Gang Of Sixer, Sen. Chambliss, Proves His Liberalism

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia always seemed a weak sister.

Now he's proved it once and for all, here, and here, by repudiating his pledge to vote against tax rate increases.

That's an alarming development for Republicans because it indicates that Chambliss is not just threatening to vote for more revenues from deduction limitations, but for more revenues from tax rate increases.

Look at it this way: a vote for tax increases is a vote to maintain the status quo, which can only mean more of the same, including further increased prices for commodities, which is at the center of Sen. Chambliss' unholy alliances.

Follow the money people! This guy doesn't care about the country. He only cares about himself!

"And A Fatherless Child Shall Lead Them"

A fatherless president for a fatherless nation

Americans narrowly re-elected a fatherless child to lead them as "broken families" begin to outnumber intact ones in the voter rolls.

Rebecca Hagelin for USNews.com, here, identifies the broken family trend creating today's voter:

Noted social science researcher Patrick Fagan points out that in 1950, for every 100 babies born in America, 12 were born to a broken family—that is, they were either born out of wedlock or to a family that would suffer divorce. Fast forward to today, and for every 100 babies born in America, over 60 are born to broken families.

The results of the latest census reported by Liz Peek for TheFiscalTimes.com, here, starkly depict the consequent disappearance of traditional America and its replacement by a broken one:

The 2010 Census reported that for the first time in our history, married couples make up less than half of all households. The traditional family with a mom, dad and children now constitute less than 20 percent of American households, down from 43 percent in 1950.

Whatever else may be said about Barack Obama, Americans have re-elected him to a large extent because he resembles them in the most elemental way which people like Mitt Romney and John McCain do not.

Let's Face It, Republicans Helped Create "The Takers"

It's time for a reality check. Republicans bear heavy responsibility for creating "the takers", the infamous 47% of households who pay no taxes.

The real reason Mitt Romney lost the election is because he couldn't get Reagan Democrats to turn out for him enthusiastically, people for whom dissing the whole idea behind the tax credit programs expanded by Reagan and Bush 43 to subsidize working families just like them sounded foreign coming from the mouth of a Republican candidate for president. I refer to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

Reagan had made the former his answer to welfare dependency, and George W. Bush further expanded it and also doubled the latter, to the point that now, as the Tax Policy Center says here:

[T]he Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit . . . are the major reason many low-income working families avoid the income tax. About one-third of those who don’t pay are families with kids.

This New York Times graphic, using Tax Foundation data, shows how the percentage of non-taxpaying filers had grown by over 50% since 1986 through the end of the Bush presidency, and now under Obama has really ramped up another 50% so that since the time of the 1986 tax reform twice as many filers have no federal tax liability as did twenty-five years ago. If Obama has doubled down on anything, they were Republican ideas to begin with. To paraphrase an old saw, We sold them the rope they're hanging us with. 

What once seemed like benign Reagan era social props have grown into major federal welfare transfer payment programs for the lower and middle classes in America, which is why liberals like Tim Noah here deliberately don't focus on them in analyzing the takers, "the 47%". To do so mutes their point that these people still pay the regressive payroll tax, which the EITC offsets. But practiced long enough, these lower wage workers getting EITC payments every year until retirement will collect Social Security without having really contributed to it themselves, transforming it, for them, from a contribution based pension into pure welfare.

Democrats are more than happy to have Republicans do this dirty work for them in expanding the federal welfare state instead of just acting as they do in more somnolent times as mere tax collectors for it. During the next five years, these direct subsidies to families are projected to cost the Treasury over $90 billion each year. In 2011 alone there were over 26 million EITC claims costing the taxpayers nearly $59 billion. 

This issue goes to the heart of Mitt Romney's problem with the Republican Party: He had the temerity to point out the dependency practiced by too many Republicans. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney and the country, he had no constituency for this message, or at least not enough of one to get him over the top.

More than ever I suspect that this way of thinking is what was behind Mitt Romney's interest in "rectitude" in "equalizing" taxes when he was governor of Massachusetts, but also accounts for his statements distancing himself from the Reagan record in the 1990s when he ran against Sen. Ted Kennedy, just when Rep. Newt Gingrich was about to unleash The Contract With America. Reagan might have been an anti-communist conservative, but a fiscal conservative he was not, at least not in practice. That's what was really important to Romney at the time and obviously still animates him. But not his party which has made zero progress toward fiscal conservatism and has gone the other way.

Say what you will about Romney's social liberalism, it was his fiscal conservatism which alienated him not just from Democrats, but also from anyone receiving a big tax refund every spring.

A famous Democrat once said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me." But a fiscal conservative can't say the same of the Republican Party . . . in living memory it's never been there.

(graphic here)

Obama 2012 Now Ties Bush 2004 With 50.73% Of Popular Vote

As all votes get tallied since the election two weeks ago on November 6, total votes cast in the presidential are now up to 125.53 million and Barack Obama achieves the dubious distinction of matching George W. Bush exactly in the percentage of the popular vote received.

Way to go, Brownie! 

Reed Galen And His Ilk Confuse Television With Reality

Well why not? His parents probably used television as a baby sitter. The video here shows Reed Galen sporting a ginormous wristwatch and more neurotic hand gestures per second than I can count.

Here are his recent remarks about television:

The ABC sitcom “Modern Family” is an excellent reference point for the problems of today’s Republican Party. One of the most popular shows on television, it features, among other things, a Latina immigrant and her son and a gay couple with an adopted daughter.

Those characters are not merely a paean to political correctness: They are the glue of the show. And for Americans under 45, they are not seen as objects of scorn or derision but a reflection -- albeit through Hollywood’s funhouse mirror -- of what the country looks like today.

Someday someone is going to kick Reed Galen's ass but good, or his kids' ass if he actually has any, or something worse, which they'll deserve but won't assimilate because it's already too late for them.

Obviously his baby boomer parents never taught him anything, which is why the country looks like it does today, and deserves everything it's going to get.

Reed Galen formerly served in the losing John McCain for president campaign.

63% Of Congress Voted For Bailouts, 75% Of Democrats

Here.

I hate to quote myself, but someone's got to do it.

Paul Krugman Really Wants To Increase Taxes On The Middle Class

Fair taxation looks like the rates of the 1950s, says Paul Krugman, here:

"America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share."

What he's not telling you, however, is that America made the poor pay their "fair share" too in the 1950s, which today they are not doing. Even liberals agree 47% of the American people today don't pay any income taxes whatsoever. But at the 1950s rates, nearly 60% of today's workers, almost 90 million out of 151 million total American workers, would actually be paying income taxes, and paying income taxes big time, at a marginal rate of 20% instead of the low Bush rates of 10% and 15%, if they pay any income taxes at all.

Can you say, "Big middle class tax increase if Krugman got his way"?

The tax rates Krugman refers to come from the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If those rates were in effect today, the rich at Obama's beloved $200,000 a year level would be in the 59% bracket instead of in his 39.5% bracket, which makes Obama look like not simply a conservative by comparison with Krugman, but a reactionary by comparison with Bill Clinton.

More to the point, under Truman's rates in 1952 applied to today "the rich" would be in the 66% bracket. So high marginal tax rates on "the rich" actually came down from 66% under Truman to 59% under Eisenhower. Krugman is disingenous in portraying 1950s rates as some draconian trend to punish the rich when in fact Eisenhower was practicing the art of the possible in his time, trying to lower taxation while still trying to pay off the massive debt accumulated during World War II. Compare that to today when the chief liberal sticking point on taxes is the difference between the top marginal rate under Bush of 35% and the top marginal rate under Clinton of 39.5%.

Almost never was so much made of so little.

One critical difference between Obama's stated position and Paul Krugman's, however, is that while the president's marginal rate of 39.5% would remain the last rate on the ladder, Krugman would expand the ladder with additional marginal rates all the way up to 91% as was done in the Revenue Code of 1954.

Only a fanatic would think that that's part of what's possible today. Not even Obama thinks that.

Yet.

That Light At The End Of The Tunnel?

Better run. Here comes the ObamaCare train.

Was Socialist France The Model For ObamaCare's 50 Worker Rule?

Mike Tanner for The New York Post, here:

Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans. ...

Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51.

Tanner might have emphasized that as companies become 49ers because of ObamaCare, the workers will increasingly become 29ers, part-timers who are exempted from coverage under ObamaCare because they are deliberately kept to 29 hours per week.

After being 99ers for so long, that's about as good as it's going to get.

To The Associated Press, Sadomasochism Is Just A "Subculture"

Crown Roast of Wiener

Seen here:

[Castro District] Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.

A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.

Since about 1994 sadomasochism et cetera have not been considered mental illnesses by medical authorities when such deviancies are "consensual". Evidently the public in San Francisco no longer consents to the regular assaults against their eyes from assorted naked exhibitionists of deviancy, which should on that logic make such malefactors henceforth technically mentally ill once again.

Wow, wasn't that easy?

Accordingly we should now be able to say that, since libertarians advocate freedom for such deviancies but habitually fail at the polls, libertarians also are mentally ill because they do not enjoy the consent of the governed. 

The followers of libertarian Jude Wanniski continue to assert that the electorate always gets it right, so since the electorate repudiates libertarianism time and time again libertarians must be mentally ill.

It remains unknown if libertarianism ever was considered a mental disorder by authorities, however.

Needless to say, the date from which civilization may be said to have ended now has been postponed thanks to San Francisco Castro District Supervisor Scott Wiener.

Great name.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Wittiest Line Of The Week Past

"The generals are being led by their privates."

-- Rush Limbaugh

Thousands Of French Protest Genitally Modified Marriage

Story here:

Marc, a 60-year-old Parisian who said he was a fervent Catholic, called the government hypocritical. “They all have wives and children. So they understand perfectly well what kind of deviations would result from the approval of gay marriages.”

He was holding a sign that read “No to genitally modified marriage”.

Austin, MN, Hires Part-Timer To Save $18K On "Benefits"

"Benefits", as in health insurance.

The guy will work 30 hours per week and make $60K a year, but will get no benefits.

Story here:

He will not receive fringe benefits of pension, health insurance, life insurance or disability insurance. ... With the hiring of Erichson as a flex-time employee, the HRA [Housing and Redevelopment Authority] will save about a total of $38,000 ($20,000 in salary and $18,000 in benefits). The arrangement is planned to be revisited after one year of employment.

Yeah, at which time he'll be cut to 29 hours per week.

Capisce?

Community College Cuts Part-Timers' Hours To Avoid ObamaCare Costs

The Cheerleaders Against ObamaCare

The Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania will cut 400 part-timers' hours to less than 30 hours per week to save $6 million in costs mandated by ObamaCare.

Story here.

Companies everywhere are in revolt against ObamaCare, which mandates coverage be offered when full-time workers exceed 49 in number, but full-time now "redefined" as 30 hours worked on average per week instead of 34 or 35. Leftism is nothing if not based on constant redefinition of reality.

So the path is clear if you're an employer: reduce full-time positions to 49 and part-time everyone else to no more than 29 hours per week. The result in America will be fewer and fewer full-time jobs and inadequate part-time jobs for more and more people, many of whom will be unable to afford to buy insurance through one-size-fits-all ObamaCare and will be thrown into state Medicaid programs where they will receive healthcare which you wouldn't wish on Fido or Morris.

ObamaCare is an ugly war on jobs, and is reminiscent of nothing so much as Stalin's war on the Kulaks of Ukraine, whom he starved to death when collectivization failed to produce the "mandated" amount of wheat. People will not begin to appreciate the comparison I suppose until our government decides the size threshold of companies must be lowered to, say, 39 full-time employees from 49 to get ObamaCare to "work", and to, say, 20 hours per week from 29 to mandate "more coverage". But by then business will already be flat on its back and the size of the proletariat will have swelled. Single payer can't be far behind.

They are saying out there that Romney lost because he focused on too many numbers, but Obama is using mandated numbers to slowly crucify you.

UGLY.

What A Shock. Senator Elect "Independent" Angus King Of Maine To Caucus With Dems

The Boston Globe has the story here about the two-term former Governor's victory:

Republican-aligned groups spent $3.7 million in a losing attempt to defeat King. The National Republican Senatorial Committee dumped $1.3 million, while Crossroads GPS spent about $1 million.

The Democrat in the race for Senate in Maine, Cynthia Dill, who thought she was running against Todd Akin of Missouri, came in a very distant third with 13% of the vote behind the Republican in distant second with about 31% of the vote to King's 53%.

King's enthusiasms appear to be fingerprinting and windmills.

Your Food Costs More Because Of Obama's Stalinist EPA Ethanol Policy

Feed prices have skyrocketed as a result of drought and dedication of ever larger portions of corn harvests to fuel production instead of for feed, and it will get much much worse according to this in depth story in The Detroit News:

This year, the Renewable Fuel Standard requires the use of 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol, the production of which could require using more than half the country's corn crop, up from 5 billion gallons in 2007.

Next year, the standard increases to 13.9 billion gallons. By 2022, the U.S. must use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, though 21 billion gallons are supposed to be from advanced cellulosic ethanol.

This Will Get Your Account At Twitter Deleted

Story here.

Boycott United Parcel Service For Defunding Scouting

UPS is cutting off the Boy Scouts over homosexuality, as noted here:

The UPS Foundation, which gave more than $85,000 to the Boy Scouts in 2011, announced this week that it is cutting off the Scouts because they won’t allow openly homosexual scoutmasters or members. Millions of boys and men who have been involved with the Scouts support their moral stand against normalizing homosexuality.

Total Votes Cast In Presidential Election Reaches 124.69 Million

Obama is up to 50.66% in the popular vote, up from 50.61% on Thursday.

At this rate he may yet prove as popular as George Bush in 2004 (50.73%).

Libertarians Help Elect Democrat Bisexual In Arizona

There's no mention in the various stories at Politico that the controversial and expensive race between the Democrat Sinema and the black Republican Parker was spoiled for the latter by a libertarian candidate whose platform included open voter suppression.

AZCentral reported here:

The spoiler in the race may turn out to be Libertarian candidate Powell Gammill, who garnered more than 10,000 votes, despite urging voters during an October televised debate to stay home on Election Day in protest of the political system.

Bushie AEI Joins Drumbeat To Raise Taxes On Middle Class

Here.

I'm pretty sure the author, Sita Nataraj Slavov, wasn't raised in Milwaukee, but you never know these days.

 

Link fixed.

Three Liberal Republican Defenders Of Gay Rights Defeated Last Week

Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois, Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California and Rep. Nan Hayworth of New York, all endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, are gone after 2012.

Rep. Cao lost his seat in 2010. Liz Carter couldn't beat the infamous Rep. Hank Johnson in 2010. John Dennis couldn't beat the infamous Rep. Pelosi in 2010 or in 2012 in what is now CA-12. Rep. Dent was handily re-elected in 2012. Rep. Djou won the special election in 2010 and promptly lost in November of that year. Mattie Fein failed to unseat Rep. Harman in 2010. Rep. Hanna handily won in NY-22 in 2012. Rep. Lance handily won re-election in 2012. Rep. Platts retires in 2013 and so does the district, merging with PA-04. Rep. Reichert handily won re-election in 2012. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen won in 2012 in the new FL-27 district.

See the Politico story here for a list of all incumbents of both parties who lost last week.

CNBC Adopts Overt Advocacy Against Fiscal Cliff

Their explanation is here.

And it's completely stupid, as usual from these people, for whom a recession constitutes "dire consequences" and is unthinkable.

CNBC should consider that sequestration was passed by the Congress, and that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was passed by the Congress. So to oppose these acts of Congress instead of simply reporting them as facts constitutes advocacy, pure and simple.

CNBC. My new comedy channel.

Liberal Republican Incumbent Judy Biggert Finally Defeated In Illinois

Another liberal pulled down on Romney's coattails. At least it was a fair fight.

Libertarian In UT 4th District Helps Dem. Incumbent Get Re-elected

Libertarians in Utah's 4th Congressional District narrowly helped keep the Democrat the incumbent in 2012. The rest of Utah is a sea of red.

Matheson was a key figure in the arithmetic to passage of ObamaCare in 2010, subsequently got re-elected in November 2010 and again now in 2012, thanks this time to a libertarian who spoiled the chance for the GOP candidate.

Michael Tanner Is So Wrong. ObamaCare Is Emblematic Only Of The Congress.

The House version of healthcare reform, left, and the Senate version, right.

Michael Tanner for National Review, here:

The new health-care law is generally regarded as the signature achievement of the president’s first term. It’s certainly emblematic of Obama’s entire approach to government and what we can expect from his second-term initiatives.

Everything Mr. Tanner says about ObamaCare sounds right. The problem is, Obama played no role in it. The community organizer organized the legislative community under Democrat leadership, and they designed it, not him.

Obama provided zero leadership formulating what we call ObamaCare. He relinquished his leadership role entirely, allowing Pelosi's House and Reid's Senate to draft their versions of it and to hash the thing out, which ended up being an amalgam of the creations of the two chambers of the legislature. Obama contributed zero, zip, nada, nothing, and Michael Tanner misses entirely that ObamaCare turned out to look like the camel it is when it was supposed to look like a horse.

ObamaCare is healthcare disform, because Obama is a president who is largely absent and not up to the task in any case. Without control of both houses of the legislature, the future will provide no more such camels designed to be horses, unless the Republicans permit it.

Gridlock. Embrace it. Love it. Depend on it.

In The Battle Of Puny "Mandates", Bush's Was Bigger

Votes Cast In 2012 Presidential Election Now Total 123.72 Million

The 2012 US House Republican Mandate: A Sea Of Red

Libertarian Mish So Inspired By MoveOn.org He Steals The Phrase 5 Times

Here.

Libertarians are Democrats in sheeps' clothes.

David Stockman Of Reagan Admin. Fame Wins Mish Raffle?

A certain David Stockman, mirabile dictu, is named as a raffle winner in Mish's ALS raffle contest, here.

If that's the David Stockman we all know, that explains a lot. Libertarian birds of a feather flock together.

Stockman's Wikipedia entry says he lives in Greenwich, CT.

Nice work if you can get it.

Bolivia Enacts Castration Law For Rapists

The wheels of justice turn slowly but exceedingly . . . close to North America.

Story here.

Obama Wins Election, Dyes Hair

Story here.

More Latinos In Poverty Than Voted For Romney: 28% v 23%

Elections have consequences.

That story here.

Earlier:

"The Latino Decisions polls indicate that nationwide and in battleground states Obama won Latino voter support over Romney by historic margins –  72 percent to 23 percent nationwide ..."

Libertarian Mish Is Happy Republican Mourdock Lost In Indiana

Mish is on the side of the Democrats, plain and simple, here, referencing a story at the Christian Science Monitor:

Yet this is what happens when views are too extreme. I am very pleased to report "'Red' Indiana sends Democrat to US Senate, as women fled Mourdock".

Of course Mish is happy the Democrat won in Indiana. Libertarians ran a spoiler candidate in that race to throw the race to the Democrat. When it comes down to it, social freedom is more important to libertarians than economic freedom. They cry "Freedom" all the while they mean only "License!"

Libertarians are not on the side of conservatives or Republicans. They are on the side of the Democrats, the party of death to the unborn, and soon the party of death to the elderly under ObamaCare, and eventually the party of death to the middle class, which will not long exist because of Obama.

The middle class stands in the way of the Alinskyites' real objective: the rich. Middle class people, after all, would like to be rich some day, too, not poor. So they must go first in order to get at the rich. If the middle class had any brains they'd understand that Obama's invective against the rich is primarily aimed at them because, compared to the poor, the middle class is rich. Unfortunately, they went to public schools. 

One thing at a time, making use of the useful idiots, the libertarians.

Libertarian Party Boasts Of Stopping Republican Senate Hopefuls In IN and MT

A reader points out that the Libertarian Party is actually boasting here about how well two of its Senate candidates performed in the elections a week ago, one in Montana and one in Indiana, because they threw the races to the Democrats. By doing so they prevented Republicans from winning precious seats needed in the contest against the Obama agenda.

He's right. I quote from the post:

"[T]hese are exceptionally good results:

Dan Cox (MT) 31,476 votes - 6.5% - high impact: more than margin of victory for Democrat over Republican ...

Andrew Horning (IN) 143,790 votes - 5.8% - high impact: more than margin of victory for Democrat over Republican"

It's obvious from this that Libertarians view themselves as spoilers who count Republican defeats as victories for themselves, which tells you everything you need to know about whose side the Libertarian Party is on.

Of course there is no reflection on the libertarians' bad faith in this election in the media in general, nor from conservative talk radio in particular which boasts self-professed libertarian sympathizers in people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. 

h/t Housman2000

Libertarians Spoiled Two House Races In Arizona, Throwing Them Democrat

What A Shock. Mish Voted Libertarian In Illinois.

Mish says so, here:

"I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and I am proud of my vote. Can those voting for the lesser of two evils say the same thing?"

Russell Kirk didn't call libertarians chirping sectaries for nothing. They have their very vocal advocates like Mish, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul, but no following of real consequence. As fringe candidates they view themselves as troublemakers mostly, fanatical idealists at war with reality whose only hope is to act as spoilers. Gary Johnson said as much of himself, here, as recently as August:

“I hope that I would get labeled as a ‘spoiler’ from the standpoint of people actually focusing on what it is I am saying, and that this changes the way whoever wins governs,” Johnson told Sunshine State News in an exclusive interview Saturday at the 2012 Ron Paul Festival.

Libertarians often claim they are "principled" in contrast to the rest of us. Evidently deliberately ruining someone else's chances is one of those principles, which vindictiveness is one reason they don't make progress as a party. While their extremism may scare people off, I think their natural lack of good will has more to do with it.

It's bad form, old boy.

Total Votes Cast In Presidential Elections Since 1968

Figures rounded to the nearest million:

1968.....73 million

1972.....78

1976.....81

1980.....87

1984.....93

1988.....92

1992...104

1996.....96

2000...105

2004...122

2008...131

2012...123.

The biggest "shrug" was in 1996 when Republicans ran me-too liberals Bob Dole and Jack Kemp against the real liberals, Billy Clinton and the Div. School Dropout, AlGore.

The second biggest shrug just occurred, when Republicans again ran me-too liberals, tax collectors for the welfare state who promised to preserve Medicare and keep certain parts of ObamaCare, against the real deal in Obama, who just expanded the welfare state with ObamaCare.

Republicans. They don't call them the stupid party for nothing.

If they had at least run conservatives who lost we could say conservatism lost. But they didn't, and we can't.

Total Votes Cast 2012 Presidential Election Now Up To 122.94 Million

Data here.

As of right now third party voting plus Romney's share still comes to less than Obama's, at 49.45%.

Who's More Willing To Let Bush Tax Cuts Expire? GOP Or Dems?

Josh Barro thinks it's the Republicans, here:

Democrats cannot force Republicans’ hand unless they are more willing than Republicans to let all the Bush tax cuts expire. And they won’t be. A full expiration might well cause a new recession, which would be even more politically damaging for the Barack Obama administration than for congressional Republicans. Congress is already about as unpopular as it can become, and Republicans know they are not going to get their legislative agenda enacted in the next two years anyway. But a new recession would greatly interfere with Obama’s second-term plans.

Republicans Attacked ObamaCare. Hispanics Overwhelmingly Supported It. Any Questions?

The idea that Republicans alienate (can I say that?) Hispanics because Republicans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants is ludicrous. Hispanics love the welfare state and the party which stands for it, especially its newest iteration in ObamaCare:

The poll, which surveyed 887 likely Latino voters, shows that 62 percent of respondents approve of the overall job Obama has done with health care while in office, including his creation of the controversial plan for comprehensive health care reform. The poll was conducted the Sept. 11-13 and the margin of sampling error is +/- three percentage points.

More here.

Heather Mac Donald gets it right, for National Review, here:

"It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation."

Thomas Sowell Summarizes Obama's First Term

"[I]t is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly."

Here.

Thomas Sowell Recognizes Tom Dewey In Mitt Romney

Thomas Sowell recognizes Tom Dewey in Mitt Romney here, as did we, and divines the horrible consequences of Romney's loss:

Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.

Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.

Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008-- "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"-- can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.

This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.

Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian President Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012. 

Hurricane Sandy Victims Search For Gasoline

In the Mad Max movies, it took an apocalypse to start the war for gasoline. In 2012 in New York and New Jersey it only took a Category 1 hurricane.

Oh yeah. We're so advanced.  

Republicans Lose Again Because They Offered No Conservative Alternative

Andrew McCarthy for National Review here gets it, even if I would quibble about the precision of his election results:

In truth, millions of Americans have decided that Republicans are not a viable alternative because they are already too much like Democrats. ...

Washington’s Republican establishment is progressive, not conservative. ...

[T]he Republican campaign called for enlarging a military our current spending on which dwarfs the combined defense budgets of the next several highest-spending nations. When was the last time you heard a Republican explain what departments and entitlements he’d slash to pay for that? ...

Republicans talk about limited central government, but they do not believe in it ... They look at a money-hemorrhaging disaster like Medicare, whose unsustainability is precisely caused by the intrusion of government, and they say, “Let’s preserve it — in fact, let’s make its preservation the centerpiece of our campaign.” ...

Truth be told, most of today’s GOP does not believe Washington makes things worse. Republicans think the federal government — by confiscating, borrowing, and printing money — is the answer to every problem, rather than the source of most. That is why those running the party today, when they ran Washington during the Bush years, orchestrated an expansion of government size, scope, and spending that would still boggle the mind had Obama not come along. ... No matter what they say in campaigns, today’s Republicans are champions of massive, centralized government. They just think it needs to be run smarter — as if the problem were not human nature and the nature of government, but just that we haven’t quite gotten the org-chart right yet.

That is not materially different from what the Democrats believe. ... Tuesday pitted proud progressives against reticent progressives; slightly more preferred the true-believers. For Americans who don’t see much daylight between the two parties — one led by the president who keeps spending money we don’t have and the other by congressional Republicans who keep writing the checks and extending the credit line — voting wasn’t worth the effort.

McCarthy thinks about 2 million fewer voters showed up in 2012 than in 2004, which is "staggering", except that his election math already looks just a little off. Today I'm showing 122.5 million total votes in 2012, and 122.3 million in 2004, eight years and two elections ago. Still, that is a staggering comparison when you realize that the population has grown by a net 21 million over the period.

Clearly, as McCarthy says, the voters in 2012 "shrugged", but the shrug was actually bigger in 1996 when Republicans again characteristically picked two other moderate losers in Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Fully 8% fewer ended up voting in 1996 than in 1992 (1% fewer voted in 1988 than in 1984).

Starting with 1968 and ending with 2008, the average increase in total votes cast in the presidential from election to election has been 6%. 2012 compared to 2008 shows 6% fewer votes cast. The slightly smaller shrug over moderate Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan may reflect the distance in time and understanding from the debates over conservatism in the 1980s and 1990s.

The single biggest gains in total votes cast, incidentally, occurred in 2004 in Bush 43 v. Kerry (16% more votes cast than in 2000) when war in Iraq put patriotism center stage (just barely 51% voted for that despite buying off seniors with Medicare Part D in 2003), followed by 1992 in Bush 41 v. Clinton (13% more votes cast than in 1988) when the issues were breaking the no new taxes pledge (43% voted against that) and "that giant sucking sound" (19% voted against that).

Republicans still haven't learned how to put conservatism all together and wrap it in a bow.

Of 7000 Banks, 3500 Need Recapitalization, 2000 Need To Sell

So note various experts in this story by Stephen Gandel for Fortune, who concludes:

Mortgage rates are about one percentage point higher than they would be if we had more competition. Apply that to all mortgages, and that higher interest rate costs consumers about $100 billion a year in extra interest. Not to mention all those who can't actually get refinanced. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that we should figure out a way to keep small banks around.

The bottom line: Dodd-Frank will not go away because Obama is not going away, so up to as many as 6300 banks may go away, destroying what's left of free market competition in banking. The people are already the losers, and stand to lose even more.

Since the beginning of 2008, 460 banks have failed.

Larry Kudlow Slanders Christ On His Radio Program

Larry Kudlow, former Democrat, member of SDS, drug addict and alcoholic, and supposedly a Jewish convert to Christianity, slandered Christ in the final hour of his radio program yesterday. That's a lot of "formers".

He did so while attacking Paul Krugman for advocating that the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire as a remedy for the fiscal cliff, ridiculing the idea with the ever popular provincialism "for Christ's sake".

Obviously the defeat of Mitt Romney has pushed all of Kudlow's buttons at once. He began the program with a full-throated denunciation of the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party and its anti-amnesty stance on illegal immigrants, saying it must be "crushed".

You can take the man out of the SDS, but you can't take the SDS out of the man.

You can not hear a podcast of Kudlow's program anytime you don't want to, here.

Larry Kudlow Declares War On Pat Buchanan Wing Of Republican Party

Just now on the radio show, saying the anti-amnesty wing, the Pat Buchanan wing, of the Republican Party must be defeated and "crushed".

Two back to back defeats of liberal/moderate Republican candidates for president continue to be misinterpreted by the fifth column on the right.

They should join the Democrat Party once and for all.

David Frum Loves The 47%

Here: 

"To be a patriot is to love your country as it is. Those who seem to despise half of America will never be trusted to govern any of it. Those who cherish only the country's past will not be entrusted with its future."

David Frum should know a thing or two about patriotism. He's from Canada.

Did the Founders love England as it was, or any of the huddled masses yearning to be free love the hellholes they came from as they were?

Gold To Oil Ratio Skyrockets to 20.11

The sale on oil relative to gold just got much better.

The action, however, is mostly on the side of gold, which is movin' on up because of Obama's re-election.

He aims to tax and spend, but the US House stands in the way of that, which takes some of the pressure off the need to borrow money or print it, which is negative for gold. But with Ben Bernanke serving at his pleasure at the Fed, dollar devaluation through quantitative easing is still positive for gold and negative for the dollar.

Gold doubled under Obama's first term, from $850 the ounce to $1,730 today. I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen again.

$3,400 the ounce in 2016?

Just the thought of it makes my nose bleed.

Don't Blame The 47%

Don't blame the 47%.

• The percentage which Romney said wouldn't vote for him in the general (the takers)
• The percentage which did vote for him in the general (the makers)
• The percentage which didn't vote for him in the Republican primaries (the achers)

Instead, blame Romney (the faker).

Obama Spotted Repairing Power Lines In New Jersey

h/t Nita

Why It's Too Early To Evaluate Election Turnout

Election turnout in 2012 as of right now is 117.5 million, dramatically lower than 2004, let alone 2008.

Turnout in 2008 was 131.5 million, in 2004 122.3 million, and in 2000 105.4 million.

Hurricane Sandy badly disrupted voting in densely populated areas of the eastern seaboard, especially in hard hit New York, namely in Queens, Long Island and Staten Island. The difference in New York alone between 2008 and 2012 to date is 1.6 million, and 600,000 in New Jersey.

Add to this the late voting arrangements for voters in New Jersey, and the absentee and military vote being tabulated after election day and the turnout numbers for 2012 could yet change significantly, even if relatively few races might be impacted by the outcome.

It's still too early to draw sweeping conclusions about the meaning of the turnout until we know more exactly what it is.

Rush Limbaugh Is Grasping At Straws To Explain Romney's Loss

Yesterday Rush informed us that maybe Romney lost because there are now more of "them" than of us.

In other words, we on the right are now demographically outnumbered by Democrat Hispanics, Blacks, etc. and won't be able to win anymore without more of "them" in the Republican Party. That is the reflexive interpretation of the Republican Establishment, as reported here:

"It's not about geography anymore with the Republican Party," said Margaret Hoover, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor. "It's about demographics, and we've got to start thinking about growing the party."

Today he's changing his tune. Today he's blaming . . . the white or conservative or Christian Republican base!

In other words, because Romney may have underperformed McCain's turnout (by 2.8 million) therefore Republicans didn't turn out for Romney.

Well, how does Rush know they were Republicans? What if they were independents?

I don't know how you can blame the base when for the first time ever I had to wait in line to vote on Tuesday, in deep red semi-rural Michigan, like many others all across the country.

And I don't know how you square that with the fact that it wasn't even close in South Carolina, ground zero for Tea Party antipathy toward Mitt Romney. The right everywhere held its nose and turned out, not for Romney it is true, but to defeat Barack Obama.

And now Rush is blaming US!

Gee, thanks Rush. You've just given the Establishment another reason to exclude conservatives from the Republican Party, and it isn't even true.

Turnout yesterday won't be precisely known for weeks, and it is important to wait, not just to learn the Republican turnout, but the Democrat contrary to what Rush is saying today.

In 2008 McCain slightly underperformed Bush in 2004 in the swing states, but in 2008 Obama way outperformed John Kerry from 2004, by 3 million in the swing states if I remember correctly. Obama won in those states by a margin of only 1.4 million. A half million Republicans weren't to blame for that.