column today in the WSJ, "The Obama Rosetta Stone", that at least some of Obama's animus toward those earning high incomes is based on the sleazy character of his well off acquaintances. Obama's rich buddies include the crooked Tony Rezko, the hateful (and crooked) Jeremiah Wright and the undeserving and ungrateful Michelle Obama.
Of course much of his attitude is just standard left wing ideology. Henninger quotes from Obama's latest book, "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise. The President's Budget and Fiscal Preview".
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
This is a remarkable statement, accusing high achievers, the very engine of our economy, of not only not deserving their wealth but somehow cheating to get it. Speaking of not living up to their responsibilities, how about those middle (and lower) class citizens who walked away from mortgages they agreed to and couldn't afford?
And this,
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
To repeat, tax cuts result in increased revenue. Revenue hit record levels under President Bush. There was plenty of money available for extravagant government spending.
Also, this,
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
I suppose having the top 1% of income earners pay only half of all income taxes is "tilting the playing field" in their favor. Hard working, talented people who are rewarded for their efforts are considered irresponsible in Obama's eyes. We must change the rules to make it harder for them to achieve success.
A separate note. I helped out my daughter, a high school senior, with the homework for her government class tonight. Her assignment? Pretend that you're the POTUS. State and defend your position on three issues.
Heh, heh, heh.
Of course much of his attitude is just standard left wing ideology. Henninger quotes from Obama's latest book, "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise. The President's Budget and Fiscal Preview".
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
This is a remarkable statement, accusing high achievers, the very engine of our economy, of not only not deserving their wealth but somehow cheating to get it. Speaking of not living up to their responsibilities, how about those middle (and lower) class citizens who walked away from mortgages they agreed to and couldn't afford?
And this,
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
To repeat, tax cuts result in increased revenue. Revenue hit record levels under President Bush. There was plenty of money available for extravagant government spending.
Also, this,
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
I suppose having the top 1% of income earners pay only half of all income taxes is "tilting the playing field" in their favor. Hard working, talented people who are rewarded for their efforts are considered irresponsible in Obama's eyes. We must change the rules to make it harder for them to achieve success.
A separate note. I helped out my daughter, a high school senior, with the homework for her government class tonight. Her assignment? Pretend that you're the POTUS. State and defend your position on three issues.
Heh, heh, heh.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Madness
Madness accurately describes the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the lawsuit filed against the drug company Wyeth. One of Wyeth’s products, Phenergan, caused a woman to develop gangrene in an arm, which then had to be amputated. The drug was improperly administered by a hospital physician’s assistant, contrary to the clear, large warning on the label, INADVERTENT INTRA-ARTERIAL INJECTION CAN RESULT IN GANGRENE OF THE AFFECTED EXTREMITY.
The question a reasonable person should ask is, how was Wyeth negligent? Specifically, what should it have done otherwise than what it had already done, which, incidentally, was exactly what the FDA had required it to do by law in order to produce and sell its drug? Should Wyeth arrange to send one of their representatives to a site whenever Phenergan is being administered and have him make sure the drug is being used correctly? That would be cost effective. Or, of course, they could just take the drug off the market. That will be the ultimate effect of this moronic judgment. Less life extending, pain reducing drugs – not as many useful products - less risk taking - less innovation - a lower standard of living.
The Supreme Court vote was 6-3, meaning that one of the normally sane justices voted with the majority. Maybe insanity is contagious.
The question a reasonable person should ask is, how was Wyeth negligent? Specifically, what should it have done otherwise than what it had already done, which, incidentally, was exactly what the FDA had required it to do by law in order to produce and sell its drug? Should Wyeth arrange to send one of their representatives to a site whenever Phenergan is being administered and have him make sure the drug is being used correctly? That would be cost effective. Or, of course, they could just take the drug off the market. That will be the ultimate effect of this moronic judgment. Less life extending, pain reducing drugs – not as many useful products - less risk taking - less innovation - a lower standard of living.
The Supreme Court vote was 6-3, meaning that one of the normally sane justices voted with the majority. Maybe insanity is contagious.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Hot Air Addendum
A few additional comments on "global warming".
Why is it always assumed that GW will necessarily cause more severe weather? Richard Lindzen, noted M.I.T. atmospheric professor and climate change skeptic, points out in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that the CO2 theory of GW predicts a shrinking temperature difference between the poles and the equator. All meteorologists are taught, according to Prof. Lindzen, that such a scenario should lead to less severe weather.
It was difficult to do, but when Newsweek ran a story a few months ago on GW "deniers", I forced myself to skim through it. I noticed an assertion that these "deniers" were claiming that the troposphere is not heating up. They are not making this claim! What they do say is that the troposphere is not warming faster than the earth's surface and this contradicts the CO2 theory of GW. This sort of misleading propaganda is typical of climate change activism.
Around the time of the mid 1970s, the scientific "consensus" was that we were in the midst of a global cooling period with soon to be realized disastrous consequences. A story appearing in Newsweek (4/28/1975, page 64) warned of catastrophic famines if immediate action wasn't taken to compensate for GC's impact. Less than twenty years later, the "consensus" had completely reversed itself and we were told that drastic steps needed to be taken, soon!, to combat global warming. What this means (besides showing that these guys have no clue) is that sometime between those two extreme periods, maybe it was 1982 or 1983, we were experiencing optimal climate. Who knew?
Carbon is the major product of modern civilization. A nation’s level of carbon production is a primary indicator of the health, prosperity and happiness of its citizenry. Attempts to limit carbon emissions will necessarily lower our standard of living. Someday, this may not be true. Technological advancements in the use of nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels may make those sources equal or superior to coal, oil and natural gas in terms of efficiency. We should invest in research that would make this possible, but until that research yields viable technology, we have no choice but to stick with what works. To do otherwise is foolishly self-defeating.
Again, I highly recommend watching the BBC documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (if you can find it, of course). It provides evidence that CO2 is not a major cause of GW; It discusses the overlooked beneficial aspects of GW; It explains how politicians, scientists and journalists profit by promoting climate change hysteria; And it shows that efforts at reducing carbon emissions are causing great harm, especially to the world's poor.
Why is it always assumed that GW will necessarily cause more severe weather? Richard Lindzen, noted M.I.T. atmospheric professor and climate change skeptic, points out in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that the CO2 theory of GW predicts a shrinking temperature difference between the poles and the equator. All meteorologists are taught, according to Prof. Lindzen, that such a scenario should lead to less severe weather.
It was difficult to do, but when Newsweek ran a story a few months ago on GW "deniers", I forced myself to skim through it. I noticed an assertion that these "deniers" were claiming that the troposphere is not heating up. They are not making this claim! What they do say is that the troposphere is not warming faster than the earth's surface and this contradicts the CO2 theory of GW. This sort of misleading propaganda is typical of climate change activism.
Around the time of the mid 1970s, the scientific "consensus" was that we were in the midst of a global cooling period with soon to be realized disastrous consequences. A story appearing in Newsweek (4/28/1975, page 64) warned of catastrophic famines if immediate action wasn't taken to compensate for GC's impact. Less than twenty years later, the "consensus" had completely reversed itself and we were told that drastic steps needed to be taken, soon!, to combat global warming. What this means (besides showing that these guys have no clue) is that sometime between those two extreme periods, maybe it was 1982 or 1983, we were experiencing optimal climate. Who knew?
Carbon is the major product of modern civilization. A nation’s level of carbon production is a primary indicator of the health, prosperity and happiness of its citizenry. Attempts to limit carbon emissions will necessarily lower our standard of living. Someday, this may not be true. Technological advancements in the use of nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels may make those sources equal or superior to coal, oil and natural gas in terms of efficiency. We should invest in research that would make this possible, but until that research yields viable technology, we have no choice but to stick with what works. To do otherwise is foolishly self-defeating.
Again, I highly recommend watching the BBC documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (if you can find it, of course). It provides evidence that CO2 is not a major cause of GW; It discusses the overlooked beneficial aspects of GW; It explains how politicians, scientists and journalists profit by promoting climate change hysteria; And it shows that efforts at reducing carbon emissions are causing great harm, especially to the world's poor.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Unasked Questions
A couple of questions that the mainstream media seems totally disinterested in asking :
1. What would the situation in Iraq and the mideast and the world be today if we had not invaded and liberated that country? If we had just slinked out of Kuwait leaving behind Saddam and his even more murderous sons in charge along with their ambitions to develop, produce and use WMDs? Leaving behind the heinous al-Queda operative Abu Musab al Zarqawi with access to Saddam's WMDs?
2. Exactly who was it that forged that fake memo concerning Bush's National Guard service, attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election? Maybe a Democrat who may now be a member of Obama's staff? Some MSNBC "journalist"? Bill Moyers? Anyone interested?
No, I guess not. It's much more important to investigate Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy or Joe the Plumber's driving record.
1. What would the situation in Iraq and the mideast and the world be today if we had not invaded and liberated that country? If we had just slinked out of Kuwait leaving behind Saddam and his even more murderous sons in charge along with their ambitions to develop, produce and use WMDs? Leaving behind the heinous al-Queda operative Abu Musab al Zarqawi with access to Saddam's WMDs?
2. Exactly who was it that forged that fake memo concerning Bush's National Guard service, attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election? Maybe a Democrat who may now be a member of Obama's staff? Some MSNBC "journalist"? Bill Moyers? Anyone interested?
No, I guess not. It's much more important to investigate Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy or Joe the Plumber's driving record.
Say What?
I admit that I’m just totally perplexed by President Obama’s ongoing popularity (though it has dropped somewhat, to ~60% approval). What seems obvious to me (and others, though not enough others, apparently) is that the current administration is leading us to economic ruin, a depression, which could be avoided by utilizing a program of aggressive tax cutting, targeted spending and incentives for investments and risk taking.
Anyway, I noticed this letter to the editor in the 3/6 WSJ and I think it reveals the ignorance and muddled thinking that characterizes Obama supporters.
I am one Journal reader who applauds our returning adults to the White House and rational policy making to our country. Under the previous Republican administration our total national debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Now economies all over the world are choking on our mortgage and corporate debt and sinking into an economic abyss. Adults pay their debts. President Obama, to his credit, proposes raising taxes so that we can begin to pay off our accumulated debts. Mr. Obama proposes investing in the American people and our infrastructure so that we can dig ourselves out of the hole the last administration put us in. I say: Welcome, President Obama, and not a moment too soon.
Wow, where to start? The writer complains about too much debt then supports programs that will grow our debt exponentially - far beyond $10 trillion. These programs are not “investments”. They’re huge shopping sprees designed to pay back those constituencies that helped get Obama elected (ACORN, teachers unions, etc). Only a small fraction of the so-called stimulus bill is for improving infrastructure. And about three quarters of the total bill will be spent after this year – too late to stimulate the economy. The money, our money - mine and yours, representing our time, labor and intellect, (and even more so, that of our descendents) will go into the vast, bloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy. I suppose the writer believes that the magic bullet of raising taxes will miraculously pay down our debt. It, emphatically!, will not. It will retard economic growth and cause a drop in revenue. (Revenue increased significantly, to record levels, after the 2003 Bush tax cuts). So along with substantially higher expenditures, we’ll have less money to pay for them. There isn’t an earth mover in the world big enough to get us out of the hole that the Democrats are digging.
In his most recent column, (the indispensable) Charles Krauthammer neatly debunks Obama's ridiculous and disingenuous explanation of how we got into the current mess and how to fix it. (BTW, has ever a word more perfectly fit a person than disingenuous fits Obama?) Obama's analysis? We're in a deep recession now because we failed in three areas : not enough federal spending for 'green' energy, health care and education. The remedy? Massive federal subsidies for all three. Then Krauthammer analyzes Obama's analysis :
As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people...
...At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.
Thank you Charles!
Alongside that asinine WSJ letter I posted above was another one (wisely) addressing the same subject. The writer cites Milton and Rose Friedman's book "Free to Choose", which quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
This is a lesson that Obamaniacs would do well to learn.
On the lighter side – a very funny piece in the March 9 issue of National Review. Rob Long speculates on what really was written into the largely unread ‘stimulus’ bill by the Congressional interns charged with putting it together.
Anyway, I noticed this letter to the editor in the 3/6 WSJ and I think it reveals the ignorance and muddled thinking that characterizes Obama supporters.
I am one Journal reader who applauds our returning adults to the White House and rational policy making to our country. Under the previous Republican administration our total national debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Now economies all over the world are choking on our mortgage and corporate debt and sinking into an economic abyss. Adults pay their debts. President Obama, to his credit, proposes raising taxes so that we can begin to pay off our accumulated debts. Mr. Obama proposes investing in the American people and our infrastructure so that we can dig ourselves out of the hole the last administration put us in. I say: Welcome, President Obama, and not a moment too soon.
Wow, where to start? The writer complains about too much debt then supports programs that will grow our debt exponentially - far beyond $10 trillion. These programs are not “investments”. They’re huge shopping sprees designed to pay back those constituencies that helped get Obama elected (ACORN, teachers unions, etc). Only a small fraction of the so-called stimulus bill is for improving infrastructure. And about three quarters of the total bill will be spent after this year – too late to stimulate the economy. The money, our money - mine and yours, representing our time, labor and intellect, (and even more so, that of our descendents) will go into the vast, bloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy. I suppose the writer believes that the magic bullet of raising taxes will miraculously pay down our debt. It, emphatically!, will not. It will retard economic growth and cause a drop in revenue. (Revenue increased significantly, to record levels, after the 2003 Bush tax cuts). So along with substantially higher expenditures, we’ll have less money to pay for them. There isn’t an earth mover in the world big enough to get us out of the hole that the Democrats are digging.
In his most recent column, (the indispensable) Charles Krauthammer neatly debunks Obama's ridiculous and disingenuous explanation of how we got into the current mess and how to fix it. (BTW, has ever a word more perfectly fit a person than disingenuous fits Obama?) Obama's analysis? We're in a deep recession now because we failed in three areas : not enough federal spending for 'green' energy, health care and education. The remedy? Massive federal subsidies for all three. Then Krauthammer analyzes Obama's analysis :
As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people...
...At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.
Thank you Charles!
Alongside that asinine WSJ letter I posted above was another one (wisely) addressing the same subject. The writer cites Milton and Rose Friedman's book "Free to Choose", which quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
This is a lesson that Obamaniacs would do well to learn.
On the lighter side – a very funny piece in the March 9 issue of National Review. Rob Long speculates on what really was written into the largely unread ‘stimulus’ bill by the Congressional interns charged with putting it together.
Monday, March 2, 2009
First Do No Harm
Consider a person who leads a healthy lifestyle - low fat diet, exercise, no smoking, moderate drinking, sufficient sleep, etc., and yet still develops cancer. That person would be foolish to give up his good habits because they didn't seem to do any good. He'd be ignoring the possibility that there were other factors that could have (and probably did) cause his cancer such as genetic predisposition, or exposure to radon or other carcinogens. He would be blaming behavior that not only didn't make him sick but could help him overcome his disease.
This is what Obama (and other Dems) do when they repeatedly use the canard, "we can't go back to the failed policies of the past" in an attempt to justify absurd levels of spending on just about anything that suits their fancy in the name of "stimulus".
Of course, there's more to the analogy. The cancer victim did not follow a perfectly healthy lifestyle. He managed to slip in a couple of Big Macs and cinnamon rolls with his salad every day and he skipped too many days of exercise while lounging around on the couch watching TV. This is what our government's been doing, so to speak, as it indulged in profligate spending the past several years. (Yes, Bush and the Republicans deserve their portion of blame for this too). So Obama wants to ratchet up these bad habits, while disdaining the good ones - low taxes, incentives for investment and risk taking, fiscal restraint and free trade. How perverted and disingenuous. Typical Obama.
Representative Paul Ryan, the up and coming GOP congressman from Wisconsin, has the right prescription for our economic malady.He describes it in an op-ed piece in today's WSJ. The key points are - lower the top marginal income tax rate to 25% from 35% (soon to be 39.6% if Obama has his way); create a flat rate of 10% for all income below $100,000; lower the corporate tax rate to 25% from a near worldwide high of 35%; eliminate the capital gains tax, preasently 15% (Obama wants to raise it to at least 20%); stand back and watch prosperity happen.
Instead we get to watch despair happen. The S&P 500 closed today right at 700, down more than 30% from the last day it was above 1000, November 4, 2008, Election Day. The day hope died.
This is what Obama (and other Dems) do when they repeatedly use the canard, "we can't go back to the failed policies of the past" in an attempt to justify absurd levels of spending on just about anything that suits their fancy in the name of "stimulus".
Of course, there's more to the analogy. The cancer victim did not follow a perfectly healthy lifestyle. He managed to slip in a couple of Big Macs and cinnamon rolls with his salad every day and he skipped too many days of exercise while lounging around on the couch watching TV. This is what our government's been doing, so to speak, as it indulged in profligate spending the past several years. (Yes, Bush and the Republicans deserve their portion of blame for this too). So Obama wants to ratchet up these bad habits, while disdaining the good ones - low taxes, incentives for investment and risk taking, fiscal restraint and free trade. How perverted and disingenuous. Typical Obama.
Representative Paul Ryan, the up and coming GOP congressman from Wisconsin, has the right prescription for our economic malady.He describes it in an op-ed piece in today's WSJ. The key points are - lower the top marginal income tax rate to 25% from 35% (soon to be 39.6% if Obama has his way); create a flat rate of 10% for all income below $100,000; lower the corporate tax rate to 25% from a near worldwide high of 35%; eliminate the capital gains tax, preasently 15% (Obama wants to raise it to at least 20%); stand back and watch prosperity happen.
Instead we get to watch despair happen. The S&P 500 closed today right at 700, down more than 30% from the last day it was above 1000, November 4, 2008, Election Day. The day hope died.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)