The Senescent Man

President Obama said it in his address to the nation, the one that was followed by Speaker Boehner’s response. I have heard Obama’s claim repeated by other Democratic politicians. I haven’t researched the truth of it myself, but for now I’m going to believe it. It goes something like this.

• During the Reagan administration, Congress raised the debt ceiling 18 times.
• During the Clinton administration, Congress raised the debt ceiling 8 times.
• During the GW Bush administration, Congress raised the debt ceiling 9 times.
• Why then is Congress balking at raising the debt ceiling this time?

I may be off a little in the number of times, but not too far off. Why the GHW Bush administration wasn’t included I don’t know, or maybe it was and my memory is faulty.

Hello, Mr. President and Congress, listen to what you are saying! In the 26 years covered by the administrations listed above the debt ceiling was raised 36 times. Doesn’t that give you cause for concern? Doesn’t that tell you that the entire system is broken? How can a debtor go out and get his credit limit raised 36 times in 26 years?

I had a family member do pretty much the same thing. He borrowed heavily to finance his small business. Through a combination of difficult business conditions, government regulation, and health issues, he lost his business to bankruptcy. He convinced others to finance a return of his business. That business faced the same conditions, and five years later was on the verge of bankruptcy. He convinced his son to buy his property as a way of rescuing the business. The business failed again. To float the business he took out a credit card in his son's name and maxed it out. He did that again, and again, for a total of five times. He borrowed payments from individuals. Finally with all his resources and sources gone, the bank seized the property from the son, who had to declare bankruptcy. Thus the son is off the hook, the father will shortly be homeless, and the bank’s owners have had to pick up at least some of the tab.

I realize using a personal situation is not quite the same thing as a government. The person can’t print money. On the other hand, the person can go out and get a second job. The person can easily cut spending and quit destructive behavior with immediate decisions. Large governments can’t do that. Large governments, representing a large citizenry, have to operate on the herd mentality. Until the herd quits its destructive behavior or goes over the cliff en mass, not much can be done.

I believe, however, that the frequent requests to and acquiescence in raising the debt ceiling is evidence that we are headed for destruction. Obama’s words, as repeated by his various lackeys, prove it. Congress, you are out of your minds. Thank God for those few among your moronic membership who dared to call you on your madness. May their tribe increase.

Labels: Age of Obama, Congressional Idiocy

Barack, Harry, and Nancy:

The USA government has enough money coming in to service its debt and cover everything that is really essential. Everything we are borrowing money for is, in my not so humble opinion, non-essential.

So if you don't get authorization to borrow more, prioritize. This is called "money management", something you never seem to have learned.

• Service the debt, and shut down the Department of Education
• Pay all military bills, and make a skeleton of the EPA
• Pay legitimate Homeland Security expenses, and close all National Parks
• Inspect foodstuffs, but scuttle the National Endowment for the Arts
• Make Social Security and Medicare payments, but darn near eliminate the Department of Labor
• Don't pay yourselves.

Barack, you say you want more revenue--lots more revenue--as compensation for spending cuts. But you say the revenue will come from the richest Americans, those who earn more than $200 or $250 thousand (whatever that number is today), claiming that won't hurt the poor or the middle class.

I've got news for you, Barack, Harry, and Nancy: Taxes don't really work that way. Raise taxes on the rich, and they'll just charge more for their goods and services. They are the ones who have the power to do so. Market forces put some limit on this, but not enough to prevent some rise in prices. So it's the poor and middle class who give the rich the money they use to pay their taxes. Do you really think the rich are just going to sit idly and not recover from the poor what you take from them?

Tax the rich and you tax indirectly tax me in the middle class. Why don't you get that?

But tell you what. Harry Reid wants this cowboy poetry festival in Nevada, and thinks I should contribute to the cost of the cowboy poets getting together. I'll listen to your arguments about the need for more revenue if Harry pays for this festival out of his own pocket for the next five years, and refunds to the American people (via the US Treasury) the last five years. He's worth over $2 million (mostly accumulated since he's been a senator), and that's only $350,000. He can afford it, if he really thinks it's so important.

Why should a poor person in Rhode Island, or a middle class guy in Arkansas pay for cowboy poets to get together in Nevada? If you all think it's so important they have a forum, you should be willing to pay for it yourselves. Or, think of it this way: Would you borrow money to pay for cowboy poets to get together in Nevada? Doesn't that sound absolutely ridiculous?

Until Harry does that, I conclude you really don't have a clue about money management, and thus don't qualify to get a larger amount of public money to mismanage. You asked everyone to contact their national legislators and make their feelings known. I will do that today. What I will say is: YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY MORE MONEY TO MISMANAGE. NO TAX INCREASES ON ANYONE. Increase taxes on the rich and the poor and middle class end up paying them.

Nitwits.

Labels: Age of Obama

Did President Obama not have any civil engineers on his staff? Or anywhere in his administration? It would appear not. All those "shovel-ready jobs" he talked about were public works projects. Well, that happens to be in my bailiwick. I've made a career or doing the civil engineering part of public works projects. And not only me, but a lot of civil engineers have done even more public works than I have, since part of my career has also involved commercial projects.

Back in early 2009 when the president was saying that ARRA funds would go to shovel-ready jobs and put people right to work, I wanted to scream "You don't know what you're talking about." The fact is, there are very few public works projects just sitting around waiting to be funded. Since most of the time funding is required to do the engineering for these projects, the engineering isn't going to be done until at least some of the funding is in place.

Northwest Arkansas recently had a "shovel-ready" job go to construction. It's the Bella Vista By-pass, an interstate highway that will fill a gap in intestate quality roads linking Missouri and Arkansas. This is a road that was not part of the original interstate highway program, but was added some years ago based on population expansion in northwest Arkansas. It will connect Fort Smith AR and Joplin MO, both of which have interstates extending some distance north and south respectively. As either state had some money to spend, they would extend their road another ten or twenty miles, and the gap narrowed.

By 2005 the gap was down to about 25 miles. The two states did some joint planning, decided on a route that would meet, and began their respective work of seeking money and acquiring rights-of-way. Missouri got ahead of Arkansas, has their money in the bank, and has been waiting on Arkansas to get their act together. Somehow, the act never got together. Arkansas sought Federal funds and never received them. They cut back the scale of the project, proposing to initially build only a high-quality controlled access two lane road. Still, since Arkansas, for some reason, thought the good people of the United States of America, rich and poor, eastern and western, north and south, should build their road for them, the project languished.

Until ARRA. Sometime in 2010 ARRA funds filled the money gap to fill the road gap, and the project became a go. The Arkansas highway department got after a client of our engineering company to get an 18-inch water line moved, and after another utility to get a 10-inch water line moved, and after phone, gas, electrical, and cable TV companies to get their utilities moved. At some point engineering documents were completed, the road project bid in March 2011, and a road contractor mobilized in May.

Last Friday, July 8, 2011, approximately 29 months after ARRA was passed, the ribbon cutting was held for this construction project. But I need to be fair. Funds were being expended as early as August 2010, a mere 19 months after ARRA was passed, and maybe a little sooner. But the lion's share of those expenditures on this project are only now about to hit the work force.

A civil engineer could have told Barack in a heartbeat that no shovel ready jobs existed in the architecture-engineering-construction industry. Construction drawings had to be drawn and construction specifications written. Land had to be acquired or condemned. Bids had to be received and low bidders qualified. Mobilization time had to be spent.

A civil engineer could have told you, Mr. President. But then your lie would have become known. Everyone would have known that it wasn't the construction projects and construction jobs that were "shovel-ready", but something else entirely, which we usually talk about in euphemisms with shoveling-like gestures. Yes, something was shovel-ready from your administration, but it wasn't the jobs.

Get ready, America. We've got at least 18 more months of having to watch where we step.

Labels: Age of Obama

Here I am at home listening to much of the same Christmas music I enjoy each season, some wonderfully orchestral, some more vocal and even pop.  For instance, I really enjoy Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra singing the old carols.  They unabashedly sing about “Christ the King,” “born to give us second birth,…” from a time when it was considered normal operating procedure to sing Christmas carols with all glory of their original lyrics.

The other night on his regular evening program, Bill O’Reilly opined as to whether or not it was offensive to some when “flash mobs” gather in shopping malls across the country to sing Handel’s Alleluia Chorus from his exquisite Oratorio “Messiah” because the words might be offensive to some, presumably “some” are people who shop and celebrate small “c” Christmas and prefer to evacuate all meaning of its origin and significance, who have made it just another secular day off from work. 

My first reaction to Bill’s question was consternation because it caused me to wonder why this question should even be asked in the first place?  But even if he didn’t, and I know what he was likely driving at – that people who are offended as such were “pinheads” in his vernacular – the question in these times nonetheless is begged every day.

There is a working dynamic here.  It is not just the usual offense that the gospel represents to the unchurched.  I fear we are entering a new age where everything and anything that directly or indirectly makes reference of the true and original nature and meaning of Christmas will be, little by little, extricated from the public square as arcane, dogmatic, irrelevant and biased against those who prefer never to hear a word on the True Light and Hope of the world, which all of this music in effect points to.

When we fully enter that post-postmodern age where everything is completely devoid of all meaning and all reference to this wonderful message of hope, how shall we then live?  What then of our world?  Our society? Dear Virginia, yes there may be a Santa Claus, but as for hope?  Well, I’m sorry Virginia, there is no hope for you beyond this world. There was no Savior who came to remove the dross from this fallen earth to pave a path to a new world, and hence these is only today, so live for today, “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” and it all ends, and sooner than later. 

What would be next to remove from public view? Any classical literature the makes veiled references to redemption.  Goodnight Les Miserables.  Farewell to Milton, Adios “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

What then of our coming new and hopeless age? When we are on our respective deathbeds, and become more supple to that last chance at hope, there will be no redemptive literature to reflect upon, no lyrics to ponder, no music to listen to that gives consideration to a coming New and durable life without flaw, in the full light of the Dayspring, the Beautiful Rose of Sharon, whose Kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ. Alleluia.

Labels: Age of Obama, Candy Store Generation, First Amendment

Or should I say it the other way around?  As the nation went, at least, RI did not give an iota. 

We end up with the most liberal option of Governor choices.  We keep our General Assembly – mostly liberal Democrats – intact.  RI – Dist 1, which was formerly Patrick' Kennedy’s seat goes to liberal Democrat David Cicilline instead of worthy Republican John Loughlin.  RI – Dist 2, as I expected remained with James Langevin over Mark Zacaria, though Zacaria made the cogent arguments being offered around the country of the run away US House in every debate, but he ended up doing it to no avail – because he was making his points in RI to Rhode Islanders.

My first reaction was “it' truly is time to leave the state.” Former Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey presciently predicted a Lincoln Chafee victory due several factors: the split votes for “Moderate, Democrat and Republican candidates, and that the unions would get their machine out in full force to make certain their liberal Democratic votes made it to the polls.  And they won the day completely in RI. 

The rest of the nation moved very deliberately in the right direction, while RI remains stuck where it has been, and with some of the highest taxes and highest unemployment in the nation.  Even Michigan moved seats to Republicans to get out of their mess, but no, not RI.

But there were signs of a silver lining out there:

(1) There is a remnant of Tea Party oriented activists still intact, and ready to prepare for 2012 – which is good.

(2) The fact that Congress has moved very deliberately to the right while the President is not yielding or triangulating to the middle will mean that the RI delegation will be somewhat thwarted from their liberal agenda, and may not be all that popular in 2 years.  Remember Reagan took the state in 1984, and a solid Republican presidential candidate could yield something similar.

(3) There were some good lessons learned in running in the 4 way Governor race, and the dropping of the Republican nominated Lt. Governor. I thought to myself the other day, soon after his “shove it” comment, what if Frank Caprio said he was going to drop out of the race, and ask his supporters to vote for Republican John Robitaille? Imagine not only what that would have looked like in the national media spotlight, but what that would have done to the outcome.  Chafee would be toast instead of Governor Elect. 

(4) The excellent idea that was“CleanSlateRI.  Though it seemed to end up having little impact on the outcome, the concept is a good one that should be developed further and more robustly supported long before 2012.

While other states are looking forward to a roll back of tax burden, and a movement to prioritize spending so that taxes go down instead of increase, RI has a new governor who diabolically conjures new ways to spend taxpayers money – what few remaining taxpayers are still left in the state – and new ways to tax them.

RI Conservatives: we either have to leave (which will leave even fewer to carry the burgeoning tax load) or we need to build off what momentum we really achieved and strategize starting from now to make a major correction in 2012 – and also plan to get Chafee out in 2014 – too bad it couldn’t be sooner, though there is always the recall.

Activists unite! You have nothing to lose but higher taxes. and poor leadership.

Labels: 2010 Election, Age of Obama, Candy Store Generation

Political conservatives who live in RI (all 6 of us) have a very tough decision to make next week.  In the governor’s race, should we vote for John Robitaille, a conservative Republican, or dare we take a huge leap and vote for Frank Caprio, a Democrat, who will be campaigning this weekend with none other than former President Clinton?

Why would conservative Republicans give the time of day to, let alone vote for someone like Caprio? For conservatives, the good side of Frank is that he is a fiscal conservative, a lover of small business, and an opposer of overly burdensome taxes.  On social issues he’s part way on the dark side; he said that if the General Assembly approved of gay marriage in RI - which they’re apt to do with so many of the leaders gay - he would sign the bill.  I think he should wait to see what voters want on that issue, but there it is.

On the Republican side, Robitaille has the right stance on issues, and he’s been gaining some momentum, but the problem RI conservatives face is, who do you vote for to assure that Lincoln Chafee loses?  With a recent Rasmussen poll showing Chafee in the mid-thirties while Caprio and Robitaille in the mid to upper twenties, the state sits on a precipice.

Chafee will tax us enough for the few remaining productive citizens who work and pay taxes will get to pay even more taxes unless they’re smart enough to move to less taxing neighboring states like Taxachusetts or Connecticut, a mere 40 miles away at the most.  Even Taxachusetts will be a tax haven for RIer’s were Chafee to win.

RI passed the tipping point long ago where the gimme’s beat out the tax-me’s a long time ago, and will continue their stranglehold on the state to ask for more and more from the poor tax-me’s unless drastic action is taken.

In South Carolina, the Republican governor mandated that if the legislature wants to spend more on a high priority like schools or roads, they have to subordinate something else in the budget and maintain the volume of what the burdened taxpayers already contribute to the state.  In 11.5% jobless RI, Chafee thinks we can increase what the taxpayers contribute so we can spend more and more.

As Bill Murray said about the groundhog in the movie “Groundhog Day,” “He must be stopped!”

If we don’t stop Chafee, the few of us who pay the taxes for all the gimme’s in the state will have to leave or become bankrupt, and that will in turn most definitely bankrupt the state.

So it’s time for us decide.  If we pool our votes in one direction or the other, we can be assured of a Chafee loss, but who to choose?

As for me, I’m going to take the initiative and say I think Caprio’s got the best shot.  Anyone who tells a president of his own party to “stuff it,” is courageous enough for me to know he will be courageous about the smaller things – like opposing taxes and helping to rebuild business and jobs this state.

I ask you five remaining RI conservative Republicans to join me.

Labels: 2010 Election, Age of Obama, Candy Store Generation, Had Enough Generation, Rhode Island

I must say I was impressed with the turn out at Glenn Beck’s Restore America rally at the mall in DC yesterday, but I’ll also admit, I’m a bit uncomfortable.  The event has all the earmarks of the early days of the Moral Majority – a well meaning conglomeration of Catholics, Evangelicals and others seeking a moral high ground for America in a political context.  Beck’s “get back to God” falls into this category in my humble opinion, but it also begs an important question or two: “Which God?”  “Whose God?”

Some time ago I was confronted with the very well thought out and well written Manhattan Statement.  Frankly, for me, it has all the right ideas.  But those who sign the statement claim to agree with one another on some basic tenets of faith, and the unfortunate thing about the Manhattan Statement is that some of the signers really do not agree about the nature of God, though they claim to, so in good conscience I could not sign it , and though one of my most favorite Christian authors,, Chuck Colson, endorses the Statement, another of my most favorite Christian writers, R. C. Sproul, could not and did not, and for the reasons I have also come to.

So if I can’t sign something as excellently thought out, comprehensive, well written and in the right direction on all matters social and political as the Manhattan Statement, I find myself all the more at odds with the very broad, very generic “get back to God” theme touted in DC yesterday.  In fact, it gives me kind of a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach because I see so many who, with good intentions, are getting swallowed up in something so shallow.  And when it dissipates, they will be disillusioned.

Beck is a Mormon, and as a Christian I say Christ was the God-Man sent by the Father, foreshadowed in the Old Testament as the “Son of Man” as mentioned in the Book of Daniel; Immanuel and the suffering servant in the Book of Isaiah.  Mormons do not agree with Christ’s claim to diety, that as Christ claimed, “Before Abraham, I Am,” and that Christ was / is the God-man, the Second Adam, who paid humanities debt with His own flesh and blood and justified His flock.  We are millions of miles apart on tenants of faith, though we may have agreement about culture, social issues, government intrusion, taxes, but let’s be honest, we do not agree on who is God.

So I’m a bit uncomfortable about Beck and those flying under his flag right now, including Sarah Palin.  Oh it’s nice to hear public figures make professions of faith in public, it encourages their fans to do likewise, but give me Billy Graham for that kind of thing. 

I know this is a departure from the many of my compatriot conservatives with whom I find myself in general agreement on the tactical issues, but let’s just agree to disagree about this fundamental, strategic concept for conservatism in America.  My God is a lot bigger than what Beck and co. are making Him out to be.  He is not a vague moral choice.  He is God.  And don’t mess with Him.  Don’t use Him like this please.  He just might not like it, and might let you know in some of the ways He showed it in His word.  Be careful with this.

When you have your rallies, I might smile wryly as I hear the ideas with which I may have some agreement, and perhaps chuckle embarrassingly a bit when I hear something hollow said about a generic god, and you might find the likes of me going along for the ride for now.  But let’s be clear, as the President would say in a his typical patronizing manner, I am not one of you.  I march to a different Drummer, and if and when the going gets us into the slough of despond, I will not be standing with you on getting back to God.  Your God is too small.

Labels: 2012 Election, Age of Obama, Beck, Counter Culture

Today, my Congressman, Rep. James Langevin, responded to me by email regarding my many entreaties to for him to oppose the ObamaCare Bill some months ago.  Below is my response to him.

Dear Jim:

Thank you for getting back to me on this subject after a number of months.  I am appreciative regardless of the fact that a lot has gone under the bridge since you voted for this terrible bill.  But you wrote to me on an auspicious day.  Excellent articles in today's Projo and Wall Street Journals underscore how anachronistic your email is today.

RIers woke up this morning to headline in the Projo of Blue Cross raising its rates about 13% for 2011.  13%.  Don't tell me it would have been worse without Obamacare because since I wrote you about my opposition several months ago, articles have abounded on how this bill will cost us much more than what we pay for our current health care plans, not to mention the extra tax burden it will now place upon us as it was conveniently and only recently revealed by the CBO, long after the lemmings approved it.

Also in today's paper, not the Projo but the Wall Street Journal, is an editorial entitled "No, You Can't Keep Your Health Plan."  The horror of that thought!  All brought on by this awful piece of legislation which you voted for.

If you recall Jim, I sent you lemons at great expense to me to get your undivided attention as to why this bill is bad for me, bad for my family, bad for the state and bad for the nation, but you not only did not heed one iota of my advice, you out and out voted for this pig of a bill without reservation.

One last observation.

I'll confess I voted for you over more liberal Republican counterparts in the past, particularly those who were opposed to the rights of the unborn, but your position on this issue has pushed me back a bit.  Today happens also to be election day in a number of states.  Long time Democrat stalwarts are about to get thrown out of office.  Results are not in yet, but I predict a rout.  Now I will grant you that RIers' are a lot more tolerant of liberal Congressmen and women, but I have a feeling, November 2010 will be very different.

See you in November, Jim.

Regards,

Labels: 2008 Election, 2012 Election, Age of Obama, health care, health care reform, Rhode Island

What, you ask? Why write about this now? That was in January; the big thing in the last week, even the last two days, is health care mis-reform. True. I can only claim that this is on my mind, and has been ever since it happened. I took some notes, expanded them into a theory, and waited for a quiet evening to come up. It's here, finally. I should do some more on my taxes tonight, but I made such good progress last night that I feel like doing other, more pleasurable things tonight. Taxes I have always with me; the Scott Brown phenomenon is still here, and again to take center stage as we see how he performs regarding the next phase of health care.

Why did Massachusetts turn from its Democratic party candidate and elect a Republican? The standard interpretations of this are:

• a Republican resurgence. I don't think so--not in way-out whacko Mass.
• a conservative resurgence. Again, in Massachusetts? Maybe a little, or rather what the electorate voted on this time was more in line with stock conservative policies, thereby appearing to be a conservative resurgence.
• anti-government health care. No, Massachusetts already have that; its electorate wouldn't mind a Federal takeover of a less-than-perfect State-run system.
• anti-Obama. I doubt it, not while his popularity far out runs the popularity of the health care reform bill itself.
• anti-Democratic. No, not in Massachusetts.

So what else could it be? A few things come to mind, all of which probably contribute to what my conclusion is.

• anti-Federalist (i.e. anti-statist). This seems more likely. Even in Massachusetts, the state that stood alone, or nearly so, in support of George McGovern and Walter Mondale, the state that never saw a Federal law it didn't like. Yet, the rhetoric of the campaign and what coverage I saw in fly-over country suggests people getting tired of the Feds always butting in, grabbing more power, usurping more of our God-given liberties.
• anti-deficit. This is likely, I think. People saw the accumulation of deficits beginning in the later Bush admin years and accelerating under Obama and his Congress. I think in part the Mass voters saw this accumulation and decided they had had enough.
• anti-Washington DC. This is a strong component, I believe. Once a person gets elected to an office centered in Washington, it's hard to get them out. Those occasionally voted out just stay there and become lobbyists, waiting till their own party returns to administrative power when they can get a fat Cabinet post, all while not paying the taxes they voted on the American populace (can anyone say Tom Dashcle?). By the way, I believe the Democrats are mis-interpreting this as an anti-incumbent vote. Perhaps it's difficult to separate anti-DC from anti-incumbent, but I see a shade of difference.

All of these add up to one thing: People have HAD ENOUGH. I wrote once before, I think on this blog, about the HAD ENOUGH Generation needing to rise up and fix all the mess that the late-WW2 generation and the Baby Boomers were leaving behind. I didn't know when the HAD ENOUGH Generation would show itself. Would it be our children, Gen X? Or their children, Gen Y? I personally thought it would be the latter, believing that our children would be too much like us to perceive that the government had failed. But they seem to be rising up, if I'm interpreting the Mass senate vote correctly.

It remains to be seen if this first breath of the HAD ENOUGH Generation will be followed through in the next couple of rounds. I would have liked to have seen what would have happened if there had been an election to replace Murtha. If that one went Republican, I think it would have been a good indication. We now have to wait till November, and then till 2012, excepting any intermediate elections that would come along.

Keep going, HAD ENOUGHers. You have my best wishes as well as my support.

Labels: Age of Obama, Candy Store Generation, Had Enough Generation, health care reform

Is it me, or is there something in the drinking water?  There seems to be a movement afoot in social settings – industry, churches, government, designed around the concept that we are a bunch of stultifying dunderheads.  We need to be taught how to do things we’ve been doing reasonably well for years.  There is a “How to” guide now for just about everything from counting socks to boiling an egg.  Need to run a little group?  There’s a guide for that, and yes, oh, by the way, you must take the online course for that.  Need to manage a small team?  There’s a guide for that. Need to (fill in the blank).  Yup, we’ve got a self teaching tool for that too.

Where did all this come from?  I think we older (more senescent) folk can determine the answer when we go out to our driveways, get into our automobiles, start them up and head on into traffic.  No one – I mean NO ONE follows any rules, not even the laws of physics.  By the way, if you would like to live to see your grandkids, drive like everyone around you are aliens from Mars who have no idea what a stop sign is, let alone a turning signal.

It wasn’t long before managers and leaders from mega-churches to post offices figured out that they had better retrain us and retrain us fast – and they want to do it the same way the Republicans want to address healthcare reform: starting from “a clean piece of paper.”  Care not a wit, and make no assumptions that you might be teaching an auditorium of neurosurgeons about how to put ointment on a mosquito bite.  Just follow the teaching guide.

My theory is that this really all began because someone noticed the caliber of what is coming out of our education systems.  Easy solution: RETRAIN EVERYONE!

I have another theory: that this will meet up with a swift demise.  Something similar, perhaps, to when Jack Welch hit GE and determined that the business was running a tad inefficiently with all this type of nonsense going on, the layers it made in the structure, and the general “statist” approach on the factory floor.  Not to mention that relatively normal people (i.e., normal smart people) didn’t need to be given a guide on how to breath.  Suddenly, a Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley character will come on the scene like a hero in the white hat who arrives just before the train runs over the victim and stands athwart history yelling stop!

In the mean time, as for me, I’ll duck my head, learn about how to count my socks and make a boiled egg, then move on to the next insipid, sophomoric guide to a better life.

Labels: Age of Obama, Counter Culture

This morning’s Projo carries a rabid commentary from The Boston Globe’s Yvonne Abraham against Scott Brown, making the despicable charge that Brown is somehow against raped women.  The Democrats are pretty desperate to do this, and the Projo’s complicity should be condemned roundly by level headed, middle class Rhode Islanders.

With printed media on the rocks, I think the Editorial board at the Projo has gone mad.  They must have hired a bunch of recent grads and fired all the experienced regulars to save money.  It’s bad enough that they raised prices by 50% in the last year – they now must subject us with hyper-liberalism and no balance to it.

In the mean time, a more interesting irony is that President Obama comes today to support the mindless Coakley, who in 2008 was rebuffed Obama, sticking tenaciously to the already defeated Hillary Clinton.

Scott Brown needs to win on Tuesday just to return sanity to a few of New England’s institutions, not to mention the nation’s health care reforms.

Go Brown!

Labels: Age of Obama, health care reform, Rhode Island

There is a “news” piece from the Associated Press written by a reporter, Charles Babington, on the “double standard” of the GOP in the healthcare debate.  The essence of Babington’s so-called “news” piece is that Republicans hypocritically voted FOR a Medicare expansion that includes pharmaceutical drugs back in 2003 when they had control of the US Senate.  The claim is that the addition of drugs to the already existing federally funded health care entitlement added half a trillion in costs all by itself, and is actually “worse than” the current expansion in government run healthcare because the half trillion dollars was “deficit financed” which is purportedly unlike the current deficit financed bill because back in 2003 we had no way to finance the drug benefit expansion, and you see this new government entitlement is paid for (out of Medicare?!?!?)

Anyway, what royals me here is that first of all, this is NOT a news item.  It is pure, unadulterated, left of center biased opinion.

Secondly, there is an answer to this kind of sideswipe.

Mark Steyn says that, unlike the add on of drug benefits to an already existing entitlement, as bad as that may have been perhaps, what the Democrats have done is essentially turned over control of over one-sixth of the US economy to the government, and has placed government in between the patient and the doctor:

The monstrous mountain of toxic pustules sprouting from greasy boils metastasizing from malign carbuncles that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve is not the last word in “health” “care,” but the first. It ensures that this is all we’ll be talking about, now and forever.

Government can’t just annex “one-sixth of the U.S. economy” (i.e., the equivalent of annexing the entire British or French economy, or annexing the entire Indian economy twice over) and then just say: “Okay, what’s next? On to cap-and-trade . . . ” Nations that governmentalize health care soon find themselves talking about little else…

…My Republican friends often seem to miss the point in this debate: The so-called “public option” is not Page 3,079, Section (f), Clause VII. The entire bill is a public option — because that’s where it leads, remorselessly. The so-called “death panel” is not Page 2,721, Paragraph 19, Sub-section (d), but again the entire bill — because it inserts the power of the state between you and your doctor, and in effect assumes jurisdiction over your body. As the savvier Dems have always known, once you’ve crossed the Rubicon, you can endlessly re-reform your health reform until the end of time, and all the stuff you didn’t get this go-round will fall into place, and very quickly.

As I’ve been saying for over a year now, “health care” is the fast-track to a permanent left-of-center political culture. The unlovely Democrats on public display in the week before Christmas may seem like just a bunch of jelly-spined opportunists, grubby wardheelers and rapacious kleptocrats, but the smarter ones are showing great strategic clarity. Alas for the rest of us, Euro-style government on a Harry Reid/Chris Dodd/Ben Nelson scale will lead to ruin.

Labels: Age of Obama, health care reform

Here is the complete tally on the final vote last night in favor of establishing socialized medicine in this country. 

RI’s Langevin and Kennedy, of course, both voted with the slim majority.

Below are some other interesting cuts of the voting data.

The first is from Red Elephant who tracked the Democrats that have the most to lose (and we hope so) for supporting Obamacare.  The number next to their names is the percent of the vote McCain received in their Congressional District in 2008.  The list is also color coded to denote Freshman, 1+ Term and 3+ Term incumbents and includes McCain’s performance in 2008 in that congressional district.

MS-04 Taylor         67
TX-17 Edwards      67
OK-02 Boren         66
TN-04 Davis          64
AL-02 Bright          63
ID-01 Minnick        62
MS-01 Childers      62
TN-06 Gordon       62
AL-05 Griffith         61
LA-03 Melancon    61
MO-04 Skelton      61
AR-01 Berry          59
VA-09 Boucher      59
AR-04 Ross           58
MD-01 Kratovil     58
UT-02 Matheson    57
WV-01 Mollohan   57
GA-08 Marshall     56
TN-08 Tanner        56
WV-03 Rahall        56
KY-06 Chandler   55
PA-04 Altmire        55
AR-02 Snyder        54
AZ-01 Kirkpatrick 54
FL-02 Boyd           54
PA-10 Carney        54
ND-AL Pomeroy    53
SC-05 Spratt          53
AZ-05 Mitchell       52
AZ-08 Giffords       52
NC-07 McIntyre   52
NC-11 Shuler         52
OH-18 Space         52
FL-24 Kosmas       51
IN-08 Ellsworth      51
NY-13 McMahon  51
NY-29 Massa        51
PA-17 Holden        51
VA-05 Perriello      51
CO-03 Salazar       50
CO-04 Markey      50
IN-09 Hill               50
MN-07 Peterson    50
NM-02 Teague      50
OH-06 Wilson       50
OH-16 Boccieri     50
PA-12 Murtha       50

And this is from the Weekly Standard: The thirty-nine Democrats voted against it:

1. Rep. John Adler (NJ)

2. Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)

3. Rep. Brian Baird (WA)

4. Rep. John Barrow (GA)

5. Rep. John Boccieri (OH)

6. Rep. Dan Boren (OK)

7. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA)

8. Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)

9. Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)

10. Rep. Ben Chandler (KT)

11. Rep. Travis Childers (MS)

12. Rep. Artur Davis (AL)

13. Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)

14. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)

15. Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)

16. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)

17. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)

18. Rep. Tim Holden (PA)

19. Rep. Larry Kissell (NC)

20. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)

21. Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD)

22. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)

23. Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)

24. Rep. Betsy Markey (CO)

25. Rep. Eric Massa (NY)

26. Rep. Jim Matheson(UT)

27. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)

28. Rep. Michael McMahon (NY)

29. Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)

30. Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)

31. Rep. Scott Murphy (NY)

32. Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)

33. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)

34. Rep. Mike Ross (AR)

35. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)

36. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)

37. Rep. John Tanner (TN)

38. Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)

39. Rep. Harry Teague (NM)

So, for Obamacare to become the law of the land, first the Senate needs to pass a bill, and Harry Reid can't afford to lose a single Democrat if the Republicans stick together. And then the House and Senate would need to reconcile the two bills in conference committee and each vote on the conference report before it goes to Obama's desk. This fight isn't over.

Labels: 2012 Election, Age of Obama, health care, health care reform, Rhode Island

I have to write really fast here, so forgive my mistakes.  I have to be somewhere, and frankly the topic doesn’t deserve too much of one’s time, but it is a milestone for which to take notice.  The death of Senator Ted Kennedy has raised a plethora of interesting political issues:

For one, what the affect will be on the health bill which Democrats now threaten to name the Kennedy bill in honor of the man that pursued socialist medicine and other overtly socialized causes for years.  Somehow the naming of this turkey as the “Kennedy” bill is going to tame all the town hallers and make us all go into a slumber of good feeling.  What it will do is encourage some unthinking voters to favor it for reasons of nostalgia.  Imagine finding yourself in front of one of those death committees at some godforsaken nursing home in a few years and learning that the government bureaucrats have decided your number was up, and just because you were a fan of the Kennedy clan, and made the grave error of deciding to support his stupid socialized medicine bill to give honor to the name?!

And then what about all the sleazy things Ted was well known for over the years.  Not to speak ill of the dead, but his cheating in college, the unnecessary death of Mary-Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, the defending of alleged rapist and relative Will Kennedy Smith with whom he and son Patrick (yes, RI’s own) hung out together in Florida years ago.

Several good books were written about Chappaquiddick, and all of them pretty much condemned Ted’s terrible, immature and self centered behavior designed extemporaneously to save his own hide and preserve his political career.

Okay, so the Senate is a lady’s and gentleman’s club, and a lot of conservative colleagues respected Ted as he got older and as he finally matured when he reached his 70’s.  Why, then, why must we have socialized medicine shoved down our throats simply because the man was transfixed with the idea and the majority of his fellow Democrats wish to honor him?  Honor him with a trophy or something.  Give him a great send off, but please name this bill after him, and use that to get it passed when it should be deep sixed.

Sure, he was the brother of John F. Kennedy, and even conservatives thought well of anti-communist, tax reducing JFK (except perhaps for his own personal exploits), but it started when brother Robert needed a way to distinguish himself from Texas Democrat LBJ who took over after John’s assassination.  Robert saw that in the late 60’s he could carve out a constituency in a run for the presidency in the leftism that became popular and then prevalent at the time.  Ted merely followed Robert’s designed strategy.  Perhaps he could have been more moderate a Democrat, and how that would have changed history.  Too bad he hadn’t an idea of his own in this regard, except to move deliberately and inexorably leftward.  Too bad.  RIP.

Labels: Age of Obama

I came across this in today’s Wall Street Journal in the letters to the editor section, and I found that the more I pondered what this writer has stated, the more I think it lands in the heart of Obamaland.  This is the reason why conservatives like Christopher Buckley, David Brooks and others were enamored of Obama prior to the election, why some still stand in awe.

Obama's Words on Roberts Reveal a Lot About Obama

I found the excerpt from Barack Obama's 2005 Senate speech, "Why Obama Voted Against Roberts" (June 2), fascinating because it shows very well how President Obama operates. He makes fantastic speeches which all praise principle, values and common sense. Many conservatives would not even deliver speeches as deeply conservative as Mr. Obama's. Yet when he casts his vote, he is a super liberal, to the left of the left. The usual liberal "culprits" show their colors at the first word they pronounce. One or two sentences and one knows that a liberal is talking. But not with Mr. Obama. This is what has contributed to his initial successes but will ultimately be his downfall. If you find so many good qualities in Justice Roberts, and find he may be "deficient" in 1% or 2% of his personality, why vote against him?

George Naniche
Moraga, Calif.

Labels: Age of Obama

On the recent “debate” between former VP Cheney and President Obama, an analysis from Gerald F. Seib of the WSJ, an excerpt:

Mr. Obama portrayed the search for the proper strategy for handling terror suspects as a debate between those on the left who "make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism" and those on the right who argue that "anything goes" in fighting terrorism.

"And both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right," he said.

Mr. Cheney would have none of it. "The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," he said. "They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum....But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground. And half-measures keep you half-exposed."

I agree with the former VP, but you decide.

Labels: Age of Obama, Terrorism

When one squeezes the balloon in one direction, it grows in the other.  What I suspect will happen now that the Senate has passed credit card reform legislation is that the House will surely approve some version of the bill, and it will be undoubtedly signed by the President; but ultimately it will have an effect on consumers, and not necessarily a good effect.  People will find it a lot harder to get credit, and the convenience of a credit card.  In order to counter the impositions placed upon them by this legislation, credit card companies and banks will offset the new demands by making it a lot harder for people to obtain credit cards.  This may be momentarily helpful in that Americans are credit crazy and heavily in debt right now, and perhaps it will deter bad behavior; but it will also still commerce, and a slow economy could continue for a much longer time.  When you fiddle with markets, markets tend to fiddle back.

Labels: Age of Obama

From Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review,…

I’ve been travelling this week and meeting with some wonderfully good people here in Los Angeles so I haven’t kept up with every step of the back and forth Danielle got rolling. But, having read some of it, and firmly believing this Notre Dame story is a significant one for the nation and the Catholic Church and human dignity, I want to say something as a Catholic, a conservative, a pro-lifer, a citizen of the United States of America, where Barack Obama is my president.

I feel nothing beleaguered in me. I am not isolated. To be frank, I know that my Redeemer lives. So that’s that.

That’s simplified, or shorthand, at least. But it’s why [Professor] Mary Ann {Glendon] did what she did and why I love her for it. She’s operating very much in this world, but knowing she owes her ultimate trust and service to another. She loves her country, whoever the president is, and knows the importance of the processes and the institutions. Notre Dame, though, is one of those important institutions. And what is its reason for being? That question needs to be answered within, or they’re just not going to be prepared for their supposed dialogues with the most powerful and influential and arguably persuasive personality of the present moment.

I love a story Rush Limbaugh tells of being at National Review’s 50th anniversary party. I may butcher the story, but the gist of it is a beautiful young soul of a man approached him, an obviously wounded warrior in his dress best, and expressed his admiration for Rush. Rush was so moved and humbled and when he expressed an unworthiness, our young hero said, Mr. Limbaugh, we all have our roles.

That’s it. And that’s why Mary Ann did what she did. And that’s what Notre Dame needs to be meditating on (every day, and everyone). That’s what conservatives need to be doing as a movement and as individuals and individual parts. Otherwise it’s all a crapshoot. It might be any way, to some extent, but if you at least walk into every new door knowing your role there – walk in knowing what you’re about — you’ve got something to work with.

Notre Dame is a tremendous institution. But if it loses its mission, it’s for naught. That’s why Mary Ann did the right thing. As that young mom wrote Friday, addressing Notre Dame’s president:

Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?

Mary Ann joined no one in any way in questioning or demeaning the moral legitimacy of the office of the presidency or the president himself. It is precisely because Notre Dame and the president have such great responsibilities that she had to stand athwart and say thank you for the opportunity to highlight some fundamentals. I believe she couldn’t have done that on Commencement Day without doing some damage (ironically in the way Danielle suggests she has).

Mary Ann Glendon’s move had nothing to do with self-destruction, but renewal. Public fights can not be engaged in successfully without constant private work, too.

Labels: Age of Obama

Mack Owens of Newport, RI, and a prolific writer in such periodicals as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the RI’s own Anchor Rising, points out Obama's problem in dealing with the piracy.

An excerpt:

When Somali pirates hijacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama this week and took 20 Americans hostage, President Barack Obama refused to comment. It seems that our new president is desperate to do everything he can to distance himself from his predecessor, which is why his team has launched a campaign to rebrand the War on Terror. The results are mystifying. "Overseas contingency operations" is the new name for the war, while "man-caused disasters" is a euphemism for terrorist attacks.

But read the whole thing.

Labels: Age of Obama

This from Commentary's Jennifer Rubin:

Perhaps the most intriguing and least easy to categorize speech at CPAC came from Newt Gingrich. It was the most partisan of assaults and the least pro-Republican in advocacy. It was the most raucous and the most sober. And it was not clear whether it was the opening of a presidential campaign, a political movement, or just a graduate course on political science.

First a word about tone and presentation. It is an art to give a speech to a large room packed with supporters and not talk in “speech” voice with awkward phrasing, trite lines and predictable timing. Gingrich has a well-modulated voice and the ability to deliver biting sarcasm without a sneer. He spoke in conversational language and in quiet tones and held the room in the palm of his hand.

But he didn’t start that way — entering from the back of a jammed room like a candidate, or perhaps the president entering the House of Representatives. Ah, I thought, this is the presidential campaign starter. But maybe not.

He was relentless in attacking the president, Nancy Pelosi (whom he teased mercilessly about popping up to applaud the president’s speech before he completed the applause lines) and the Obama administration. He began by excoriating Eric Holder for his comments that Americans were “cowards” and declared that he “welcomed the opportunity to have a dialogue with you about cowardice anytime and any place.” He then suggested Detroit where they could chat about failed government, failed bureaucracy and failed schools.  He declared that we “should be committed to liberating the people of Detroit.

But his sharpest criticism was reserved for liberals and the president. Reading from the New York Times, which declared that the new budget “sweeps away Reagan’s ideas,” he mused that the Times certainly hoped so and had suffered great disappointments –the Soviet Union disappears, private industry thrives, big government fails and they lost readership. He deadpanned :”It was great 25 years.”

His ire was mostly directed at the Obama budget, which he says is an effort to “create a European model.” And his language was harsh. ”The administration thinks we’re just plain dumb,” he said. ”A bill with 8,000 earmarks doesn’t count? I was looking for change I can believe in. I wonder how dumb they think we are, that they think we wouldn’t notice 8,000 earmarks.” And on tax policy he noted that Obama is “not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250, 000–unless they use electricity.” Or other fuels.

But the heart of a speech was call to make the  2010 and 2012 elections “the most consequential in U.S. history. ” He declared, “Every person who didn’t read the stimulus —  everyone of them deserves to be defeated.” But this was not a Republican call to arms per se — indeed, this is where it got interesting. In his vision, Obama is part of the “failed Bush-Obama” policies of big government, lots of bureaucracy and high taxes. That’s the political or intellectual exercise he is engaging in and asking others to engage in — Obama is the past ( already!) and part of the failure of big government.  Gingrich’s movement, by contrast, is the low tax, anti-bureaucracy, pro-jobs “American party.”

Unlike Ronald Reagan, Gingrich isn’t per se calling Democrats and Independents to join the Republican party. No, he’s is calling for a “tripartite” movement to oppose the failed Obama/Bush regime. A true third party? Or a stealth presidential campaign? It wasn’t clear.

Gingrich was in top form today. However, it is not altogether clear, other than throwing out the Democratic Congressional majority, what he is up to. And perhaps he hasn’t quite decided himself.

I think he has decided and knows just what he's doing.

Labels: 2012 Election, Age of Obama, Bailouts, Economic Cycles, The Panic of 2008