Indiana temper tantrum . . .

Wow. Any parent will tell you that you never win giving in to temper tantrums. Indiana kills 'right-to-work' bill - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com:

"Republicans in Indiana’s state senate on Wednesday killed a proposed “right-to-work” bill that would have reduced the power of unions in the state.
. . . .
"Democratic legislators fled the statehouse on Tuesday to block a vote on the proposed bill, following a similar move by Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin over that state’s proposed legislation to limit collective bargaining rights for public sector unions."

Democrats only believe in majority rule when they're in the majority.

Dems and economic politics over economic progress

This is an interesting discussion (Robert Barro: The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment - WSJ.com) of how Democrats are wont to choose political gain over economic gain. First, Democrats are probably angling for the low tax policies of the Bush administration for political reasons more than economic ones. ("Democrats can't agree over killing or saving the Bush-era tax cuts - The Hill's On The Money). That's old news. BTW, that title should probably be "Democrats can't DECIDE about killing or saving the Bush-era tax cuts."

But second, the conversion of unemployment insurance to a welfare program--even though it has likely hurt Obama's resume on job creation, will still be a useful weapon for claiming that Republicans aren't as compassionate toward Americans.

Move to Europe if you expect to be compensated after 99 weeks of not working

It is downright disingenuous for Obama to refer to this as a temporary or emergency extension. I'm sorry, but this is money that we don't have. (here) Move to Europe if you expect compensation for not working after 2 years.

As (I think) Jack Kemp has said, "If you want more of something, subsidize it." Unemployment "insurance" in this context is subsidizing unemployment, and I have seen a friend waiting around for the payments to stop before she went to work doing something she didn't prefer to do. Anecdotal, I know, but also logical.

NYTimes obfuscating the obvious

Interesting how David Leonhardt twists this debate from being about too many Americans on the dole, to being about wealthy people whining about taxes. It is rank foolishness to deny that most people are indifferent to the bill when they're not paying it. Economic Scene - Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com:

Forty-seven percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Socializing student loans . . .

Tucked inside the Democrats' 2,900+page healthcare proposal was another socialist-inspired proposal to takeover the student "loan" business. Obama to sign new student aid initiative | Reuters:

The student loan overhaul fulfills a long-time goal of Democratic lawmakers to end the bankers' role as middlemen and replace them with direct federal loans and aid to students.

The parallels between the Democrats' designs on the student loan market and their designs on healthcare are remarkable. And the rhetoric employed for both proposals is more than "parallel"; it is identical.

Adjustments to the Leviathan

. . . adjustments like the ones people get from a chiropractor.

Folks are reporting that Sen. Bob Corker is working with Democrats to tweak government regulation of the finance industry. It pains me to hear such a disingenuous boob as Chris Dodd saying positive things about Corker, and I think Dodd is untrustworthy, and I don't think the Democrats' proffered solutions (which, as is often the case, are built upon flawed premises) won't help matters, but maybe Corker can wrest some positive changes from the majority party. After all, officials in the image-over-substance party are DESPERATE to pass something. From the article: Republican Breaks Ranks on Finance Bill - WSJ.com:

WASHINGTON—Republican Sen. Bob Corker bucked his party Thursday and began negotiations with Democrats on overhauling financial regulation.

Winning the first-term Tennessee senator's support is perhaps the White House's best chance of passing a financial-overhaul bill this year. Democrats need one Republican to reach the 60 votes required to pass legislation in the Senate. Democrats hope Mr. Corker's support also could bring along other centrist Republicans.

Mr. Corker's involvement means the Federal Reserve could play a bigger role in any overhaul, because the senator has been less critical of the central bank than other leading Republicans. He also opposes creating a stand-alone consumer-protection agency, an idea already on life support, but might agree to propose other policies governing products such as mortgages.

Here are some ideas as Corker endeavors to manipulate the nation's financial spine.

Who says Democrats aren't providing jobs?

With news that Democrats' economic policies aren't helping with unemployment, I think some Democrats deserve recognition for creating job opportunities:

"It is a challenging time," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. "When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here."

A legal but perverse stimulant

I've always heard (and believed, for the most part) that aggressive tax-avoidance measures (aka "availing oneself of tax benefits") were justified because we were doing what the government wanted us to do. Well, it was interesting to find that exact line of reasoning in this blog post about how citizens are spending their stimulus-sourced monies.

“We did exactly what the government wanted us to do,” said Ms. Myers, a third grade teacher. “We stimulated the economy.”

Sorry, but no. All of these Cash for ________ programs do not "stimulate the economy." They encourage people to spend instead of save and buy this instead of that. Tax rate cuts, on the other hand, encourage people to work harder, increase productivity and grow the economy. Under Obama, we're getting more redistribution and higher tax rates — exactly the opposite of economic stimulus.

I find it hard to fault the couple in this article, but I have to concur with NR's Stephen Spruiell that no matter how innocuous the stimulus' intentions, it very often would qualify as a perverse incentive.

Go viral young man--"Just Tax" video

Below is the "Just Tax" parody of the Lady Gaga hit "Just Dance." The video was shown to House Republicans in a GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning. I suspect Peter Cowman may be busy in the coming year.

Reconsidering class and race grievances

The WaPo has an article about how Obama will handle demands from "the Black community" going forward. I hadn't really focused on this issue prior to now, but it is interesting to consider the implications on America's fundamental governing values presented by blacks demanding something for their community. All of their demands--I perceive, revolve around ensuring equal outcomes from living life in the U.S. Unfortunately, ensuring equal economic outcomes rather than equal equal economic opportunity equals socialism.

Choosing School Unions over children in the area of Education policy. Aiding and abetting The "Community Reinvestment Act" shakedown in the area of Economic policy. Replacing fathers with public assistance in the area of social policy. These have been [arguably] well-intended policies, but we can see their fruit. Indeed, any intellectually honest person can observe the sour fruit of socialist policies.

Obama was heralded by many as a transformational post-racial politician. I hope that he represents the dawn of post-racial policies.

Demand proof of Obama . . .

Here's one of Obama's laugh lines/efforts at distraction on the stump these days:

“He's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next,” Obama said at a rally at the Halifax mall here.

“By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Forget about getting a look at Obama's actual birth certificate . . . from what I've heard about his charitable giving and stories about his flesh and blood living in slums and shacks, I want to see proof that Obama ever shared his toys.

"Privatize" . . . you mean as opposed to "socialize"?

Yes, it's election year and as sure as bogeyman appear on Halloween, the Democrat candidate for president, Barack Obama is trying to scare people about Republican (and McCain) plans for "privatizing" parts (actually, teeny weeny parts) of Social Security.

But the opposite of "privatiz[e]" is "socialize."

At least he "sounds" Conservative . . .

This op/ed obliterates the disingenuous assertion by Obama that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. (The American Spectator: "Searching for Obama's 95 Percent"). From the article:

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- "We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans," Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed 'Obama's 95% Illusion,' noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts." His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes -- as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to "spread the wealth around."

Obama voted "present" . . . Dems voted "no"

How did we come to this credit market crisis? McCain pushed for accountability, Obama voted "present," Dems voted "no."

Dems circled the wagons on Frank, Freddie and Fannie

Here's some fascinating video footage of House hearings (from several years ago) during which Democrats circled the wagons on behalf of Obama advisor (and then Fannie Mae Chair/CEO) Frank Raines and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Well, not everyone circled the wagons . . . watch all the way to the end for the statement by Bill Clinton.

Now Democrats are attempting to pin the failure of these institutions (and their millstone effect on financial markets) on Republicans? Talk about audacity.

BigAppliance: public enemy #1!!

Here's a great article (linking to a WSJ article) about the demagoguery related to purported windfall profits for Oil Companies. It's ironic that household appliance makers (who almost doubled the profit margin of "BigOil") aren't being vilified by the Left.

Enclave Mike kicking butt and taking names

Wow. "S-town Mike" at the Enclave Blog is having none of the Tennessean's non-judgmental story about businessmen . . . purporting to be followers of Jesus . . . who go to a religious event at a church located in ritzy Brentwood . . . and who--Mike presumes, hypocritically ignore certain Biblical principles. According to Mike's interpretation of a Bible verse he cites, wealthy people can't get into heaven. Mike calls the group (CEO, for Christian Executive Officer) "the Brentwood Baptist CEO Rationalization Fellowship."

Mike, I don't know you, but I do know that simply by virtue of living in America you are "wealthy" compared to something like 90% of the world's population. Rationalize that.

And Happy day after Easter, btw.

What is "Fiscal Conservatism"?

I went to the Mike Huckabee campaign blog Mike Huckabee for President - Blogs - Romney is leaving race... to see what they were saying about Romney's departure, and for some reason, this comment jumped off the page (By the way, the campaign has officially said next to nothing about Romney's decision, but there are tons of comments.):

"Mike Huckabee is a true fiscal conservative."

It occurs to me that "fiscal conservative" means different things to different people.

In our family's finances, being "fiscally responsible" means spending less (or certainly not more than) what is coming in, right? But what about taking on the debt of a car loan or mortgage? Our family's income/revenue is the proper context for knowing how much debt is "safe," right?

I caught some of Dave Ramsey yesterday, and heard him counsel a caller that she and her husband needed to focus on increasing the income side of their ledger instead of just sitting tight and slowly paying off a debt . . . is that "Conservative"?

I perceive that--among the general population, the understanding of "fiscal Conservatism" is rather cloudy. When I use the term I have in mind small government (hence a small-er gov't budget) and low taxes, in sum supply-side economics, but I think others focus more on the balanced aspect of it and don't give much thought to where the money is coming from--as long as they perceive that it comes from someone else. Democrats have capitalized on this confusion in recent decades, seizing on the appearance that Reaganomics--in and of itself, is somehow fiscally irresponsible.

Another element of this issue that bears on the current campaign is that increasing spending on government programs--if existing spending is perceived to be too low, is not anathema to the average voter.

I suspect that Mike Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas (and McCain's reputation as attacking pork but not so much buying the supply-side argument) are having a significant impact on how the GOP race has played out. It will be interesting to see how the issue of "fiscal Conservatism" will play out in November.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

I have long supported the mission of Club for Growth, but I have been concerned by their--in my perception, exceptional attacks against Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary.

Blue Collar Muse at Tennessee ConserVOLiance has linked to an interesting discussion of the subject ("The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance"):

"Over the next few days, we will hear a great deal about the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses, as pundits and bloggers will sift through the demographic data to interpret trends, and voter preferences. There were two obvious winners. There were several losers.

The Big Loser tonight in Iowa: The Club for Growth.

I’ve written quite a bit about The Club for Growth’s ongoing jihad against Mike Huckabee.

With each salvo launched by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, the Huck has seemed to gain additional momentum. Each time a new “White Paper” has been released (there have been three so far) the level of skepticism towards CfG has grown. Among a large portion of the conservative coalition, the Club for Growth is no longer viewed as an honest broker. After spending upwards of $700,000 in attack advertising with the stated aim of derailing Huckabee, and future buys pending in Carolina, Huckabee went from low single digits in the polls to this solid victory in the opening act of the 08 election.

Toomey will, no doubt, claim that the message just isn’t getting out, and will order his troops to increase the volume, exaggerations, demonizations, polarizations, and continue the promotion of small-tent conservatism that continues to drive the Club towards irrelevance."