About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Few Quick Thoughts

Palmetto Impeachment: Today a South Carolina judiciary panel is set to decide on whether Mark Sanford should have to face impeachment for running off to Argentina to rendevous with his "soulmate" for a few days last summer. It seems that since all of the charges that it seems would have deserved impeachment were found to be inadequate to support any official action, this should have been finished awhile ago. But the charges left point to the purely political nature of the impeachment effort, as they involve whether or not Sanford was derelict in his duty by not designating a plan of succession while he was gone. That charge brings tow questions to my fertile mind: What crisis was going to come up in a five day period in the state that would need the immediate and sole attention of the chief executive, and why doesn't the state already have something like this worked out ahead of time? I mean, when President Obama leaves for his next European sojourn, the executive branch is not going to be in crisis because he's not in Washington, D.C.! He is still in charge, even if he's not on the scene, and if something catastrophic happens he will be in touch and on his way back in a flash. And if something happens to him, then we know that "Plugs" Biden will assume the mantle of the presidency; so why can't they figure that out in South Carolina? It's because that isn't what this is about; it's about Sanford stepping on toes in both parties as governor, and now is the opportunity for some get back for his opponents. What Sanford did was immoral, but doe we really want a bunch of elected officials acting as the morals police?
 
Fox Fumbles: I like Fox News, I really do. I open every weekday morning by checking in on "The O'Reilly Factor" at about 5:30, then it's "Fox & Friends" until I flip over to ESPN's "Mike and Mike" at about 7:00. And I usually cringe and then get agitated when I hear people talking down the Fox News brand as "Faux News" and overly biased, simply because of the slant of its commentary shows. That irks me because usually even on the opinion shows Fox tries to give everyone a hearing and an opportunity to make known their positions. But in the past week I have been really disappointed in Fox, namely in the way that they have covered the Tiger Woods story and the murders of the four police offiicers in Washington State by a man whose sentence was commuted by then Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a host of his own FNC show. First to Tiger Woods, as it is really not a major story to begin with...but you wouldn't know that by watching FNC. I understand if the opinion shows want to talk about it, because it is ripe fodder for conversation: the entertainment/media matrix, attitudes of privilege by star athletes, and questions about how much of a public figure's life should be private can make for some excellent discussion segments. But if you want to keep the news and opinion sides separate, I would suggest not having heavy coverage of a matter like this on your news shows; I don't want to see long segments on "The Fox Report", "Fox &  Friends", or "Special Report" about this garbage! I tune into FNC to get straight news, and often news and analysis that I can't get anywhere else, not a rehashing of the latest TMZ headlines! But the more serious concern for me is the "circle the wagons" mentality that took over when it was revealed that it was Huckabee who commuted the sentence of the murderer of the four Washington peace officers. O'Really had him on to diffuse the blame for this matter to the parole board in Arkansas, Hannity did the same, and "Fox News Watch" did a segment acting as though the Legacy Media was simply trying to torpedo any chances for Huckabee running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 by creating a "Willie Horton moment" for good old Huck. The only thing is, Huckabee does bear a great deal of responsibility for this tragedy, as it was his commutation of the man's sentence that allowed him to be up for parole in the first place. And in a state where the governor appoints the parole board, how likely is it that the board is going to ignore the clear signal that the commutation sends about the governor's attitude about the convict? Besides which, it was conservative alternative media for the most part that advanced the story, and it was Michelle Malkin and The American Spectator (spectator.org) that have been long reporting on Huckabee's penchant for freeing violent offenders who then went on to reoffend. What FNC did in trying to muddy the waters and protect Huckabee was shameful and they have to realize how much their actions can further tarnish their brand, epsecially with those who support them.
 
Good News? So the official national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10%, and the government and their media lackeys act as if this is the news that shows that we are well on the road to economic recovery. Now, I am no high powered, well connected economist, but I can tell you this....those numbers are not good news. Why not? Because the numbers, from my perspective are indicative of two things: seasonal hiring and the employer soupbone. The decrease in unemployment can be explained by an blurb I saw on AOL news last week about FED-EX looking to hire thousands of people for the holidays, and other places doing the same. These are not jobs that are likely to last, but are jobs to fulfill a temporary demand for help during the Christmas economic spike; after Christmas watch the jobs that are shed when the temps are sent packing. As for the soupbone, the old ladies here in the South used to use a ham bone with just a little meat on it when making soup in order to add some flavor to the soup; when the soup was finished the bone was as empty as Al Capone's vault because all the meat was cooked off of it. The employer's soup bone basically means that employers have already cut staffing to the bare bones, so when the bone was thrown into last month's economic soup, there simply wasn't much left to cook off the bone...hence the low number of layoffs nationally. It is not really impressive to have low layoff numbers after shedding so many jobs in the previous months; all it indicates is that employers don't have anyone left to layoff and still maintain a stable business.
 
Did Climatgate Happen? If you listen to NPR you would have reason to wonder! I listened to a report this morning on "Morning Edition" that dealt with the dropping numbers in opinion polling for the idea that climate change matters to the American people. While there are some polls that show just over 50% of Americans spend their time ranking "climate change" as a real priority, most others show that "climate change" is way down on the list of concerns for Americans, with the economy ranking at the top. What amazed me is that the reporter and anchor both brushed past the Climategate episode of "stolen emails" that show that global warming is a serious fraud cooked up by ideologically driven climate scientists as a reason for the recent spike in disbelief of the concept of global warming. (Whew! Just writing that sentence wore me out! I think I'll take a break for a minute.........Okay, I'm back!) They are saying that when the issue is presented as "green jobs" and the like, the awareness becomes more intense and the numbers go up. But maybe that's because "green jobs" does not address the concerns of the AGW cultists, and it sounds enough like an economic concern that people pay attention to it. But everyone that wants to know knows about the attempts to bury "inconvenient truths" and to destroy the ability of people holding contrary views of AGW to have their work peer reviewed, and it is actions like that which are waking people up to the hoax that is climate change.
 
On the SCOTUS Docket: Today the SCOTUS begins hearing a case that challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley law governing regulatory oversight in financial accounting, but in fact is really a challenge to the entire system of independent executive level agencies in the federal government. In a nutshell, the lawyer for the plaintiff is arguing that organizations like the SEC and FCC are basically unconstitutional because the POTUS does not have the ability to fire the heads of the agencies, even though he appoints them. Most of them can only be fired for cause, which the plaintiffs say means that the POTUS does not have control of those agencies, as he does with the Cabinet posts, where he can fire a Secretary for any reason he sees fit. The argument has been tried before and failed, but it may have a better chance of success with the current make up of the court. You can go to NPR for the full story.
 
So there you go my friends! Happy Reading, and thanks for stopping by!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose Recession?

 

On this past weekend's Sunday political gabfests a theme arose that was repeated repeatedly: Is the recession over? Most of the answers that I heard were ambivalent on the subject, with most leaning towards a qualified "Yes", which was then used as a jumping off point to praise the wonderful workings of the Obama stimulus plan. Now, we all know that the $787 billion boondoggle hasn't quite lived up to the promise of the program, what with unemployment steadily rising, banks going under, and the government taking over private enterprises in order to "save" them. However, the worshippers of the One-Who-Makes-Oceans-Recede do not see it that way, because BHO works in mysterious ways.

But one of the other things that has caught my attention for a couple of years now, and caused them to perk up again was the trotting out of the canard that this particular recession started way back in 2007, so that all that we are going through right now can be conveniently laid at the feet of the not so dearly departed Bush Administration. By pushing the idea that the recession started in 2007, the unholy alliance of the media and the Democratic Party is able to paint a picture that establishes a narrative where the Bush Administration drove the economy off the proverbial cliff, but the ever heroic BHO slapped on his cape, tights, and boots and swooped in to save the day....just before the economic engine crashed into the ground below. Now our Economic Superman, and his Economic Justice League partners are hard at work using the unlimited powers of the government to set things right! Just like an old Saturday morning cartoon!

However, there is just one tiny bit of a problem with that scenario: it is built on one of the basest lies ever told! It is built on a lie that anyone with a computer, an internet connection, an inclination, and a little bit of time can easily debunk. Moreover, it is only a viable lie if the left is allowed to redefine common terms, as it is wont to do whenever a word has an inconvenient meaning for their particular position.

The only way that the left (i.e. Democrats and media) can even start to advance their 2007 recession story is to redefine what constitutes a recession. As commonly understood, a recession is when the economy goes through two down quarters as measured by GDP, or two quarters of negative growth, also known to us plebeians as "a loss".  However, in order to make the year 2007 the beginning of the recession a new definition was needed, so the left created a new definition of recession that substituted negative growth (a loss) for less growth. It may not seem like a big deal, but in reality, it is a huge change. By defining less growth as an indicator of recession, an economy that continues to grow can be declared to be in a recession in the midst of a growth cycle.

Now, I do not claim to be an economist but I can tell you that by no stretch of the imagination did the recession start in 2007. According to statistics published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the numbers for 2007 told a different story on the economic climate than the Blame Bush crowd would have you believe, to wit:

  • GDP for 1st quarter: +1.2%
  • GDP for 2nd quarter: +3.2%
  • GDP for 3rd quarter: +3.6%
  • GDP for 4th quarter: +2.1%

Now, I do not know about you, but that seems like four straight quarters of positive growth! Only by redefining the meaning of recession can a case be made that the current recession started in 2007 on the Bush Administration's watch. In fact, the well-regarded Hoover Institution think tank based at Stanford University reports that for the year 2007:

  • GDP rose by 2.2%
  • Personal consumption spending rose by 2.9%
  • Personal income rose by 3.1%
  • Industrial production rose by 1.5%
  • The national deficit was down by 34%, to $163 billion
  • Unemployment stood at 5%...virtually zero unemployment
  • The trade deficit was down 7% to $650 billion
  • Consumer prices rose by 4.1%
  • Consumer credit debt rose 4.2%
  • Producer Price Index rose 3.9%

Even with the last three indicators being generally negative, the economy of the US was in very good shape all through the year of 2007. Moreover, things were in generally good shape in the first two quarters of 2008, with growth rates of 1% and 2.5% respectively; it was not until the third quarter of 2008 that the economy began a downturn (-0.5%) before totally catering in the fourth quarter (-6.3%) with the twin collapse of the housing and banking sectors. Yet for nearly three years we have been fed a steady diet of misinformation about the starting date of the current recession, all the better to turn a tough recession into a catastrophe to be simultaneously blamed on the previous administration and used to advance a radical political/economic agenda.

It is well past time that the Obama administration stops lying to the American people about the measures being taken in the name of rescuing a flailing economy; a stimulus that stimulates nothing, continued government takeovers of private enterprises, and continued rising unemployment rates in the face of government promises to reduce unemployment.  It is also time to stop the lies about the economic conditions during the Bush years and take ownership of the mess that BHO campaigned to take control of, and his policies have made worse. Bush is eight months removed from office now, and continuing to blame him for everything that has gone wrong is a mark of immaturity and unprofessionalism. Barrack wanted it, now he has it, and it is up to him to do something constructive about it; the Blame Bush Pity Party is at an end. As they say in this neck of the woods, "That dog just won't hunt!"

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (31) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Giant Falls

I am not usually the most sentimental of creatures, but today's bankruptcy filing by General Motors put a lump in my throat. I come from a family that was a GM family from my grandad on down. He owned Chevy's, never drove anything but the big bowtie and my dad owned Pontiacs, Olds, and now drives a Chevy. He also owns a Ford pickup and a Jeep Cherokee, but his primary ride is a Chevy Cavalier. My first car was a 1983 Honda Accord that I paid $1500 for, but my first new car was a Chevy Cavalier, then I had a Pontiac Grand Am GT, and now I drive a Cutlass Supreme. And I have loved every one of those cars; they were great cars and the GM brand runs in my veins.
 
That's why it's so sad to see GM brought to it's knees today and facing an uncertain future, and a future that will be dominated by government meddling...Obama's statements notwithstanding. This should have been done so much better and cleaner, and it would have been if the company had been allowed to reorganize in Chapter 11 from the start. Instead we have a situation where the government propped GM up with taxpayer money, and despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, is poised to become at best a ward of the state...and at worst a subsidiary of the US Treasury Department. We are looking at a company that is going to answer to the very union that helped run it into the ground with it's outrageous salary and benefit demands, and an administration that is diving headlong into the auto business when even the socialist governments of Europe are keeping their distance from the same sort of things.
 
So while the once mighty General Motors goes into the bankruptcy that should have come earlier, let me say that I take no pleasure in it. The fall of GM is not just about a single company, but is sadly emblematic of the path I fear Obama wants to put the entire country on; create a super welfare state with governments hand-outs, and then close the book on any signs of the freedoms we have always known. I fear that Pravda was correct when they wrote recently that America is rushing down a path towards Marxism and the sheeple are marching quietly to their doom.
 
RIP General Motors, I'm gonna miss you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Unionized States of America

Once upon a time labor unions were all about protecting the interests of their dues paying members; making sure that they had safe working condidtions, fair wages, good benefits, and solid pension plans. They were not overtly political, in that their politics were all about getting what they could from management and to their members. They didn't care what political party you were from as a candidate, so long as you were on their side they were on yours.
 
Times have definitely changed, as the union bosses have morphed their unions from their original purposes of looking out for workers to being politcal heavyweights and king-makers. And the only kings they seek to make are members of a Party that is represented by a donkey...any others need not apply. The vast majority of unions, at least their leadership, are not really independent entities but fundraising arms of the Democratic Party, that demand politcal favors in return for their cash contributions.
 
Now with Barack Obama safely ensconced in the Oval Office, the unions are in a more powerful position than they have ever been before. There have been numerous pro-union presidents who have served, but none so willing to turn power over to the unions as Mr. Obama. There are two very high profile cases that illustrate that the unions have become less king-makers in this administration and have taken on the role of a quasi-king: the cases of the SEIU and the UAW.
 
By now everyone knows how the UAW has benefitted from their close alliance with the Obama administration. For a mere $4.9 million the UAW has basically been rewarded with ownership stakes in both Chrysler and General Motors (or what's left of them); a 40% stake in GM and about 55% of Chrysler. But worse than that, the adminstration willing abrogated existing bankruptcy laws by attempting to strong arm Chrysler's secured creditors to take 33 cents/dollar on their debt, while guaranteeing the UAW 50 cents/dollar; and in the case of GM the secured creditors were only given a 10% stake in the company, while the UAW got the aforementioned 40%.  Now the stock and stake in the company may not be worth very much right now, but if the companies manage to rebound under government supervision, however unlikely, it still is amazing that for a mere $4.9 million the UAW has been given control of two of the Big Three carmakers...after their unreasonable demands and unsustainable retirement benefits helped drive the companies over the cliff. That is serious ROI, my friends.
 
The curious case of the SEIU is more of the same, but on a grander scale. In an administration that made much noise about keeping lobbyists out of the loop, it is a sight to see a union actually shaping White House policy. The state of California passed a measure recently that would have cut wages for home healthcare workers in the state, in a bid to create some budget relief for a state that is looking at a $20-plus billion deficit in the coming fiscal year...even with the savings created by this measure. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reported that the Obama administration threatened to pull $6.8 billion in stimulus funds alloctaed for the state because the decision to cut the wages of the home healthcare workers allegedly violates the stimulus law. The governor also stated that the adminstration sent a letter on April 30 affirming that the plan to cut the aforementioned wages violated the law, and later the administration set up a teleconference to discuss the situation. And guess who else was invited to be on the conference...that's right, the SEIU!
 
That apparently is what $33 million in campaign contributions buy you these days...total access to the White House decision making apparatus. The very group that represents the healthcare workers in California was invited to be a part of the talks between the US government and the California state government on whether or not federal monies would be withheld from the state! All because the SEIU handed over a large chunk of change to get Obama into office, they now get to help decide the fate of the state of California vis-a-vis the stimulus funds, and may help sink the state further in debt to satisfy their own short term interests.
 
From card check, to the UAW, to the SEIU strongarm job on the Governator, the Obama adminstration has shown exactly where its priorities and allegiances lie. They have not done a thing to really safeguard the jobs of the autoworkers; witness the talk of a revamped GM having to outsource the building of certain cars to Mexico to become profitable again. But they have paid off the people at the upper echelons of union management with their awarding the unions majority stakes in two of the formerly Big Three, and they are paying off the SEIU by undermining a bipartisan effort in Lefti...I mean CALIfornia to find a way out of their budget deficit by standing not with the state, but with the union. The destruction of the concept of federalism in this case notwithstanding, it is a truly scary sight to see a federal administration using its powers of persuasion and force against a state that is simply attempting to handle state business...all to benefit a powerful union contributor.
 
The way things are going, we are soon going to be forced to change our name from the United States of America to the Unionized States of America! And for some strange reason, I don't think this was what Lincoln, whom Obama claims so much to admire, meant when he said his first priority was to preserve the Union!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Outrage of AIG

Everyone seems to be burning with outrage over the bonuses paid to the AIG employees, per their signed contracts with the company. The White House has feigned outrage over the situation, the President is pulling a Sgt. Schultz, "I saw nothink!", and Sen. Charles Grassley is running around telling people who got bonuses to kill themselves. Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to ride the populist wave of anger at the payment of these bonuses to score political points against their opponents, and all are taking part in what Michelle Malkin so expertly described as the "kabuki theatre" of outrage.
 
But what has me outraged is not the bonuses, because I cannot care less how much these people make; what bothers me is the rhetoric emanating from the halls of Congress. We have Sen. Chuck Schumer telling us that he wants to tax the bonuses up to 100%, a group of Congress members threatening to pass legislation to allow it, and one idiot on the Greta Van Susteren show saying that she thinks the Congress can legally hold the AIG employees to a retroactive law.
 
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three says: No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four states: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. In other words, the Congress cannot pass laws that single out individuals or groups and cannot order taxes to be levied against individuals. These "guardians of the realm" are trying to do something that is obviously illegal and unconstitutional, and too few people are even batting an eye over it. Everyone is so busy reveling in their righteous anger at the "greedy" executives that they are ignoring a serious threat to their freedoms.
 
If the government can, in broad daylight no less, threaten to abrogate the Constitution in this manner, and if they can attempt to effectively blackmail the CEO of AIG to turn over the names of the recipients to Barney Frank, what does that bode for the rest of us? What will they do when no one is watching, if they will try this in front of the cameras? This behavior is the real outrage of the AIG scandal, and it should scare you to death.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strange Days

Yesterday I watched with undisguised glee as the $700 billion bailout bill died an ignominious death in the House. Being the good conservative that I am, I watched the news coverage on Fox News and was actually surprised by something I heard there. One of the Fox news anchorettes was actually bemoaning the fact that this travishamockery of a bill had gone down in the flaming defeat it so richly deserved. She was saying that this was a time when the members of Congress had to lead the American people instead of listening to their constitutents...you know, "We the People." Then this morning on Fox and Friends all purpose political expert Larry Sabato from the University of Virginia was on saying the the President had failed to sell the bill properly to the people, and that whoever was able to tag the bill a "bailout" had effectively killed any chance of it passing the House. His idea was that if it had been called a "rescue" or "recovery" that the people would have gone along with it, because it didn't sound as if the government was trying to fix the mistakes of private businesses.
 
What these people don't seem to understand are just a few small things, and I will quickly go over them here.
  1. The American people just forced the Congress to lead us (at least for the time being) away from the precipice of eternal government bailouts of private enterprises. The American people were not going to stand by and watch these entities get free  oney for running their companies into the ground, all in the quest for ever rising profits. And for the second time in a couple of years We the People imposed out collective will on those elected to represent us.
  2. The system worked as designed on this bill, since the members of the House, including a sizeable number of the Democratic Party, refused to vote for a bill that they knew the people were opposed to...just like the way it went down with Harriet Meiers and immigration. The Congress responded to the people and did their business, instead of trying to advance their own agendas.
  3. The President was never going to get this passed, because he has no political capital left to get this done! George W. Bush could be the greatest salesman in the world, but the People were not going to buy this crock of crap, because we all saw it for what it was. And how could any of the Democrats in the House really be seen supporting this White House backed proposal, after spending the last 7 years telling anyone who would listen what an incompetent boob "Dubya" is? How good would it have looked to the constituents of those anti-Bush House members up for reelection to be out trumpeting  the Bush Plan?
  4. Larry Sabato and others need to understand that We the People are not some group of dolts who can be easily fooled b calling something by a different name. They tried that with their immigration proposals, but we all knew that "comprehensive immigration reform" was just a fancy way of saying "amnesty". No one was fooled then, and to think that calling this a "rescue" would divert attention from the fact that this is just a bailout of poorly run corporations is foolish. You can put a dead possum on a plate and call it filet mignon, but that doesn't change the fact that it's roadkill!

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »