Spurring Romney

Credit for Mitt Romney's bracing VP pick goes in part to Mark Steyn and other conservative critics of Romney's heretofore vapid campaign. The latest of  "Mark's-never-to-be-missed-weekend-columns" (as former federal prosecutor, now estimable commentator Andrew McCarthy put it), likened Romney's campaign to, among other banalities, a Purina pet food commercial.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313674/milquetoast-mitt-mark-steyn

Fixing What's Broke

Some years ago I was on a plane ride from hell, being seated between two older women pontificating (to each other) about the G. W. Bush initiative to reform (and save) Social Security. One lady stated that she wanted "those folks in Washington to stay out of my personal affairs". Unsaid (by her or me) was that "her personal affairs" involved "my personal affairs" and those of my kids and grandkids. But putting that aside, these ladies seemed ignorant of the fact that the Bush proposal did not affect them at all. Bush wanted to give workers under the age of 55 (which didn't include my travel companions) the option of putting a portion of their SS contributions into private accounts.

There's the same widespread ignorance about Republican proposals to save Medicare. And it's not like the impending collapse of Medicare is a controversial issue. Here is Barack Obama on the subject last July.

“...if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”

Naturally, our cojone-free president is doing nothing about this. Nor are his equally gutless congressional colleagues. (Ron Wyden being the notable exception). As Nancy Pelosi put it, "We have a plan for Medicare. It's called Medicare." Placing the two quotes side by side reveals the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. The task to fix the program is left to politically courageous statesmen like Paul Ryan.

Since Democrats are readying ads showing Ryan wheeling a crippled grandma in front of an onrushing locomotive or into a cauldron of boiling oil*, it is necessary to present his actual prescription for Medicare reform. Here is a nice, concise explanation from the editors of National Review.

The Romney-Ryan proposal — which has the support of liberal Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — would let senior citizens choose a coverage plan provided either by the federal government or by a private company. The government would defray the cost of purchasing the plan selected. The providers would submit bids showing the premiums they would charge to cover the benefits Medicare has traditionally offered. The second-lowest bid would set the amount the government would provide for each beneficiary.

Seniors who picked the second-cheapest provider would have their entire premium paid by the government, and seniors who picked the cheapest would get a check for the difference. Seniors who picked a more expensive plan would have to pay the difference out of pocket.

The NR editors don't mention it here, but again, those over the age of 55 (darn it, that's me) will be stuck with the same lousy system. Also, the private plans would have to meet government standards. It's not like the government is going to hand over some money and tell seniors, "You're on your own."

Repeatedly faced with the weakness of their positions on issues, liberals do not bother making persuasive arguments. Instead they lie, cheat, misrepresent or just change the subject.** That they get away with this to a disappointingly large extent doesn't reflect well on the uninformed electorate they are targeting. For his part, Ryan believes that treating constituents like children will backfire and that they can be engaged in an intelligent discussion of the issues. I'm not so sure.

*He's already been shown throwing her off a cliff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJwQ63A_r0&feature=fvwrel
Leftist propaganda is tending increasingly toward self-parody as indicated by this ad and the more recent production, "The Life of Julia", a celebration of enfeeblement.

NR article
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313785/return-mediscare-editors

**For an example of the latter, there's Obama's non-response to Ryan's now famous evisceration of Obamacare. (You Tube link below - Unfortunately the video doesn't show Obama refusing to address Ryan's talking points).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk

Thank You Mitt

Now at least if the electorate is foolish enough to choose Obama-Biden over Romney-Ryan, it will truly get what it deserves.

Contrasts

Government Regulated Market

                                           Free Market



                                              Communism Vs. Capitalism

                                            Democratic Congressman

                                               Republican Congressman

Mary Poppins, James Bond and the Queen

Mark Steyn has a grand time dissecting the Olympics opening ceremony, Britain and (among other dysfunctions) its National Health Service.

"Years ago, in London’s Daily Telegraph, I carelessly remarked that, while one might be able to find a Bhutanese yak farmer somewhere upcountry who envied Britons the NHS, nobody else on the planet did. A couple of days later, the paper printed a letter from Mr. Sonam Chhoki, a Bhutanese gentleman who, while not a yak farmer himself, came from generations of sturdy yak-farming stock. He reported that his British in-laws were still waiting for their operations after two years, and that based on his experience Bhutan’s health service was superior."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313105/olympic-spectacle-mark-steyn?pg=1

Glenbarry Glen Ross

A perplexing fact - Polls continue to indicate that President Obama's "likability" remains relatively high even as his policies come under fire. Many see him as basically a good guy who's just in way over his head. I suspect this has something to do with people wanting to see the country's first black president succeed. Obama's overall approval rating is probably inflated by this sentiment.
Believing, as I do, that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, I have no such constraint. I think Obama is a nasty SOB who repeatedly mocks and belittles those he opposes or disagrees with. The media depiction of Obama as a post-partisan, post-racial healer is a sham. The president is post-courtesy, post-decency, post-respect.
A few of the better known instances of his incivility are presented here by Matthew Continetti. (Continetti provides just a sampling. A comprehensive listing would fill a book).

On April 6, 2008, he told a rather cartoonish audience at a San Francisco fundraiser that “it’s not surprising” he wasn’t winning the votes of working-class whites in the Democratic Party, because years of betrayal by the political class had made them “get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or … uh, anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

...while campaigning for Massachusetts’ attorney general Martha Coakley to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, Obama seemed obsessed with Republican state senator (and eventual victor) Scott Brown’s pickup truck, poking fun at it repeatedly during a last-minute campaign rally. A month later, at the health-care summit, Obama could not hide his contempt as John McCain explained why his constituents and a national majority opposed the president’s proposal for a health-care overhaul. When McCain finished, Obama dismissed him by sniping that "The election's over" as though the four-term senator had no legitimate grounds for opposition.

Obama also urged Hispanic voters to "punish our enemies" on a Spanish radio station. Post-racial indeed.

He mocked Mitt Romney's use of the word "marvelous" when Romney used it to describe Paul Ryan's proposed budget. With his trademark smirk and an irritating "heh heh", Obama let his crowd know only a dweeb like Romney would use an uncool word like "marvelous". (Fox News investigated and found at least two instances of Obama using it).

And of course, there's Obama's remarks in Roanoke, Virginia on July 13 - containing the now infamous phrase "you didn't build that". Since Democrats are claiming that the phrase has been taken out of context, here's the piece in its entirety.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

(Incidentally, the internet was created by a collaboration of industry, academia and yes, government. Credit for the growth of the internet into the colossus as it exists today goes solely to the usual suspects - the energy, imagination and hard work of the private sector. Gordon Crovitz (WSJ) tells the story here and here).

Continetti states that although most of the attention has been concentrated on Obama's second paragraph,
...the truly revealing and disturbing idea is in the first paragraph, in which the president of the United States of America, the richest nation in the world, says he is “always struck” by “people who think” that individual smarts and hard work are responsible for success. The fools! Don’t they know achievement is a function of lavish government contracts to education and construction unions? Can’t they comprehend that innovation results from taxpayer-financed loan guarantees to companies owned by Democratic Party donors?

It's a remarkable spectacle - the president showering scorn on those he was elected to serve.

One of my favorite movies is Glengarry Glen Ross, the film version of David Mamet's play about the (probably fictional) cutthroat world of shady real estate dealing in Brooklyn, New York. One of the best scenes in the movie has the character Blake, played by Alec Baldwin, sent by his bosses to motivate the company's salesmen. He does so with a barrage of profanity laced insults. (The entire film is profanity laced). At one point Blake directs his invective at a salesman named Moss (Ed Harris).

I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am. And you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a s---. Good father? F--- you -- go home and play with your kids!!

Baldwin goes on like this for more than five minutes. It's his only scene in the movie.

Watching Obama speak in Roanoke made me think of Baldwin in GGR. All that's missing is the profanity, but that's an issue of propriety. A presidential candidate (much less a president) is not going to use the F-word. However, a perceptive listener can fill in the blanks. Link to the video, notice the contempt in his voice, in his demeanor, and imagine him saying

...look, if you’ve been successful, I don't give a s---.
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. Well, f--- you. There are a lot of smart people out there.

Moss could have been referring to Obama when he responded to Blake's rant with,

Bunch of f---in' nonsense...treat people like that.

Yes it is.

Obama speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

Baldwin scene (His tirade is fun to watch).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7zHF19n2qE

Why We Are Where We Are

In a few concise paragraphs in today's WSJ, Karl Rove explains the cause of the financial meltdown which led to the 2008 recession and, ironically, the disastrous Obama presidency.

"Though publicly traded companies, Fannie (Mae) and Freddie (Mac) are government-sponsored enterprises – GSE's – chartered by Congress. Because the US government implicitly backed them, they could borrow money more cheaply than competitors such as mortgage companies and banks. And borrow they did. It took from Fannie’s founding in 1938 until 1999 for the companies to acquire or guarantee $2,000,000,000,000 in mortgage backed securities. By 2005, they had snapped up another $2,000,000,000,000 in mortgages, many of them subprime.

The Bush administration supported S.P. 190 to provide more oversight to America's two largest financial institutions similar to that of the nation’s banks, savings and loans, and credit unions. A new regulator could examine their books, limit their mortgage portfolios, and set capital requirements.

After the banking committee passed a bill with 11 Republicans in support and nine Democrats opposed, Senate Democrats warned committee chairman Richard Shelby (R, Ala) that all of them – including an Illinois freshman named Barack Obama – would filibuster the bill if a were brought to the floor.

Democrats opposed regulation in part because the GSE's were an important source of funds for community groups allied with the Democratic Party, and they were run by Democratic power brokers like former Clinton office of management and budget director Franklin Raines and Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign Chairman, James Johnson. And so the Bush reform died.

For the next three years, the GSE's increased their purchases of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities by $1,200,000,000,000 to a total of $5,000,000,000,000, of which about $1,800,000,000,000 was in subprime, “liar loans” or other nonprime mortgages, according to Columbia business school’s Charles Calomiris.

At the end, Fannie and Freddie were drastically overextended, with loan-to-capital, or leverage, ratio of 70 to 1 or higher. In the summer of 2008, when housing prices declined, the value of their mortgage portfolios collapsed and the government put them into conservatorship. When the GSE's collapsed, they took down Lehman Brothers and then nearly America's entire financial sector. Democratic opposition to sensible regulation made this possible."

Rove concludes with,

"When Mr. Obama warns on the campaign trail against "the same failed ideas that got us into this mess," reporters might gently remind him of his role in helping create the mess by opposing regulation of Fannie and Freddie, then showing little inclination to fix the problem, and now seeming blind to how he's creating another financial debacle."

Sorry Karl. Reporters chiding Obama aint gonna happen.

Note - I wrote out the gargantuan numbers so as not to soften their impact. In his column, Rove uses the word trillion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577549214027725248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

If you can't abide hearing the truth from the astute Mr. Rove, perhaps you'll be convinced by Democrats like Maxine "If it aint broke don't fix it" Waters and Barney "I want throw the dice a little bit more" Frank making Rove's case. (You Tube video linked below). Interestingly, one of the Dems shilling for the GSEs is Artur Davis who has since seen the error of his ways and has jumped to the Republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blcC_kCnf8U