Energy Secretary Steven Chu Praises Chevy Volt, Owns No Car, Wife Drives Beemer!

Her car uses premium gas, as reported here.

Greeks Violate Contract Law Just Like ObamaCare Does in America

Obama and the Democrats have violated hundreds of years of contract law in passing ObamaCare because the law forces Americans to enter into health insurance contracts on penalty of fine or even imprisonment. For contracts to be valid in a court of law, however, contracts must be entered into willingly, not under compulsion.

Now we learn here that the Greek Parliament, having thrown out people who won't vote the correct way, has interfered with bond contracts, rewriting the terms after the fact in order to get what it wants:

The Greek parliament's retroactive law last month to insert collective action clauses (CACs) into its bonds to coerce creditor hold-outs has added a fresh twist. These CAC's are likely to be activated over coming days. Use of retroactive laws to change contracts is anathema in credit markets.

Add to this the US housing MERS scandal which has violated the ancient principle of traceable registered property documentation and I'd say we have a trinity of cases demonstrating a complete and utter repudiation of The West by The West.

What A Shock: The New Republic Defends Crony Capitalism

Michael Kazin for The New Republic here argues that crony capitalism isn't really that big a deal because it is pretty much as old as the old Republic itself, except he skips the founders and begins in the nineteenth century.

It doesn't occur to him that perhaps crony capitalism suggested itself to so many Americans because they drank from the well of monarchy for so long. No thoughtful person who respects the founders imagines they were inoculated from the failings attendant upon all natures mixed with good and evil. The left delights in pointing this out, whereas the true right mentions it as a cautionary tale.

We are monarchy's lesser children because of people like John Locke, who was at pains to remind us that "is" does not always mean "ought", else we should, for example, beget and raise children to sell them into slavery because it was done, sometime, somewhere, in the past. Reason is necessary. Respecting ancient practice is not the essential meaning of conservatism, try as the left does to reduce it always to such a formulation. They are the terrible simplifiers still.

The greater children of monarchy are the strong men of Europe who drank deeply from the well of Marx after centuries of experience with kings and queens. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were thus hyperbolic, aberrant, monarchists, and insofar as leftists like Wilson and FDR reinfected America with their example was to no good purpose, no matter how much The New Republicans say so to the contrary.

Mike Shedlock's Political Whopper of the Day: Republicans Hold The Senate

Here's today's political whopper from Mike Shedlock, aka Mish:

"I expect Republicans to hold the Senate, and probably the House regardless of who wins the 2012 presidential sweepstakes."

Excuse me, but to hold the Senate, you have to win it first.

He writes as if he doesn't know that Democrats, not Republicans, currently hold the Senate, and that they stymie every bill coming out of the US House of Representatives, which the Republicans won and currently hold. He complains of gridlock, but doesn't seem to grasp the political reality which is causing it:

"Sadly, a divided do-nothing electorate is the best outcome one can reasonably expect at the moment."

This is an embarrassingly stupid choice of words, unless we the people who elect our representatives and senators are really the do-nothings. Use your dictionary app, Mish.

It's also an especially stupid thing to say since he just said he expects Republicans to have majorities in both House and Senate, in which case a President Obama would be isolated politically, unlike now. Control of the Senate still gives Obama leverage, whereas Republican control of the House since 2010 has taken away his free hand. A politically isolated Obama would represent progress over what we have now, especially if a Republican Congress has enough votes to override his veto.

Mish's ignorance is appalling, and embarrassing. But it's also fairly typical, which is why we have the government we currently have.

The Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate of 63.7 Was Last This Low in May 1983

The pinnacle in this metric was reached in the first four months of the year 2000 at the level of 67.3 percent. Data viewable here.

This is a picture of a society which has lost its driver for jobs.

That driver was debt, mostly in the form of housing. Then government decided under Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich to let you extract the built up capital in housing, skimming the operation like a casino operation.

It was fun while it lasted! At least the Japs had savings to get them through.

Now it's just beans and rice, and rice and beans.

If we had some beans.

If we had some rice. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this is trending on Dec 13, 2021, here's the latest chart showing the 2020 average for CIVPART at 61.7%, a level last seen round about 1976. Things have only gotten worse. The level in Nov 2021 is 61.8%. I include a chart for the sputtering debt engine as well.

We had beans and rice tonight, by the way.

 

 

Curley Practising "The Mussolini" in 'Movie Maniacs' (1935)

(see it here)

Gingrich Increases Delegates Over 200 Percent With Super Tuesday Wins

Here's the delegate snapshot from The Wall Street Journal, showing the new totals for each candidate after Super Tuesday.

Romney's lead is making all the headlines, but Gingrich's surge yesterday was the most significant. But can Gingrich keep it going?

Gingrich went from a total of 33 to 105, a gain of 218 percent.

Romney went from a total of 203 to 415, a gain of 104 percent.

Santorum went from a total of 92 to 176, a gain of 91 percent.

Paul went from a total of 25 to 47, a gain of 88 percent.

Gingrich is as vulnerable as Romney on the individual mandate. Newt has believed in it at least since 2006, and famously agreed with Romney in a Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas last October that they both got the idea from the so-called conservative Heritage Foundation (source of following transcript):

MR. ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.


MR. GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.


MR. ROMNEY: Well, it was something - yeah, we got it from you and the - you - got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.


MR. GINGRICH: No, but - well, you - well, you - (inaudible) -


MR. ROMNEY: But let me - but let me just -


MR. GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true.


MR. ROMNEY: Well, I thought -


MR. GINGRICH: You did not get that from me.


MR. ROMNEY: I think you -


MR. GINGRICH: You got it from the Heritage Foundation.


MR. ROMNEY: And - and you've never - never supported -


MR. GINGRICH: I was - I agree with them, but I'm just saying what you've said to this audience just now plain wasn't true. That's not where you got it from.


MR. ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask - have you - have you supported in the past an individual mandate?


MR. GINGRICH: I absolutely did, with the Heritage Foundation, against "Hillarycare."


MR. ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?


MR. GINGRICH: Yes, sir.


MR. ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.


MR. GINGRICH: OK. Little broader. (Laughter.)


MR. ROMNEY: OK.

In 2009 Romney specifically argued for the individual mandate in this USA Today op-ed as an acceptable alternative to the public option as embodied in Nancy Pelosi's version of ObamaCare which passed in the US House. Since then Romney has flipped on this issue, claiming repeatedly that he has been against imposing a RomneyCare-like plan on the whole country.

The Senate version of ObamaCare, which eventually became the law but is now going to be challenged before the Supreme Court, represents what Romney hoped for: government compulsion in healthcare insurance which kept government out of the insurance business itself (public option) while preserving the system of private, free-enterprise, health insurance more or less as it exists.

Historically, Republicans have been against a government-sponsored health insurance enterprise because of the perception that government has an unfair advantage against which private business cannot hope to compete and succeed. A case in point today would be Fannie and Freddie, the failed government mortgage giants without whom, alas, few people today can hope to get a mortgage. If you want a vision of failed government healthcare in about ten years, consider the miserable failed condition of those GSEs today.

This is Santorum's opportunity, but many of us wonder whether he's got the right stuff to ride this issue to the presidency. And it might become a moot point after the Supremes rule on ObamaCare by this summer.

Gingrich for his part has tried to change the subject to jobs and growth viewed through the lens of energy independence. It is a good strategy, but it leaves many voters who are worried about the growth and intrusion of the State with a nagging question unanswered: how is Newt really different from Romney philosophically if he's been willing to flirt with mandates?

To Date Republicans Prefer A Conservative To Romney, 3.8 Million to 3.2 Million

The only problem is, they are divided over which conservative.

For every Romney voter to date in the Republican primaries, another 1.2 voters prefer either Santorum or Gingrich.

Santorum has the edge with 1.9 million voters to Gingrich's 1.8 million, as shown here:

Everything You Need To Know About Gerald R. Ford

"Reagan’s uncommon good sense extended to sound judgments about controversial people who were similarly outspoken and principled—and thus unpopular if not under constant fire. He was an early supporter of Pat Moynihan’s courageous efforts to end decades of hypocrisy at the United Nations—at a time when even many Republicans still viewed the institution as a sacred cow. Jeanne Kilpatrick’s contentious, but insightful distinctions between Stalinists and right-wing dictators abroad won over an unabashedly supportive Reagan. He praised Soviet dissidents—even as a cautious Gerald Ford refused to meet with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. When William Bennet was taking a beating for his unsettling honest talk about the corruption in our schools and universities, Reagan brushed off worries that his Education Secretary was becoming a political liability."

-- Victor Davis Hanson, here

The American Working, Middle and Upper Classes By Income

The working class pulls in about $2 trillion annually and includes all earned compensation up to $45,000 per year. This group forms the broad base of the American people, numbering nearly 107 million strong, or 71 percent of all workers in 2010.

The middle class also pulls in about $2 trillion annually and includes all compensation from $45,000 up to $100,000 per year. This group is represented by 34 million individuals, or 23 percent of all workers in 2010.

The upper class, too, pulls in about $2 trillion annually and includes all compensation from $100,000 to $50 million and beyond! 9 million individuals represent this group, which is just 6 percent of all workers in 2010.

GOP Delegate Snapshot Going Into Super Tuesday: 437 Delegates At Stake Today

From The Wall Street Journal, here:

Obama's Indonesian Nanny Was A Man Who Thought He Was A Woman

As reported here by ABC News:

And so it was, at a cocktail party in 1969, that she met Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, who had arrived in the country two years earlier after marrying her second husband, Indonesian Lolo Soetoro.

Dunham was so impressed by Evie's beef steak and fried rice that she offered her a job in the family home. It didn't take long before Evie also was 8-year-old Barry's caretaker, playing with him and bringing him to and from school.

Neighbors recalled that they often saw Evie leave the house in the evening fully made up and dressed in drag. But she says it's doubtful Barry ever knew.

"He was so young," says Evie. "And I never let him see me wearing women's clothes. But he did see me trying on his mother's lipstick, sometimes. That used to really crack him up."

When the family left in the early 1970s, things started going downhill. She moved in with a boyfriend. 

A Depression in Full-Time Jobs: Over 6 Percent Fewer Than in 2007

Full-time jobs reached a peak measurement on November 1, 2007, at 121.875 million.

On January 1, 2012, full-time jobs had declined 8.03 million to 113.845 million, a fall of 6.6 percent.

The last time full-time employment stood at a similar level to today was November 1, 2003 when 113.892 million people had full-time work.

View the graph and data here.

Part-Time For Economic Reasons Still Over 97 Percent Higher Than in 2007

Part-time employment for economic reasons reached an all-time high of 9.25 million persons as measured on September 1, 2010.

On January 1, 2012 the level still stood at 8.08 million persons, over 97 percent higher than the level measured as recently as February 1, 2007, when the measurement stood at 4.09 million persons.

View the graph and data here.

Part-Time Employment Has Fallen Over 7 Percent From 2007 Peak

Part-time for non-economic reasons reached a peak measurement on March 1, 2007 at 19.75 million persons. On January 1, 2012 the measurement stood at 18.29 million.

View the graph and data here.

Romney in 2009 Openly Favored Tax Penalties To Make People Buy Health Insurance

Romney's op-ed from USA Today is reproduced here.

The relevant portion below is argued in opposition to strong efforts at the time, particularly in the US House under Nancy Pelosi, to pass a healthcare reform bill which included the public option, or government insurance.

Romney's idea, as with RomneyCare in Massachusetts, was to shun the public option in favor of mandated purchase of privately supplied health insurance, under penalty of a tax, which is what we got with the Senate version of healthcare reform now known to us as ObamaCare, under which the tax is called a fine in order for the president to be able to claim that he does not raise taxes on ordinary Americans:

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar."

As many have been maintaining, Romney's reasoning shows no essential disagreement with ObamaCare. Romney favors government compulsion in healthcare.

Real 2011 GDP Finally Exceeds Real 2007 GDP, But Only By 0.83 Percent

The data were found at the Bureau of Economic Analysis here:

YEAR   REAL GDP (2005 chained dollars)

2007       $13.21 trillion

2008         13.16

2009         12.70

2010         13.09

2011         13.32

And On What Will Santorum Run If The Supremes Find The Mandate Unconstitutional?

Sen. Santorum believes the issue of this election season is authoritarianism in government, as quoted here in The Weekly Standard:

". . . Obamacare. That is the biggest issue in this race. It’s an issue about fundamental freedom. It’s an issue about whether you want the government to take your money, and in exchange, give you a ‘right’….But, of course, when the government gives you a right, they can take that right away. And when the government gives you that right, they can tell you how to exercise that right. And they do — not just what doctors you can see and what insurance policies [you can buy], or how much you’re going to get fined if you don’t do what the government tells you to do, but even go[ing] so far as to tell you how to exercise your faith as part of your health care....If the government can go that far with Obamacare, just think what’s next.”

"The Whole Community Should Mutually Accuse and Come to Blows With Each Other"

Just one of the many ways a tyranny maintains itself in power, according to Aristotle.

In our case, bring up women's rights and "health" and make them an issue when they weren't.

A house thus busy being divided against itself is a house which cannot unite in revolt against its master. And what better way to divide the house than according to nature, the division between the sexes?

Another form of Locke's "crossing nature".

Santorum Bashes Everyone But The Prime Culprit: George W. Bush

Here.

Why bash John McCain, Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush?

I don't recall any of these claiming to redefine the Republican Party like W did. And all three of them served honorably in war, one as a prisoner of war, one maimed by war, and one a practised parachutist under fire. W did none of that. And neither did Santorum. 

OK, maybe Herbert Walker came close to an ideological make-over with that kinder, gentler, shtick, but we all know he didn't really mean it. He was not really into that vision thing. But W was full of hubris and said the conservative movement was OVER and that HE would establish a new meaning for it going forward, which boiled down to nothing more than personal loyalty. He must have learned that from the Democrats.

And I don't recall any of these also-rans abandoning free market principles to save the free market like W did. You can rightly say the objects of Santorum's ire represented tax collection for the welfare state, but at least they made a show of being capitalists. George W. Bush, a failed capitalist before he became president, ended his presidency the same way.

W was a knee-jerk liberal on immigration, welfare for the poor and for seniors, and on exporting the American way. A real conservative ought to say so. Rick Santorum never will.