See the graph of historical US unemployment at The Wall Street Journal here:
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Ads For Democrats Assault Readers of Conservative Websites
This wouldn't have happened in the good old days of print:
Friday, February 3, 2012
Jesus' Message About Rich And Poor Is Meaningless To Us In Obama's Hands
"Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48b).
From this easy misappropriation of a text, which is set in an apocalyptic future where a final reckoning between God and man occurs, one might conclude that President Obama has become a fundamentalist who thinks the teaching of Jesus speaks directly to marginal tax rate policy of the federal government of the United States in the year 2012.
Somehow I don't believe that's what they taught him in Rev. Wright's church.
It is left to us liberals of a certain sort to point out to the president that the teaching of Jesus is not exactly a guide book for conducting our happy lives here in the 21st century, and that this text is instead a witness to the meaning of the true cost of discipleship which Jesus taught, its true cost not just to the wealthy but also to those "to whom little is given".
Somehow I don't believe that's what they taught him in Rev. Wright's church.
It is left to us liberals of a certain sort to point out to the president that the teaching of Jesus is not exactly a guide book for conducting our happy lives here in the 21st century, and that this text is instead a witness to the meaning of the true cost of discipleship which Jesus taught, its true cost not just to the wealthy but also to those "to whom little is given".
To his own disciples, his own little flock, Jesus says in the very same chapter the president quotes, "Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth" (Luke 12:33).
Sell that ye have and give alms.
Sell that ye have and give alms.
From this we learn that Jesus expected his followers, whether poor or rich, to turn their backs on their former way of life in every detail, goods, fame, child and wife, liquidate that way of life, and help the needy and prepare for God's kingdom which he said was "at hand".
Accordingly much is required of those who have much, because what they have is much. Little is required of those who have little, because what they have is little. By definition a rich man who repents turns his back on much, and by definition a poor man who repents turns his back on little. The teaching is cast tautologically to emphasize the point.
Accordingly much is required of those who have much, because what they have is much. Little is required of those who have little, because what they have is little. By definition a rich man who repents turns his back on much, and by definition a poor man who repents turns his back on little. The teaching is cast tautologically to emphasize the point.
But it is all required of the disciple nonetheless, whether the much or the little: "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33).
Do you know anyone like that? I know I do not. And I know that I am not one of them.
I am not a disciple of Jesus.
Do you know anyone like that? I know I do not. And I know that I am not one of them.
I am not a disciple of Jesus.
Now, if we were to apply this teaching evenly, unlike the president, to the contemporary tax debate, it would naturally mean that rich and poor alike owe everything which they have to the government, which is of course absurd, except under a Marxist interpretation of the text, which is exactly what many in America suspect underlies President Obama's rhetoric.
That Jesus' teaching is so one-sidedly represented by our leftist president in the public sphere shouldn't really surprise us, however. He is not the first trimmer to address the American people.
That we owe everything to God according to Jesus' teaching is not even acknowledged in the one place where you should expect to hear it: the church.
The most you will hear you owe is 10 percent, the tithe.
The most you will hear you owe is 10 percent, the tithe.
So-called disciples of Christ everywhere trim and hedge around these texts because these texts are simply too difficult to square with the reality of a mundane existence which quietly whimpers, decade upon decade, century upon century, that Jesus' predicted in-breaking of the kingdom of God, final judgment and establishment of God's justice never happened. We continue to live in a broken world where good and evil grow up side by side, within us and without, while Christian utopians everywhere deny this reality and proclaim not just that God's kingdom is here, but that they are it.
After long experience of them, however, many of us beg to differ.
They have more in common with Barack Obama than they care to admit: a delusional version of reality, often accompanied by a healthy helping of contempt for the non-believers.
It is a unique experience to be hated by the Democrats and the Republicans alike.
What we manifestly should not do today is apply the teaching of Jesus to the tax debate . . . because Jesus did not. As far as he was concerned, taxes were beside the point. The world was coming to an end, so let the dead bury their own dead. They would not remain unburied for long.
Inevitably we would fall short of Jesus' teaching, and we do, as any honest observer will admit. Jesus' teaching had its historical opportunity, and we live in our own unique moment. He is not here to speak to us in ours. His voice reaches us from his past, spoken to us, let us at least say, as true man. As true men like him we should listen to it. And therefore inasmuch as his moment was everyman's moment, it is not without significance in our own time.
After long experience of them, however, many of us beg to differ.
They have more in common with Barack Obama than they care to admit: a delusional version of reality, often accompanied by a healthy helping of contempt for the non-believers.
It is a unique experience to be hated by the Democrats and the Republicans alike.
What we manifestly should not do today is apply the teaching of Jesus to the tax debate . . . because Jesus did not. As far as he was concerned, taxes were beside the point. The world was coming to an end, so let the dead bury their own dead. They would not remain unburied for long.
Inevitably we would fall short of Jesus' teaching, and we do, as any honest observer will admit. Jesus' teaching had its historical opportunity, and we live in our own unique moment. He is not here to speak to us in ours. His voice reaches us from his past, spoken to us, let us at least say, as true man. As true men like him we should listen to it. And therefore inasmuch as his moment was everyman's moment, it is not without significance in our own time.
For example, if (leftist) Americans who import one half of the teaching of this failed utopian preacher for their own utopian schemes stopped doing so, would this not instantly become a much better country?
If the teaching of Jesus about rich and poor means anything in the present debate about taxes, isn't it that our expectations of each other should mean that we treat all human beings as human beings? But I highly doubt very many on the left want to talk about the poor paying their fair share of taxes, especially when nearly half of us scandalously pay nothing. The poor are too good to be talked to like that, they tell us.
The rich by virtue of being rich thus receive their opprobrium, while the poor receive an exaltation they do not deserve.
To make the contribution of the poor fair, should it not be proportional, a percentage, so that in that way they are made equal to the rich, who would also pay proportionally even though in sum their contribution will make them superior to the poor?
It is wrong to inflame the poor to hate the rich, to awaken the greed, envy and covetousness to which all are susceptible by nature, and of which all are guilty, poor and rich alike.
If the teaching of Jesus about rich and poor means anything in the present debate about taxes, isn't it that our expectations of each other should mean that we treat all human beings as human beings? But I highly doubt very many on the left want to talk about the poor paying their fair share of taxes, especially when nearly half of us scandalously pay nothing. The poor are too good to be talked to like that, they tell us.
The rich by virtue of being rich thus receive their opprobrium, while the poor receive an exaltation they do not deserve.
To make the contribution of the poor fair, should it not be proportional, a percentage, so that in that way they are made equal to the rich, who would also pay proportionally even though in sum their contribution will make them superior to the poor?
It is wrong to inflame the poor to hate the rich, to awaken the greed, envy and covetousness to which all are susceptible by nature, and of which all are guilty, poor and rich alike.
But it would also be helpful if more so-called Christian Americans came to terms with their proclivity to view "success" from such a paltry, materialist perspective which insists that not having a job makes one nothing more than a depreciating asset. This is but the flipside of the Marxist coin which treats everyone as chattel, as productive assets of the mere material variety. We are richer in things than failed Marxist regimes, but no less dead inside for de-humanizing the unemployed, the elderly and the unborn, some of whom we have now killed in the millions for almost four decades.
How long can that injustice tempt fate?
Jesus clearly understood the dangers of wealth to the individual soul, the responsibility wealth imposes, and how the sheer size and weight of it can keep one from entering the kingdom of God. But American Christians no less than others press on in pursuit of a secure retirement and the paid off mortgage which has replaced the BMW as the status symbol of choice, gathering up in barns and building bigger ones to hold the increase.
Their recourse to measures which now threaten their own freedoms show that they fear this night their soul shall be required of them and that they will be found wanting.
Wealth exerts a powerful magnetic pull which sucks people inward like a black hole sucks in light. The darkness of it blinds us to the reality of suffering and injustice swirling all around us. Turned by it inward in this way, wealth finds opportunity in in-dwelling evil where it concentrates pride in ourselves to such an extent that it becomes incapable even of the honest human feeling of sympathy, with the result that charity becomes the opportunity only for the praise of other men instead of the relief of suffering which God rewards when done in secret.
Our poorest American brothers and sisters, it should be remembered, are better off than 2/3 of the rest of the whole world.
"Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me."
In truth God calls to the American Empire, but not through the spokesmen du jour.
This is why Jesus is worshipped.
How long can that injustice tempt fate?
Jesus clearly understood the dangers of wealth to the individual soul, the responsibility wealth imposes, and how the sheer size and weight of it can keep one from entering the kingdom of God. But American Christians no less than others press on in pursuit of a secure retirement and the paid off mortgage which has replaced the BMW as the status symbol of choice, gathering up in barns and building bigger ones to hold the increase.
Their recourse to measures which now threaten their own freedoms show that they fear this night their soul shall be required of them and that they will be found wanting.
Wealth exerts a powerful magnetic pull which sucks people inward like a black hole sucks in light. The darkness of it blinds us to the reality of suffering and injustice swirling all around us. Turned by it inward in this way, wealth finds opportunity in in-dwelling evil where it concentrates pride in ourselves to such an extent that it becomes incapable even of the honest human feeling of sympathy, with the result that charity becomes the opportunity only for the praise of other men instead of the relief of suffering which God rewards when done in secret.
Our poorest American brothers and sisters, it should be remembered, are better off than 2/3 of the rest of the whole world.
"Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me."
In truth God calls to the American Empire, but not through the spokesmen du jour.
This is why Jesus is worshipped.
Labor Participation Rate Falls To Carter Administration Levels in 1979-1980
The average civilian labor force participation rate during the Carter Administration was 63.2 percent.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Romney Came Late To Conservatism And Still Can't Speak It Very Well
So Charles Krauthammer, here:
"Romney is a guy who came late to his new ideology and still can't speak it very well."
Well, he doesn't even understand what it means when he says it. He's a fake.
Whatever Ann Coulter is, it isn't Conservative
Whatever Ann Coulter is, it isn't conservative.
At least since her endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2008 we've had, on the other hand, some good clues about what she in fact is.
For example, she was willing to endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign for her were Hillary the candidate for the Democrats for president. The reason? Because Senator John McCain, the Republican, was determined to end the practice of waterboarding prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Now she has endorsed John McCain's one time nemesis from 2008, Gov. Mitt Romney. And Gov. Romney has just put his foot in it twice only days after winning the very same Florida primary McCain won four years ago, and shown us thereby that he isn't a conservative, either.
Proclaiming himself content with the social safety net for the very poorest Americans, Gov. Romney pledged on one day to expand it in the event it becomes inadequate to the task.
On the very next he announced his commitment to the federal minimum wage, and indexing it to inflation.
This is the same Gov. Romney Ann Coulter predicted would lose to President Obama, and therefore the Republicans had better nominate Gov. Chris Christie instead. Also the same Gov. Romney now endorsed by . . . Sen. John McCain.
Thus Ann Coulter is on record in support of a vigorous and muscular government, one which tortures prisoners of war, further entrenches entitlements which create a class dependent on the dole, and interferes in the free marketplace so that the unemployed, and especially the young, gather no useful work experience because employers cannot afford to pay large numbers of them the minimum wage.
In keeping with this unlimited government philosophy, Ann Coulter now defends RomneyCare in Massachusetts on the grounds that government compulsion is quite American:
States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.
To the likes of Ann Coulter, "government is" evidently means "government ought."
Nevermind that conscription was resisted and unsuccessful from the beginning of the country. Fewer than 9 percent of Civil Warriors were drafted. The vast majority were volunteers. And volunteers alone comprise our Armed Forces today and have since 1973.
No one is compelled to marry, only to fulfill certain basic requirements if they choose to. Those who remain single aren't obliged to get blood tests. And those who cohabit forego them entirely without fear of the blood test police knocking down their doors.
Yes "we" pay for public schools, that is, we who own property, but the non-propertied classes do not. But no one forced me to buy a house which is taxed to fund schools.
It's in our interests to comply with government which clearly secures our interests, which is why we support property laws which guarantee clear title and oppose shortcuts which undermine them, like the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, a colossal assault on the most basic of all rights we look to government to safeguard but hasn't.
We also expect government to regulate banking to protect the integrity of our savings and of our currency, but it has done neither.
We also expect government to regulate banking to protect the integrity of our savings and of our currency, but it has done neither.
And no, I didn't have a six hour wait at the DMV. I mailed my check and got my driver's license renewal in the mail. So what if the picture is four years old? But my mother killed the neighbor's prize sow with a car when she was 16, and never drove again. From then until she died at the age of 93 no one forced her to stand in line at the DMV to get a license she would never need.
To hear Ann tell it, we might as well castrate and sell our young, or even eat them because these things were said to be the custom once upon a time, as adultery, incest and sodomy manifestly ever are:
Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto. -- John Locke
Is this the reason Ann Coulter is friendly with sodomites today? Because they exist? Or should Thomas Jefferson's advice to castrate sodomites carry more weight?
To hear Ann tell it, we might as well castrate and sell our young, or even eat them because these things were said to be the custom once upon a time, as adultery, incest and sodomy manifestly ever are:
Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto. -- John Locke
Is this the reason Ann Coulter is friendly with sodomites today? Because they exist? Or should Thomas Jefferson's advice to castrate sodomites carry more weight?
Did someone hit Ann Coulter with a rock? And is she now living under it? More than half of the country hates ObamaCare because it is compulsory.
The animus against compulsion is as old in America as the revolt against taxation without representation. And older still for refugees from religious compulsion.
If Ann Coulter were alive in 1776 with her present views she'd be a loyalist who would have ended up fleeing to Canada. And in 1861 she'd have gladly plunged the country into a war which killed hundreds of thousands of fathers and brothers because some South Carolinians killed a Union mule at Ft. Sumter.
Ann Coulter's way of thinking has a long pedigree. It's called tyranny.
Ann Coulter's way of thinking has a long pedigree. It's called tyranny.
Ann Coulter Flashback: Hillary Clinton More Conservative Than John McCain
"She's more conservative than he is," Coulter said on Fox News. "[Hillary Clinton] lies less than John McCain. She's smarter than John McCain. I will campaign for her if it's McCain," she said.
Coulter's "reasoning" had to do with John McCain's resolve to stop torture at Guantanamo.
CNN here had reported just the day before:
[Sen. John McCain] passed a key test Tuesday in winning Florida's primary, the first early contest that only allowed registered Republicans to participate.
Reacting to criticisms from his party's most conservative quarters, McCain told the San Francisco Gate Thursday, "I'll continue to reach out to all in the party, try to unite the party, until everybody realizes that the only way we're going to defeat the Democratic candidate is through a united party."
Ann Coulter has now famously endorsed McCain's defeated opponent Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election as the most conservative, but just yesterday Romney re-affirmed his support for indexing the minimum wage to inflation, as reported here:
[A] reporter asked Romney aboard his campaign plane Wednesday if he still believed the minimum wage should be indexed to account for inflation, essentially increasing the minimum wage each year to keep up with the cost of living.
Romney failed to expound on his position, but said he has "the same thoughts as in the past." Since he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney has said he supports automatic hikes in the minimum wage.
That may be a Republican position now and again, but it's never been a conservative position, let alone a free-market capitalist position.
Maybe Mitt learned to like it at Bain Capital.
At least now we know what Ann Coulter thinks conservatism is: waterboarding people and interfering with what employers pay them.
Coulter's "reasoning" had to do with John McCain's resolve to stop torture at Guantanamo.
CNN here had reported just the day before:
[Sen. John McCain] passed a key test Tuesday in winning Florida's primary, the first early contest that only allowed registered Republicans to participate.
Reacting to criticisms from his party's most conservative quarters, McCain told the San Francisco Gate Thursday, "I'll continue to reach out to all in the party, try to unite the party, until everybody realizes that the only way we're going to defeat the Democratic candidate is through a united party."
Ann Coulter has now famously endorsed McCain's defeated opponent Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election as the most conservative, but just yesterday Romney re-affirmed his support for indexing the minimum wage to inflation, as reported here:
[A] reporter asked Romney aboard his campaign plane Wednesday if he still believed the minimum wage should be indexed to account for inflation, essentially increasing the minimum wage each year to keep up with the cost of living.
Romney failed to expound on his position, but said he has "the same thoughts as in the past." Since he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney has said he supports automatic hikes in the minimum wage.
That may be a Republican position now and again, but it's never been a conservative position, let alone a free-market capitalist position.
Maybe Mitt learned to like it at Bain Capital.
At least now we know what Ann Coulter thinks conservatism is: waterboarding people and interfering with what employers pay them.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Instead of 10,267 US Representatives We Had 12,592 Lobbyists in 2011
If we followed the US Constitution our House of Representatives would have 10,267 elected representatives today.
Republicans and Democrats put the kibosh on that in 1929 to concentrate power in themselves, which is why today we have only 435 elected to the House. They don't much give a damn what we think about anything, and the approval rating of Congress is now so low it's almost within the margin of polling error.
Instead of the founders' idea of adequate representation we had 12,592 active lobbyists in 2011, spending over $3 billion to influence the 435 petty tyrants. Isn't it odd how closely the natural lobbying market today approximates what the authors of the constitution deemed to be a suitable level of representation?
Does anyone really think Occupy Wall Street, The Tea Party, The Heritage Foundation, The National Association of Realtors, The American Bankers' Association or any of the other myriad interest groups would exist in their current form if Congress were more representative of the individual American? Congressmen must sit in their offices and laugh at all the wasted, disorganized and therefore impotent effort spent influencing their votes.
When a representative's constituency is only 30,000 strong instead of 700,000, however, the prospects of his reelection are more sensitive to a narrower range of interests: Yours. Blow it with a few thousand of us and out he would go.
No wonder they got rid of the idea when they could.
Isn't it time to right this wrong?
Romney Will Be Competing For The Same Voters Who Already Prefer Obama
The metros:
Romney beat Gingrich in the urban centers of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach County, in the cities of Southwest Florida, across a swath of Central Florida from Tampa to Orlando and Daytona Beach, and in northeast Jacksonville. Gingrich defeated Romney in 35 less populated counties -- painting a contrast between Romney’s urban and suburban support and Gingrich’s appeal to rural Republicans.
More here.
Florida Liberals Help Republicans Select Mitt Romney, A Candidate They Can Beat
And no wonder. Romney spent more on ads in Florida's primary alone than John McCain spent in the entire country in the 2008 primaries:
It's estimated that the Romney campaign and its associated bodies spent $15.3 m[illi]on on TV spots in Florida in the past month alone. To put that into context John McCain spent just $11 million on ads during his entire 2008 primary campaign.
There have been a number of academic studies that suggest that while negative campaigning can motivate the base of support it can also alienate other voters, thus reducing voter turnout.
The negative ads motivated Romney's base alright, the liberal base:
females (52 percent of his vote);
people who believe abortion should be legal in all cases (57 percent);
think of themselves as moderate/liberal (59 percent);
are opposed to The Tea Party (57 percent);
favor illegals as temporary workers (51 percent);
make $200,000 or more (60 percent).
And yes, this alienated other voters, namely the conservatives who even in Florida outnumber such liberals nearly two-to-one: just 11 percent of Romney's Florida voters think Romney is a true conservative. Hence the immediate appearance of Ann Romney last night protesting how conservative is her husband.
The fact is 41 percent of Romney voters in Florida self-identified as Independents, not Republicans.
Just 48 percent of Romney voters called themselves Republican in the exit polls.
Considering that Republican turnout was down 16 percent from 2008, it is hard not to conclude that Democrats this year especially queered the vote in the Florida Republican primary. With over 360,000 non-Republicans trying to select the Republican candidate, conservatives arguably had two not entirely satisfactory candidates and lots of negative ads dividing and subduing their turnout. Divide and conquer, and personally destroy, both the strategies of Democrats. In 2008 when Republican turnout was much higher, the number of non-Republicans interfering was only slightly higher at 390,000. Romney's victory in 2012 thus owed much more to them than it would have in 2008.
Considering that Republican turnout was down 16 percent from 2008, it is hard not to conclude that Democrats this year especially queered the vote in the Florida Republican primary. With over 360,000 non-Republicans trying to select the Republican candidate, conservatives arguably had two not entirely satisfactory candidates and lots of negative ads dividing and subduing their turnout. Divide and conquer, and personally destroy, both the strategies of Democrats. In 2008 when Republican turnout was much higher, the number of non-Republicans interfering was only slightly higher at 390,000. Romney's victory in 2012 thus owed much more to them than it would have in 2008.
Florida liberals have just helped select the Republican they know they can beat in the general: Mitt Romney.
Unfortunately Republicans nationally may not realize that the well was tainted before it's too late.
Unfortunately Republicans nationally may not realize that the well was tainted before it's too late.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Romney's Biggest Demographic in FL Was Women
52 percent of women overall, and 51 percent of married women.
Also notable about Romney voters:
Self-described moderates, 62 percent;
$200K+ in income, 60 percent;
Self-described moderate/liberal, 59 percent;
Oppose Tea Party, 57 percent;
Religion Catholic, 56 percent;
Abortion legal in all cases, 57 percent;
Doing well financially, 52 percent;
Foreclosures not a problem where I live, 54 percent;
Mitt about right on the issues, 82 percent;
Decided more than a month ago, 55 percent;
Campaign ads were important to decision, 59 percent;
Self-described Republican, 48 percent;
Self-described Independent, 41 percent.
"Sure, I'm a Republican."
Also notable about Romney voters:
Self-described moderates, 62 percent;
$200K+ in income, 60 percent;
Self-described moderate/liberal, 59 percent;
Oppose Tea Party, 57 percent;
Religion Catholic, 56 percent;
Abortion legal in all cases, 57 percent;
Doing well financially, 52 percent;
Foreclosures not a problem where I live, 54 percent;
Mitt about right on the issues, 82 percent;
Decided more than a month ago, 55 percent;
Campaign ads were important to decision, 59 percent;
Self-described Republican, 48 percent;
Self-described Independent, 41 percent.
"Sure, I'm a Republican."
Romney Trots Out Wife Ann To Defend His Conservatism
Oh yeah, that'll convince 'em, getting your wife to defend you against the attacks.
What a sissy.
Here:
“I know where his values are on a personal level. He is a conservative guy. I know how he has governed from a conservative point of view, and I know how he will govern, which is from a conservative place to rein in the spending, and help the country."
Repeat after me, "Mittens is a Reagan Robot, just like Newt."
FL Exit Polls Show Women Go Big For Romney at 51 Percent, Gingrich Second with 29
Among women, Texas Rep. Ron Paul won six percent, Gingrich won 29 percent, Romney won 51 percent and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 13 percent.
Why aren't Santorum's and Paul's negatives with women indicative of their (non-existent) infidelities?
Erick Erickson predicted here that Cain and Gingrich would do poorly with women and not progress to the nomination because of their alleged infidelities.
Republican women in Florida must be pro-choice big time.
The So-Called Conservatives Invented ObamaCare
So says James Taranto in so many words, quoted here in Forbes last October:
“Whatever the particular differences, the Heritage mandate [dating back as far as 1989] was indistinguishable in principle from the ObamaCare one. In both cases, the federal government would force individuals to purchase a product from a private company—something that Congress has never done before. ... [I]t seems to us that the [subsequent Heritage Foundation] brief [against ObamaCare] overstates the extent to which the proposed Heritage mandate was ‘limited' [i.e. to catastrophic coverage]. But it is clear that Heritage has repudiated the idea of an individual mandate… All these years later, it pleases us that our erstwhile employer has come around. ... [I]t worries us that Mitt Romney, who may well be the next president, lacked the instinct to be offended by the idea when it crossed his desk in Boston. ... [T]he next time a think tank or a blue-ribbon commission comes up with an idea this bad, can we trust President Romney to reject it?"
The Heritage Foundation has ingloriously flipped on the issue of the healthcare mandate. It should have more vigorously vetted its origins instead of grasping at straws against HillaryCare.
Lick finger, check wind, go with The Tea Party.
To some, this is enough. But not for the true born sons of liberty.
Laughs at Fed Meetings Peaked With Housing Bubble in 2006
So says The Daily Stag Hunt here, where the data show that laughs suddenly surged in 2006.
Compared with the average of 20 laughs per meeting in the previous six years, laughs in 2006 bubbled up to an average of nearly 44, an increase of 115 percent.
Call it "irrational exuberance."
The meeting with the fewest laughs? October 1, 2001, with just 7 recorded laughs during the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)