If so, thank Barack Obama for helping to make it possible:
Barack Obama's a swell guy, always willing to help out Chicago museums with federal taxpayer money… whether they need it or not.
In 2007, after he began his presidential campaign, Obama sought a $1 million federal earmark for the Chicago Children’s Museum to build a new facility. The museum, as of the end of fiscal 2007, had revenue in excess of expenses of $23 million, and net assets of $37 million.
If a museum is sitting on millions in profits, shouldn't they spend some of that before taxpayers nationwide are asked to kick in?
(That's from Jim Geraghty.)
Most people in the city don't actually want the museum to move, but darned if they can always find a way at the ballot box to keep re-electing the politicians who screw them.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Robert Redford is a dumbass
Sorry for the profanity, but it's true:
Asked by Michael Dwyer, film correspondent of The Irish Times , if he was looking forward to "regime change" in the US, Redford said: "Yes. Where my country is at the moment, I'm not confident of anything. I'm hopeful.
"I think Obama is not tall on experience . . . but I believe he's a really good person. He's smart. And he does represent what the country needs most now, which is change.
"I hope he'll win. I think he will. If he doesn't, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. I think we need new voices, new blood. We need to get a whole group out, get a new group in."
Wait, what?
Parties do disappear, even in our system of winner-take-all elections (as opposed to the European parliamentary system). See the Whigs. They don't happen because of a single election loss of one person. They occur because of internal dissention over issues, or even a single issue. The Whig link above mentions how they collapsed, for example.
To pound the point home further, even if McCain beats Obama, the Democrats are still almost assured of majorities in both houses of Congress. Are they just going to become independents?
Asked by Michael Dwyer, film correspondent of The Irish Times , if he was looking forward to "regime change" in the US, Redford said: "Yes. Where my country is at the moment, I'm not confident of anything. I'm hopeful.
"I think Obama is not tall on experience . . . but I believe he's a really good person. He's smart. And he does represent what the country needs most now, which is change.
"I hope he'll win. I think he will. If he doesn't, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. I think we need new voices, new blood. We need to get a whole group out, get a new group in."
Wait, what?
Parties do disappear, even in our system of winner-take-all elections (as opposed to the European parliamentary system). See the Whigs. They don't happen because of a single election loss of one person. They occur because of internal dissention over issues, or even a single issue. The Whig link above mentions how they collapsed, for example.
To pound the point home further, even if McCain beats Obama, the Democrats are still almost assured of majorities in both houses of Congress. Are they just going to become independents?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
More, more, more!
Because I find this topic so rife for posting, here is more on Helms, Republicans, Democrats, etc. from Jonah Goldberg (who was not a huge Helms fan):
But here's the thing. The reader who ticked me off yesterday cited no evidence that Helms was a "stain on conservatism," he merely took it as a given. Others cite Helms' opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday and his 1990 ad with the white hands. I don't consider either of these things racist in and of themselves. Indeed, like the Willie Horton ad, I consider them examples that liberals cite over and over again as racist as if doing so will simply make it true. Now, as for other Helm's positions and comments, I think it is very hard indeed to defend the man. In other words, I'm not sure the "stain" spreads nearly so far as the left insists. If having men with racist pasts on your team is, in and of itself, a stain, where are the liberal washerwomen going after Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd or for that matter Jeremiah Wright? In short, these things are more complicated than the simplistic morality tale in which conservatives are evil and liberals are good (hey, I think someone wrote a book about this).
Indeed, I grow weary at the constant liberal browbeating administered to conservatives to not only apologize for the racist skeletons in our closet but the insistence that those skeletons define modern conservatism, particularly when liberals insist that liberalism has no skeletons whatsoever (which is, simply, a Big Lie). That's what I took to be going on in that e-mail. But, again, I was wrong. Or rather, that's not all that was going on.
Still, after thinking about it. I think the conservative celebration of Helms has been too hagiographic, just as I think the left’s demonization has been too two-dimensional. Helms was the product of his times and upbringing, just as Fulbright and Byrd were. The difference is that liberals think it’s childish to point such things out about Democrats, but it’s all you need to know about Helms – and the GOP.
But here's the thing. The reader who ticked me off yesterday cited no evidence that Helms was a "stain on conservatism," he merely took it as a given. Others cite Helms' opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday and his 1990 ad with the white hands. I don't consider either of these things racist in and of themselves. Indeed, like the Willie Horton ad, I consider them examples that liberals cite over and over again as racist as if doing so will simply make it true. Now, as for other Helm's positions and comments, I think it is very hard indeed to defend the man. In other words, I'm not sure the "stain" spreads nearly so far as the left insists. If having men with racist pasts on your team is, in and of itself, a stain, where are the liberal washerwomen going after Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd or for that matter Jeremiah Wright? In short, these things are more complicated than the simplistic morality tale in which conservatives are evil and liberals are good (hey, I think someone wrote a book about this).
Indeed, I grow weary at the constant liberal browbeating administered to conservatives to not only apologize for the racist skeletons in our closet but the insistence that those skeletons define modern conservatism, particularly when liberals insist that liberalism has no skeletons whatsoever (which is, simply, a Big Lie). That's what I took to be going on in that e-mail. But, again, I was wrong. Or rather, that's not all that was going on.
Still, after thinking about it. I think the conservative celebration of Helms has been too hagiographic, just as I think the left’s demonization has been too two-dimensional. Helms was the product of his times and upbringing, just as Fulbright and Byrd were. The difference is that liberals think it’s childish to point such things out about Democrats, but it’s all you need to know about Helms – and the GOP.
Monday, July 7, 2008
More on Helms, Republicans, and civil rights
From an excellent post by Kevin D. Williamson on Nation Review Online:
Helms and Thurmond were contemporaries in that their careers overlapped, but Thurmond had been in the Senate for decades before Helms ever held office, and Thurmond had — again, let's point it out, since the AP surely won't, as a Democrat — staged the longest filibuster in Senate history to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was proposed by a Republican president, Eisenhower, and passed on Republican support in Congress. How a reporter can write about Helms and Thurmond and the civil rights era without at least noting the institutional hostility of the Democratic party toward these bills is mysterious. (Someday, somebody will figure out that Republicans have been responsible for the most important civil rights actions, starting with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Klan Act, the 1957 and 1960 acts, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But this isn't the place for that discussion.) And why isn't Helm's precessor as alleged "standard-bearer for civil rights opponents" Sen. Robert K. Byrd, a Democrat who is still in the Senate and who was launched into his political career by serving as Exhalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan?
The whole post is worth reading to fight through the contemporary spin that Republicans have been traditionally against civil rights. Also note this a little earlier:
On the subject of Helm's life before the Senate, you'd be hard pressed to take away from Margasak's piece anything about Helms's career as a Democratic operative or the role of the Democratic party in trying to block the civil rights acts that were passed, after all, on Republican support. Instead, we get this:
No to civil rights. No to abortion. No to communism. No to the United Nations. No to gay rights. No to arts funding with nakedness. No to school busing. No to the U.S. giving up the Panama Canal. No to a nuclear arms reduction treaty called Salt II.
One of these things is not like the others, no? Helms wasn't even in the Senate until 1973, after the major civil rights legislation had been passed. It is true that Helms worked against those bills — as a supporter of Democrats such as Beverly Lake. On the issues where Helms actually had a Senate vote — the NEA, the abortion, school busing, &c. — Helms's record is pretty good. But Helms was a conservative and a Southerner, so it is essential that he be tarred as an unreconstructed racist.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting counterargument (of sorts) made by a liberal e-mailer to Jonah Goldberg. Here's his conclusion:
Many of us liberals have discussions with conservatives all the time, respect them, and don't assume conservatives are racists, but this circle the wagons defense of Helms is just odd. I realize that times are tough for Republicans at the moment, but I think it is counterproductive to take this line on Helms, as well as intellectually specious, craven even. It wouldn't be throwing him under the bus to make a differentiated argument about the good and bad (from a conservative point of view) that he has done. I'm sorry you don't see that.
Helms and Thurmond were contemporaries in that their careers overlapped, but Thurmond had been in the Senate for decades before Helms ever held office, and Thurmond had — again, let's point it out, since the AP surely won't, as a Democrat — staged the longest filibuster in Senate history to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was proposed by a Republican president, Eisenhower, and passed on Republican support in Congress. How a reporter can write about Helms and Thurmond and the civil rights era without at least noting the institutional hostility of the Democratic party toward these bills is mysterious. (Someday, somebody will figure out that Republicans have been responsible for the most important civil rights actions, starting with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Klan Act, the 1957 and 1960 acts, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. But this isn't the place for that discussion.) And why isn't Helm's precessor as alleged "standard-bearer for civil rights opponents" Sen. Robert K. Byrd, a Democrat who is still in the Senate and who was launched into his political career by serving as Exhalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan?
The whole post is worth reading to fight through the contemporary spin that Republicans have been traditionally against civil rights. Also note this a little earlier:
On the subject of Helm's life before the Senate, you'd be hard pressed to take away from Margasak's piece anything about Helms's career as a Democratic operative or the role of the Democratic party in trying to block the civil rights acts that were passed, after all, on Republican support. Instead, we get this:
No to civil rights. No to abortion. No to communism. No to the United Nations. No to gay rights. No to arts funding with nakedness. No to school busing. No to the U.S. giving up the Panama Canal. No to a nuclear arms reduction treaty called Salt II.
One of these things is not like the others, no? Helms wasn't even in the Senate until 1973, after the major civil rights legislation had been passed. It is true that Helms worked against those bills — as a supporter of Democrats such as Beverly Lake. On the issues where Helms actually had a Senate vote — the NEA, the abortion, school busing, &c. — Helms's record is pretty good. But Helms was a conservative and a Southerner, so it is essential that he be tarred as an unreconstructed racist.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting counterargument (of sorts) made by a liberal e-mailer to Jonah Goldberg. Here's his conclusion:
Many of us liberals have discussions with conservatives all the time, respect them, and don't assume conservatives are racists, but this circle the wagons defense of Helms is just odd. I realize that times are tough for Republicans at the moment, but I think it is counterproductive to take this line on Helms, as well as intellectually specious, craven even. It wouldn't be throwing him under the bus to make a differentiated argument about the good and bad (from a conservative point of view) that he has done. I'm sorry you don't see that.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Good thing he's retiring
Virginia Senator (a Republican!) John Warner is asking the Energy Secretary to look into reinstating a national speed limit.
For those who are too young to remember, there used to be a speed limit of 55 mph everywhere. Yeah, it sucked all right. If I recall correctly, it came into existence during the 1970's because the nanny-staters wanted everyone to slow down to supposedly save lives (where do you think the old expression "Speed kills" comes from?). In fact, it did just the opposite for a few reasons, but mainly because there was a larger differential in speeds of vehicles on the same road.
When Republicans took control of Congress following the 1994 elections, they repealed the national speed limit. I think pretty much everyone (again, except for the nanny-staters) loves it, as it allows states to set their own speed limits. Now along comes Warner wanting to bring it back, ostensibly to force people to save gas. I'm glad the old fart is retiring this year.
For those who are too young to remember, there used to be a speed limit of 55 mph everywhere. Yeah, it sucked all right. If I recall correctly, it came into existence during the 1970's because the nanny-staters wanted everyone to slow down to supposedly save lives (where do you think the old expression "Speed kills" comes from?). In fact, it did just the opposite for a few reasons, but mainly because there was a larger differential in speeds of vehicles on the same road.
When Republicans took control of Congress following the 1994 elections, they repealed the national speed limit. I think pretty much everyone (again, except for the nanny-staters) loves it, as it allows states to set their own speed limits. Now along comes Warner wanting to bring it back, ostensibly to force people to save gas. I'm glad the old fart is retiring this year.
Jesse Helms, RIP
I just saw the news that former NC Senator Jesse Helms died. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I consider him an American icon. He wasn't perfect, but on a lot of big issues I thought he was great (like the military, for example). He was 86.
UPDATE: More on helms from John Fund:
The issue of race will always cast a shadow on Helms's legacy. He could never understand why he was viewed by many as a bigot, having run one of the most integrated TV stations in the South and often hiring blacks on his staff. His criticisms of affirmative action and forced busing were on the mark. But as conservative scholar John Hood notes, "he failed to marry every criticism of government overreaching with calls for the South's social and moral transformation and clear denunciations of racist business owners."
Indeed, the mainstream media rarely put Helms's career in context the way they did, for example, with Sam Ervin, a Democrat who served with Helms in the Senate from North Carolina before retiring in 1975. Ervin was the leading legal strategist against Civil Rights legislation, and he largely crafted the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But Ervin was the man who chaired the Watergate hearings that helped bring down Richard Nixon, and his views on civil rights were almost never mentioned. Both Helms and Ervin were courtly, principled conservatives. Only one became a cartoon media villain.
UPDATE: More on helms from John Fund:
The issue of race will always cast a shadow on Helms's legacy. He could never understand why he was viewed by many as a bigot, having run one of the most integrated TV stations in the South and often hiring blacks on his staff. His criticisms of affirmative action and forced busing were on the mark. But as conservative scholar John Hood notes, "he failed to marry every criticism of government overreaching with calls for the South's social and moral transformation and clear denunciations of racist business owners."
Indeed, the mainstream media rarely put Helms's career in context the way they did, for example, with Sam Ervin, a Democrat who served with Helms in the Senate from North Carolina before retiring in 1975. Ervin was the leading legal strategist against Civil Rights legislation, and he largely crafted the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But Ervin was the man who chaired the Watergate hearings that helped bring down Richard Nixon, and his views on civil rights were almost never mentioned. Both Helms and Ervin were courtly, principled conservatives. Only one became a cartoon media villain.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Corruption and a one-party system
Yes, yes, we all know Chicago's political system is corrupt. More stuff is coming out today, and I hope Patrick Fitzgerald keeps it up. No one is surprised, so I don't even find the details interesting.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
The reasons behind our high gas prices
Greedy oil companies, as to many Democratic Senators think? Not at all, according to John Hinderaker's analysis over at Powerline.
I recommend reading the whole thing if you think the oil companies are behind gas prices. Among many other reasons:
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
Not that anyone who follows politics closely would be surprised that liberal Democrats are most concerned with having lots of money coming into the government through taxes.
Another big point was raised by John Hofmeister of Shell:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that most Democrats, because they are beholden to the environmentalist left, want high gas prices as means of both punishing our economy (and those people especially who use lots of petroleum personally, like SUV drivers) and weaning the world off of petroleum-based fuel sources. That's an understandable enough position (not that I agree with it), but the Washington Democrats who agree with it don't have the courage to actually come out and say it. Instead, they do the one thing that accomplishes nothing toward reducing gas prices (berating oil executives on the Hill) and push for something that would make prices even HIGHER (a windfall profits tax) by discouraging investment in new technologies and exploration.
Again, I encourage anyone with the interest in this topic to read the whole thing.
Of course, it wouldn't be something I disagree with if John McCain didn't get involved (scroll down to see his part):
“Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
I recommend reading the whole thing if you think the oil companies are behind gas prices. Among many other reasons:
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
Not that anyone who follows politics closely would be surprised that liberal Democrats are most concerned with having lots of money coming into the government through taxes.
Another big point was raised by John Hofmeister of Shell:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that most Democrats, because they are beholden to the environmentalist left, want high gas prices as means of both punishing our economy (and those people especially who use lots of petroleum personally, like SUV drivers) and weaning the world off of petroleum-based fuel sources. That's an understandable enough position (not that I agree with it), but the Washington Democrats who agree with it don't have the courage to actually come out and say it. Instead, they do the one thing that accomplishes nothing toward reducing gas prices (berating oil executives on the Hill) and push for something that would make prices even HIGHER (a windfall profits tax) by discouraging investment in new technologies and exploration.
Again, I encourage anyone with the interest in this topic to read the whole thing.
Of course, it wouldn't be something I disagree with if John McCain didn't get involved (scroll down to see his part):
“Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Newsflash: Congress still trying to sneak amnesty for illegal aliens past us
It's hard to surprise me lately when it comes to Washington DC, but I should always keep in mind how much they all want to give amnesty to as many illegal aliens as possible, along with keeping the borders wide open.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Heeeeeeere's "Kristen"!
The New York Times has identified the girl who brought down New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Here is her My Space page (warning: annoying music, apparently of her singing). And here are some pictures from The Smoking Gun.
All thanks to Drudge and his great collection of links.
Meanwhile, here is Jim Cramer crying about the whole thing. I'm not sure why any Wall Street insider like him would defend him, but I guess they went to law school together.
Finally, it looks quite possible that this will end in indictments. Couldn't happen to a better guy.
All thanks to Drudge and his great collection of links.
Meanwhile, here is Jim Cramer crying about the whole thing. I'm not sure why any Wall Street insider like him would defend him, but I guess they went to law school together.
Finally, it looks quite possible that this will end in indictments. Couldn't happen to a better guy.
Client 9 steps down
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned this morning.
Much has been written about him this week and in the past. I'll just mention that he should have resigned (and not waited two days to do it), so this is good for the people of New York. Messing around with high-class prostitutes is a terrible idea for a politician, since he can become a target of blackmail by the organized crime figures who run the operations.
Also, as former and current Mercer employees have noted, he's a bad guy for whom no one is shedding any tears. It's even hard to be sorry for his wife, as she's been mentioned as pushing him on Monday to not resign and thus stay on as governor. By abusing his power as state Attorney General in attacking various corporations, he ensured that despite a record margin of victory in the 2006 election, he wouldn't have much of a base of support if things went south for him.
Good riddance to an arrogant, abusive man.
Much has been written about him this week and in the past. I'll just mention that he should have resigned (and not waited two days to do it), so this is good for the people of New York. Messing around with high-class prostitutes is a terrible idea for a politician, since he can become a target of blackmail by the organized crime figures who run the operations.
Also, as former and current Mercer employees have noted, he's a bad guy for whom no one is shedding any tears. It's even hard to be sorry for his wife, as she's been mentioned as pushing him on Monday to not resign and thus stay on as governor. By abusing his power as state Attorney General in attacking various corporations, he ensured that despite a record margin of victory in the 2006 election, he wouldn't have much of a base of support if things went south for him.
Good riddance to an arrogant, abusive man.
A former liberal writes
David Mamet is some kind of playwright or whatnot (his name is familiar to me, but I don't know what he does). He has a fascinating column in the Village Voice today where he describes how he has come around to the viewpoint of the world that could be called conservative. Here is an excerpt. I love the Thomas Sowell shout-out:
Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read "conservative"), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.
And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).
And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.
"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read "conservative"), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.
And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).
And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.
"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Sex discrimination in the sciences
This (very long) article describes the movement afoot to do to college science departments what Title IX has done to athletic programs.
There is too much good stuff to quote, so I recommend reading the whole thing if you have the time and interest.
There is too much good stuff to quote, so I recommend reading the whole thing if you have the time and interest.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
With big surplus, Hong Kong slashes taxes
If only this happened here! They even cut some sin taxes on beer and wine. Instead, liberals love to piss extra money away on new programs. Of course, those programs don't go away when the money dries up.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Here comes your welfare check
At least the press has stopped calling the money being sent to old and poor people "rebates":
Congress, facing the prospect of an election-year recession, passed an emergency plan Thursday that rushes rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most taxpayers and $300 checks to disabled veterans, the elderly and other low-income people.
Congress, facing the prospect of an election-year recession, passed an emergency plan Thursday that rushes rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most taxpayers and $300 checks to disabled veterans, the elderly and other low-income people.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
John McCain misses big vote
McCain was the only Senator to miss a cloture vote on the larded up "stimulus" bill today. For a guy who claims to be a real conservative, it doesn't seem like a tough vote to make. Maybe it is for Mr. Straight Talk, though. Michelle Malkin has the details at the end of her post.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
More welfare
So, it looks like the President and Congress have come up with some dopey plan to stimlate the economy. I'll play along that it actually do so (even though it won't do anything) and focus on the plan itself.
Here are the details:
Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.
Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.
First of all, I don't want to tell people how much I make, but let's just say I'm outside of the "almost everyone" group this unnamed reporter mentions. I don't make so much money that I couldn't use a few hundred dollars to blow at a bar or something.
Second, if it goes to people who don't pay income taxes, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. Let's stop calling it a rebate.
Third, if it increases linearly with every kid you have, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. There I go again!
Fourth (relating to my first point), if it's means-tested, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. See what these people are doing to me?
So it's all about showering poor people and their kids kids with money so they can blow it on lottery tickets or the craps table or whatnot. Great use of our tax money. Oops, I wasn't going to get into the issue of this actually helping the economy...
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has made this one of her pet issues, and she has much more.
Here are the details:
Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.
Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.
First of all, I don't want to tell people how much I make, but let's just say I'm outside of the "almost everyone" group this unnamed reporter mentions. I don't make so much money that I couldn't use a few hundred dollars to blow at a bar or something.
Second, if it goes to people who don't pay income taxes, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. Let's stop calling it a rebate.
Third, if it increases linearly with every kid you have, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. There I go again!
Fourth (relating to my first point), if it's means-tested, it's not a rebate. It's welfare. See what these people are doing to me?
So it's all about showering poor people and their kids kids with money so they can blow it on lottery tickets or the craps table or whatnot. Great use of our tax money. Oops, I wasn't going to get into the issue of this actually helping the economy...
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has made this one of her pet issues, and she has much more.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Huckabee no longer for a nationwide indoor smoking ban?
That's the headline, but I don't read it that way. He doesn't come out and say he'd veto a bill that Congress passed:
In its statement to The Hill, the campaign stated, “At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, Governor Huckabee said that if Congress presented him with legislation banning smoking in public places, he would sign it, because he would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. However, since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since he has said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, the governor believes that this issue is best addressed at the local and state levels.”
That's pretty weak stuff. Why is he backtracking anyway? Because his stance is not popular among conservatives and he's getting pounded on it:
Huckabee’s initial position on a smoking ban provided his opponents with fodder to pad their argument that the ex-governor lacks the conservative credentials to represent the GOP in the 2008 general election.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) chose tobacco-rich South Carolina as a staging ground to attack Huckabee on a smoking ban last week.
“He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states’ rights. So much for individual rights,” Thompson said during a debate in Myrtle Beach.
Thompson is not the only conservative who has attacked Huckabee’s embrace of a smoking ban.
Conservative columnist George Will and American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, a columnist for The Hill, each raised the smoking issue to criticize Huckabee, as have countless conservative and libertarian bloggers.
As much as I dislike smoking bans, a federal one would be worst of all. Why should that be the federal government's concern? It's a different argument than the one I would use against state and local bans. (I do like how I am included in that last part! Hey, it's technically true.)
In its statement to The Hill, the campaign stated, “At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, Governor Huckabee said that if Congress presented him with legislation banning smoking in public places, he would sign it, because he would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. However, since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since he has said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, the governor believes that this issue is best addressed at the local and state levels.”
That's pretty weak stuff. Why is he backtracking anyway? Because his stance is not popular among conservatives and he's getting pounded on it:
Huckabee’s initial position on a smoking ban provided his opponents with fodder to pad their argument that the ex-governor lacks the conservative credentials to represent the GOP in the 2008 general election.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) chose tobacco-rich South Carolina as a staging ground to attack Huckabee on a smoking ban last week.
“He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states’ rights. So much for individual rights,” Thompson said during a debate in Myrtle Beach.
Thompson is not the only conservative who has attacked Huckabee’s embrace of a smoking ban.
Conservative columnist George Will and American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, a columnist for The Hill, each raised the smoking issue to criticize Huckabee, as have countless conservative and libertarian bloggers.
As much as I dislike smoking bans, a federal one would be worst of all. Why should that be the federal government's concern? It's a different argument than the one I would use against state and local bans. (I do like how I am included in that last part! Hey, it's technically true.)
Monday, December 31, 2007
Public spending to "create jobs"
I've always known that any type of government work is necessarily inefficient, since the government has no reason to be efficient due to lacking the profit motive. It's not like the DMV or the post office is going to go out of business, since raising taxes to pay for its inefficiency is always an option. That's mostly what forms my small-government political beliefs.
Extrapolating this to public works programs, as was done during the Great Depression as part of FDR's New Deal, would lead to massively wasteful spending. Amity Shlaes has an excellent column today describing what actually happened then. She knows of what she speaks, as she wrote a whole book about it. Here's an excerpt of the column:
One of the saddest accounts of the public-works job culture I came across involved a model government farm in Casa Grande, Ariz. The men were poor--close to "Grapes of Wrath" poor--but sophisticated. They knew that the government wanted them to share jobs. But they saw that the only way for the farm to get profits was to increase output and to stop milking by hand. Five dairy crew men approached the manager to propose purchasing milking machines to increase output. They even documented their plea with a shorthand memo:
"Milking machine would save two men's labor at five dollars per day . . . Beginning in September would save three men's wages or $7.50 on account of new heifers coming in."
The men were willing to strike if they didn't get the machines, though they feared they might lose their precious places on the farm if they did strike. Their fears proved justified. "You're fired," the workers later recalled the manager replying when he saw their careful plan. The government man was horrified at the idea of killing the jobs he was supposed to create. "You're jeopardizing a loan of the U.S. government, and it's my job to protect that loan. You're through, everyone of you, get out."
It's like paying people to move a bunch of dirt, using hand tools, from one spot to another, and then back again. Yes, it "creates jobs", but it's horribly wasteful. All the money spent on it was sucked from the productive in the form of taxes (money that could have been used on real business investment), and yet it was thrown away on paying people for doing something useless.
Extrapolating this to public works programs, as was done during the Great Depression as part of FDR's New Deal, would lead to massively wasteful spending. Amity Shlaes has an excellent column today describing what actually happened then. She knows of what she speaks, as she wrote a whole book about it. Here's an excerpt of the column:
One of the saddest accounts of the public-works job culture I came across involved a model government farm in Casa Grande, Ariz. The men were poor--close to "Grapes of Wrath" poor--but sophisticated. They knew that the government wanted them to share jobs. But they saw that the only way for the farm to get profits was to increase output and to stop milking by hand. Five dairy crew men approached the manager to propose purchasing milking machines to increase output. They even documented their plea with a shorthand memo:
"Milking machine would save two men's labor at five dollars per day . . . Beginning in September would save three men's wages or $7.50 on account of new heifers coming in."
The men were willing to strike if they didn't get the machines, though they feared they might lose their precious places on the farm if they did strike. Their fears proved justified. "You're fired," the workers later recalled the manager replying when he saw their careful plan. The government man was horrified at the idea of killing the jobs he was supposed to create. "You're jeopardizing a loan of the U.S. government, and it's my job to protect that loan. You're through, everyone of you, get out."
It's like paying people to move a bunch of dirt, using hand tools, from one spot to another, and then back again. Yes, it "creates jobs", but it's horribly wasteful. All the money spent on it was sucked from the productive in the form of taxes (money that could have been used on real business investment), and yet it was thrown away on paying people for doing something useless.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
What has the American Left become?
Why, they can't handle people who get an apartment paid for by the government working 20 hours a week.
Here's the proposal. Note that the board member who is proposing this lives in public housing herself:
Adult public housing residents would eventually be required to work at least 20 hours a week or face eviction, under an unprecedented sweeping policy the Chicago Housing Authority is poised to approve.
"I feel all these things are in place for the betterment of the residents," said Mary Wiggins, a member of the CHA board and its Tenant Services Committee.
Wiggins, also a public housing resident, continued: "If there's no good reason for them [residents] not to work, they shouldn't be there."
Not too tough, huh, since these people apparently don't even have to work right now to live basically for free? If you think so, you haven't been following politics very closely over the past, say, 40 YEARS:
Housing advocates have described the eviction threat as "draconian"
"There is a real specter of homelessness," said Bill Wilen, director of housing litigation for the Chicago-based Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. "Traditional public housing is thought of as the housing of last resort for people who can't make it in mixed housing. . .There needs to be housing for families that can't live elsewhere."
This Wilen fella is off his rocker, basically. If someone would rather be homeless than work 20 hours per week (that's less than 3 days!), then that's fine with me. Some of these people have been leeching off of the productive taxpayers for years.
Also, if people can't live anywhere but the projects, what does that say about them? Don't they have any personal responsibility? They aren't children, but the left (and to a lesser extent liberals and the Democratic party) seem to think they practically are.
Wiggins lives in the projects, and she sees first-hand how destructive the free ride is on people's spirit. Do you think Wilen knows anything about that? I'm going to guess that he lives in a very fancy neighborhood that isn't anywhere close to a housing project. Maybe he should talk to my sister, who lived near one for a few years. Her condo garage was constantly being broken into and things were being stolen and vandalized by these a-holes. But hey, the status quo is just fine, right?
Here's the proposal. Note that the board member who is proposing this lives in public housing herself:
Adult public housing residents would eventually be required to work at least 20 hours a week or face eviction, under an unprecedented sweeping policy the Chicago Housing Authority is poised to approve.
"I feel all these things are in place for the betterment of the residents," said Mary Wiggins, a member of the CHA board and its Tenant Services Committee.
Wiggins, also a public housing resident, continued: "If there's no good reason for them [residents] not to work, they shouldn't be there."
Not too tough, huh, since these people apparently don't even have to work right now to live basically for free? If you think so, you haven't been following politics very closely over the past, say, 40 YEARS:
Housing advocates have described the eviction threat as "draconian"
"There is a real specter of homelessness," said Bill Wilen, director of housing litigation for the Chicago-based Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. "Traditional public housing is thought of as the housing of last resort for people who can't make it in mixed housing. . .There needs to be housing for families that can't live elsewhere."
This Wilen fella is off his rocker, basically. If someone would rather be homeless than work 20 hours per week (that's less than 3 days!), then that's fine with me. Some of these people have been leeching off of the productive taxpayers for years.
Also, if people can't live anywhere but the projects, what does that say about them? Don't they have any personal responsibility? They aren't children, but the left (and to a lesser extent liberals and the Democratic party) seem to think they practically are.
Wiggins lives in the projects, and she sees first-hand how destructive the free ride is on people's spirit. Do you think Wilen knows anything about that? I'm going to guess that he lives in a very fancy neighborhood that isn't anywhere close to a housing project. Maybe he should talk to my sister, who lived near one for a few years. Her condo garage was constantly being broken into and things were being stolen and vandalized by these a-holes. But hey, the status quo is just fine, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)