Representative Henry Waxman (D) Wisconsin is really a rather repugnant politician. And not because he's extremely liberal, but rather because he is the quintessential Party hack. Defends anyone & anything with a (D) after its' name, and in recent years has taken on the role of his Party's thug, at least in the House. As the "subpoena king" he "investigates" any opposition with the full weight and power of the House of Representatives (he subpoenaed everyone but Karl Rove's pizza delivery driver in that rather trumped up Valerie Plaim CIA case, and there are dozens of other examples). But now I think he has crossed the line, and in a way that should cause a cold shudder to run along the spines of the members Bund and frankly ANYONE whom is oriented towards examining and discussing history ... particularly when that history revolves around the declination of a Republic. As has oft been said & as both Italy & Germany proved, democracy dies not in the dead of night, but to the sound of thunderous applause.
Yesterday Mr. Waxman, and I reiterate he is the unofficial subpoena "muscle" in the House, sent out an official "letter" to 52 health insurance companies. In it was a questionnaire. Requested, from all 52 companies, was specific information regarding the salaries and names of any and all employees earning over $500,000 per year between 2003 and 2008. Along with the cost, location, and attendance of any and all company retreats, functions and seminars.
Why?
It's naked government intimidation.
First off, if they don't respond willingly to the letter insiders are well aware he will move to subpoena and compel them to testify on live TV, on the Hill, resulting in private citizens being being forced to justify their wages under the spotlight of national television. Second, as his Party is clearly losing control of the health insurance debate they have decided upon a new tactic. They used "CEO salaries" to great effectiveness when it came to vilifying and functionally nationalizing the domestic auto industry and placing permanent federal tentacles within the financial, lending, and credit community. Now it is clear that they intend to demonize, via that same class warfare, the executives in the health insurance industry. "The only way to clamp down on the out of control CEO salaries & bonuses", they'll exclaim with their best FDR "nothing to fear" impersonation, "is to offer a public health insurance program, so the little guy will no longer be gouged." Now who was it that warned against giving into the temptation of allowing the feds to "stick it to" wealthy yet poor performing CEO's in the private sector? I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. And who warned that this will NEVER stop with capping auto or banking executive salaries? This is unambiguous, naked, government thuggery. These are the sorts of actions that 50 years into a Chavez-like socialist paradigm our heirs hear about and ask, "Didn't you see where this was heading?"
It's no body's God D*** business how much those CEO's make, nor where and how much their retreats are. And it just plain creeps me out that not only does he have the audacity to ask, but he thinks he "deserves" to know the answer.
And what further enrages me is if there is one entity in which spending has run a muck, corruption and fraud is rampant, and those with the purse strings are in desperate need of justifying their salary, IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
I'm telling you these people are hardened to the bone neo-Marxists. And they are using the opportunity of this current economic crisis to repackage, rebrand and sell that Marxism as "fairness", "protection", and being good stewards, shepperds if you will. "All we need do," they'll claim, "is cull the herd of just these few fat cats, and let us run that sector of the economy ... then all will be better." When in truth all you have to do is scratch their surface and you'll hear them screaming, "capitalist pig!" at anyone with a savings account.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Statistical Ninjitsu
I have long wondered that myself. How does it work that we lose MORE jobs, yet the unemployment rate goes down?
And here's the problem, be it health care, the deficit, name ANY area of government that has a budget, or projects statistics (which covers them all) and the White House can simply "name" a number and call it legitimate with a straight face. The OMB is their "numbers arm" if you will. That's why the CBO is "supposed" to be the gold standard when it comes to determining cost of any given program. One might recall the disparate cost of healthcare's final price tag between the OMB & the CBO.
Now back to the Labor Department ... they released this "drop." The problem is that the drop isn't necessarily in unemployment, but rather jobless benefit claims. People that simply don't sign up for unemployment benefits once fired (or just haven't yet), or have exercised their max & kicked off, stopped looking for work all together thus don't qualify, etc, name your reason, are NOT counted in the supposed "unemployment rate." A rate that is more accurately described as the "jobless benefit rate." So, we can have an increase in jobs lost in a given month, we can even average more lost than gained, but if for any reason there are less people, say 1/10th of 1%, filing jobless benefit CLAIMS then, with a straight face, the Department of Labor announces a "drop" in unemployment.
DC would make Tony Soprano blush with the level of concocted schemes of which they are capable. And they don't even have a catchy theme song ...
And here's the problem, be it health care, the deficit, name ANY area of government that has a budget, or projects statistics (which covers them all) and the White House can simply "name" a number and call it legitimate with a straight face. The OMB is their "numbers arm" if you will. That's why the CBO is "supposed" to be the gold standard when it comes to determining cost of any given program. One might recall the disparate cost of healthcare's final price tag between the OMB & the CBO.
Now back to the Labor Department ... they released this "drop." The problem is that the drop isn't necessarily in unemployment, but rather jobless benefit claims. People that simply don't sign up for unemployment benefits once fired (or just haven't yet), or have exercised their max & kicked off, stopped looking for work all together thus don't qualify, etc, name your reason, are NOT counted in the supposed "unemployment rate." A rate that is more accurately described as the "jobless benefit rate." So, we can have an increase in jobs lost in a given month, we can even average more lost than gained, but if for any reason there are less people, say 1/10th of 1%, filing jobless benefit CLAIMS then, with a straight face, the Department of Labor announces a "drop" in unemployment.
DC would make Tony Soprano blush with the level of concocted schemes of which they are capable. And they don't even have a catchy theme song ...
Monday, August 10, 2009
Let's talk "painful"...
So, the unemployment rate nationally is reported by both the White House Press Secretary and Obama himself to have "fallen" by 1/10th of 1% in the month of July... even though there were 247,000 newly unemployed citizens in the US AND new job numbers have been shown to have fallen more than 1.5% since June.
What kind of math does one need to use to get THAT result? More people not working than working in a given month... and fewer new jobs for them to take up... and this equals lower unemployment? How?
More importantly, when is the GOP going to ask that same question?
What kind of math does one need to use to get THAT result? More people not working than working in a given month... and fewer new jobs for them to take up... and this equals lower unemployment? How?
More importantly, when is the GOP going to ask that same question?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
No treasure in the treasury ...
So let me get this straight ... left of center fiscal/social programs are as eternally enduring as the soul, and permanent as Hell. Yes, that sounds about right.
And to further torture the analogy, the GOP remains in purgatory - its' fate resting in both its' own willingness to seek redemption, and the divine forgiveness of their fellow man.
And to further torture the analogy, the GOP remains in purgatory - its' fate resting in both its' own willingness to seek redemption, and the divine forgiveness of their fellow man.
Friday, August 7, 2009
That's good...
I can't but nod at a classical reference such as this, and your analogy is apt... more so than you may know.
Your concerns about the long-term effects of Obama's "change" are legitimate, and I hope I didn't make it seem like it wasn't. I know you have mountains of issues with even as "institutional" a program as Social Security, and far too many people today forget that SSI was once simply a "liberal" program instituted to provide for the "health and welfare" of America's older generations in addition to their established retirement plans (which back then were mainly pension funds implemented by large companies).
The actual quote (from a work I have read at least a dozen times and have no fewer than 4 translations of) is "... and eternal I will endure. All hope abandon, ye who enter here!" This quote is even more apt, since it touches on the permanence that such liberal programs and welfare institutions might maintain. When I mentioned in previous posts the "flip-flop" policies of both Jefferson and Madison at the dawn of the 19th Century, I think those are good examples of the establishment of "precedents" that might not always have been used (by later CICs) in as noble or just a purpose as those two did in making their controversial determinations.
Far too much of what a President does while in office becomes "precedent" to be followed by later Presidents, even when the circumstances and context of earlier policies, programs and actions are ignored or slanted to suit contemporary ones.
Hell... the more I write like this, the more I am beginning to think like Ryan and agree with him that Obama might just have the ability to drastically alter the face of Federal government in this nation. That's not good, is it?
Your concerns about the long-term effects of Obama's "change" are legitimate, and I hope I didn't make it seem like it wasn't. I know you have mountains of issues with even as "institutional" a program as Social Security, and far too many people today forget that SSI was once simply a "liberal" program instituted to provide for the "health and welfare" of America's older generations in addition to their established retirement plans (which back then were mainly pension funds implemented by large companies).
The actual quote (from a work I have read at least a dozen times and have no fewer than 4 translations of) is "... and eternal I will endure. All hope abandon, ye who enter here!" This quote is even more apt, since it touches on the permanence that such liberal programs and welfare institutions might maintain. When I mentioned in previous posts the "flip-flop" policies of both Jefferson and Madison at the dawn of the 19th Century, I think those are good examples of the establishment of "precedents" that might not always have been used (by later CICs) in as noble or just a purpose as those two did in making their controversial determinations.
Far too much of what a President does while in office becomes "precedent" to be followed by later Presidents, even when the circumstances and context of earlier policies, programs and actions are ignored or slanted to suit contemporary ones.
Hell... the more I write like this, the more I am beginning to think like Ryan and agree with him that Obama might just have the ability to drastically alter the face of Federal government in this nation. That's not good, is it?
"ABANDON ALL HOPE (and change) YE WHO ENTER HERE"
The words inscribed above hell's gates in Dante's Inferno (and yes, I did read it once, along time ago, in a galaxy far, far away).
I wanted to post briefly on the fraternal twin brothers hypocrisy and hubris, whom have made their home low these many years within the mainstream press.
One after another CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, as I flip through news coverage today, are leading their health care "reform" coverage with the various town hall meetings that congress is attending on their summer break. Now I'm sure that you've seen the footage: impassioned speakers tick off the reasons they're pissed, be it their representatives not reading the various bills being passed; proposed government control of health care; bailouts; etc, and the crowd responds by bursting into applause and verbal approval. Representatives and Senators across the fruited plain have been so routinely shouted down at their own events that directives from on high (the DNC/White House) have gone out to STOP hosting these things until a health care vote has occurred, less more Democrat Senators show up YouTube looking like the answer vacant buffoons they are.
Well, the afore mentioned coverage has almost exclusively led with the assertion that these various town halls are simply staffed with ringers, phonies, paid, organized hacks, but the seemingly agreed upon pejorative is referring to them as "ORGANIZED MOBS", enter the silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock and an evil laugh hahahahaha ... wait, see there, it's Mr. Smithers gratuitously rubbing his bony hands together as he directs his right wing minions to descend upon the lowly congressman!
I mean, seriously? They're ALL paid right wing organizers huh? First off, that's absurd on the face of it - ya, the CATO insatitute sent out its' militant wing to channel the ghost of William F. Buckley and storm the compound ...err... town halls of Democrat Senators the nation over ... I'm sure.
But secondly, when did "organized mobs" become a bad thing to the left? For what else describes union rallies, ACORN protests, anywhere Jesse Jackson goes with his "Chicago busloads" at $10 a head? Or for that matter the anti Vietnam War protests and Civil Rights, both of which were almost exclusively "organized" in some form or another. What? Selma & the march on Washington were spontaneous eruptions of coincidental timing? Please, uh. And if I'm not mistaken our Commander-In-Chief presented as his "chief" accomplishment nothing other than community organizing!
One thing is for sure - in this epic struggle to defeat the most socialistic president to ever hold the office, as Titus aptly described him, the so called "main stream" press have picked their side, more so then with any other candidate. They are invested financially & emotionally in this president and they will not let him go down without a fight - even if it means demonizing their own viewers.
So in my humble estimation, as the specifics of our President's various plans begin to turn more and more people away from his vision of America and result in a majority opposition, the insults of intelligence and person hurled at the average American in recent days has only just begun.
I wanted to post briefly on the fraternal twin brothers hypocrisy and hubris, whom have made their home low these many years within the mainstream press.
One after another CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, as I flip through news coverage today, are leading their health care "reform" coverage with the various town hall meetings that congress is attending on their summer break. Now I'm sure that you've seen the footage: impassioned speakers tick off the reasons they're pissed, be it their representatives not reading the various bills being passed; proposed government control of health care; bailouts; etc, and the crowd responds by bursting into applause and verbal approval. Representatives and Senators across the fruited plain have been so routinely shouted down at their own events that directives from on high (the DNC/White House) have gone out to STOP hosting these things until a health care vote has occurred, less more Democrat Senators show up YouTube looking like the answer vacant buffoons they are.
Well, the afore mentioned coverage has almost exclusively led with the assertion that these various town halls are simply staffed with ringers, phonies, paid, organized hacks, but the seemingly agreed upon pejorative is referring to them as "ORGANIZED MOBS", enter the silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock and an evil laugh hahahahaha ... wait, see there, it's Mr. Smithers gratuitously rubbing his bony hands together as he directs his right wing minions to descend upon the lowly congressman!
I mean, seriously? They're ALL paid right wing organizers huh? First off, that's absurd on the face of it - ya, the CATO insatitute sent out its' militant wing to channel the ghost of William F. Buckley and storm the compound ...err... town halls of Democrat Senators the nation over ... I'm sure.
But secondly, when did "organized mobs" become a bad thing to the left? For what else describes union rallies, ACORN protests, anywhere Jesse Jackson goes with his "Chicago busloads" at $10 a head? Or for that matter the anti Vietnam War protests and Civil Rights, both of which were almost exclusively "organized" in some form or another. What? Selma & the march on Washington were spontaneous eruptions of coincidental timing? Please, uh. And if I'm not mistaken our Commander-In-Chief presented as his "chief" accomplishment nothing other than community organizing!
One thing is for sure - in this epic struggle to defeat the most socialistic president to ever hold the office, as Titus aptly described him, the so called "main stream" press have picked their side, more so then with any other candidate. They are invested financially & emotionally in this president and they will not let him go down without a fight - even if it means demonizing their own viewers.
So in my humble estimation, as the specifics of our President's various plans begin to turn more and more people away from his vision of America and result in a majority opposition, the insults of intelligence and person hurled at the average American in recent days has only just begun.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Crazy Joe McCloskey...
I just wanted to be very clear... I am NOT acting as an apologist for Obama's programs and policies. His collectivist-attitude towards government is as dangerous as we have seen in modern history... EVER, in fact, since this level of socialization hasn't been seen before in the Oval Office.
I think B.O. has two things working against him as President:
1) His inability to push for legislation/policies that might FAIL and thus stain his reputation/legacy, and
2) His inability to articulate his vision in a manner that the majority of Americans can support without needing the pundits on the Left and in the media to explain and detail while removing all the "uhs", "ums", and "ahs" from the speech.
Couple this with his rampant and blatantly obvious need to be seen as "successful" where everyone else has failed, and he is setting himself up to be (at best) a very mediocre President.
I think B.O. has two things working against him as President:
1) His inability to push for legislation/policies that might FAIL and thus stain his reputation/legacy, and
2) His inability to articulate his vision in a manner that the majority of Americans can support without needing the pundits on the Left and in the media to explain and detail while removing all the "uhs", "ums", and "ahs" from the speech.
Couple this with his rampant and blatantly obvious need to be seen as "successful" where everyone else has failed, and he is setting himself up to be (at best) a very mediocre President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
