David Broder Has Lost His Mind

Today when I read David Broder’s “Obama is Still Better Than the Competition”, the first thought that came to mind was, Is Broder looking for a job with the Obama Administration? I mean, Obama has an approval rating of about 41%, his policies have been an object failure and his economic advisers have all fled as Obama keeps writing checks on an ever increasingly overdrawn account, zeroing in on the Keynesian end point. What does Broder say about all this? Obama is “cleverer, and more inspirational then any one else” (actually he said he was that way and nothing has changed). He then goes on to say that Obama is “much better than the competition,” and that it doesn’t matter if he loses control of Congress because “he is much smarter than the competition.” Broder must be living in some socialist Bizaaro world, but he didn’t stop there. He then resigns himself that Obama’s economic stimulus policies have no chance of success as he admits the economic business cycle “almost resists political command,” and “the market will go where it is going to go;” so much for the Keynesian economic theory that has added $4 trillion to the nation debt in just two years with no reduction in the unemployment rate or increase in GDP. So what is the answer? Well go to war with Iran of course. I’m not kidding, this is Broder’s long range plan for economic rehabilitation! “The economy will improve…the nation will rally around Obama…and (Obama) may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.” This Op-Ed piece leaves us with two irrefutable facts. #1 we must remove from office Obama and any one else that believes in his agenda of radical re-distribution of wealth and liberation theology; and #2, David Broder has lost his mind and needs to go on a long vacation.

Jerry Brown; A History of Failure to Act

When Jerry Brown was voted in as Governor, he inherited a $555,000,000 surplus from Governor Reagan at the end of Fiscal Year 1974-75. Brown allowed the surplus to balloon over three fiscal years until it reached $5,300,000,000 or a 954% increase. One of the main causes of the budget surplus was inflation and a housing bubble. The effect of inflation on property taxes also resulted in considerable hardship on home owners in the state at the time, but Brown refused to address the issue. This led to the Jarvis initiative and the passing Proposition 13 in 1978. At the same time, Brown pushed through another measure that was supposed to hold off, proposition 13 that called for the indexing of state income taxes for inflation; this saved California tax payers about $231 million, or $400 million over two years. Once Proposition 13 passed, Brown became a self-avowed, newborn tax cutter. However Brown did not see the necessity of maintaining the indexing, but he was overruled with Proposition 7, that made it permanent. Proposition 13 also placed the state in control of education. This directed a greater percentage of local property tax revenue to education and required more money from the state general fund to cover mandated expenses. As a result, Brown drained the state surplus and added 2 cents to the state gasoline tax. Many have tried to mitigate the gas tax increase as small, due to its price per gallon, but the result was well over $200 million a year.

While Jerry Brown been credited or demonized for raiding the state’s surplus, raising taxes and increasing spending when he was governor, this was all in reaction to Proposition 13 and the Carter recession that combined to drastically reduce tax revenues in California. But where does that leave Jerry Brown? If he has one major problem it is his hesitancy to act. During his first 4 years he spent way too much time posturing his austerity without taking the time to scope out the needs of the California voter. During this time, with a growing multi-billion dollar surplus he nothing at all with the money, no infrastructure building, no tax cuts, nothing. Afterwords, without being a newborn tax cutter, Brown could not have won the election. Jerry Brown is a political animal that has flown from the seat of his pants his entire career. If his political ads are a judge, I have little faith he has changed. When Jerry Brown was voted in as Governor, he inherited a $555,000,000 surplus from Governor Reagan at the end of Fiscal Year 1974-75. Brown allowed the surplus to balloon over three fiscal years until it reached $5,300,000,000 or a 954% increase. One of the main causes of the budget surplus was inflation and a housing bubble. Property taxes was one of the main causes of this runaway surplus that resulted in considerable hardship on home owners in the state at the time, but Brown refused to address the issue. This led to passing Proposition 13 in 1978. At the same time, Brown pushed through another measure that was supposed to hold off, proposition 13 that called for the indexing of state income taxes for inflation; this saved California tax payers about $231 million, or $400 million over two years. Once Proposition 13 passed, Brown became a self-avowed, newborn tax cutter. However Brown did not see the necessity of maintaining the indexing, but he was overruled with Proposition 7, that made it permanent. Proposition 13 also placed the state in control of education. This directed a greater percentage of local property tax revenue to education and required more money from the state general fund to cover mandated expenses. As a result, Brown drained the state surplus and added 2 cents to the state gasoline tax. Many have tried to mitigate the gas tax increase as small, due to its price per gallon, but the result was well over $200 million a year.

While Jerry Brown been credited or demonized for raiding the state’s surplus, raising taxes and increasing spending when he was governor, this was all in reaction to Proposition 13 and the Carter recession that combined to drastically reduce tax revenues in California. But where does that leave Jerry Brown? If he has one major problem it is his hesitancy to act. During his first 4 years he spent way too much time posturing his austerity without taking the time to scope out the needs of the California voter. Afterwords, without being a newborn tax cutter, Brown could not have won the election. Jerry Brown is a political animal that has flown from the seat of his pants his entire career. If his political ads are a judge, I have little faith he has changed. Brown says there should be no tax increases without a vote, sounds good, especially due to the fact that tax increase in California require a 2/3 popular vote. Lets hope his other ideas will be more robust than that.

Letters to the Editor, 150 Words or Less

In the world of theater productions, there is the concept of presenting 3 one act plays with a similar theme; it's always a fun night out. I tend to be as wordy as a three act play, so here I present a series of 150 word or less vignettes as it were, that would also fit into the constraints of some letters to the editor if necessary.

The Problem With Metaphor
President Obama thinks he has found the perfect metaphor for the economy with, “After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.” But there is a problem with this analogy. As with President Obama, the Clinton Democrats also misread their victory as a ground swell toward socialism; they were so drunk with a perceived mandate, that the American voters put the Republicans back in charge as the designated driver. The problem is when the Democrats where voted back into the driver’s seat, they got drunk again. The car is still in a ditch, and the Democrats think the problem is not enough gasoline; this is still the thought process of a drunk.

Sam Farr, "Let Them Eat Obamacare"
When Sam Farr came to Santa Cruz, discussing the merits of Obamacare, he was asked about coverage and costs under federal control. Farr stated there would be a “cafeteria” plan much like he enjoys as a federal employee, he described his plan for his wife and children as costing $300 a month. Apparently he has been eating from the public trough for so long, he forgot the people were subsidizing his probable $2000 @ month plan. Everything about Obamacare has been a lie. You will not be able to keep your doctor or your old plan, your insurance rates are going to continue to increase and it will still increase the deficit a lot more than “one thin dime”. This is where the President and Democrats have been spending all their attention instead of trying to help the American people get back to work. It’s still the economy stupid!

The Stifling of Ron Williams
I am constantly impressed with Juan Williams’ readiness to discuss his beliefs and those of the left in a reasonable and none threatening matter. In other words, even though I disagree with Juan Williams politically, I admire him as a journalist and his personal integrity, the two being almost mutually exclusive these days, especially from the progressive left. On October 20th, Juan Williams exposed an emotional bias that many have since 911 against those in Muslim "garb" at airports, saying it “makes him nervous". This is not bigotry, it is bringing an emotional belief systems to the surface to be examined. All of us have emotional reactions to persons and situations that do not necessarily reflect our worldview. One can keep them buried and brand any discussion as bigotry and/or racism, or we can open it up for discussion. NPR is obviously more comfortable with the latter than the former.

The CRS Doubts the Constitutionality of Obamacare
The CRS Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan research agency, similar to the Congressional Budget Office. “If a member (of Congress) decides to introduce a bill, CRS analysts can assist the legislator (or his or her staff) in clarifying the purposes of the bill, identifying issues it may address, defining alternative ways for dealing with them, evaluating the possible advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, developing information and arguments to support the bill, and anticipating possible criticisms of the bill and responses to them.” Recently the CRS has released a report casting doubt on constitutionality of Obamacare's “Individual Mandate”. CNSNEWS . Gee, wouldn’t it have been nice to have worked this out before all the political will from the Democrat’s was wasted on Obamacare. So when Nancy Pelosi was asked where the Constitution authorizes congress to order Americans to buy health insurance was, and she replied with, “Are you serious?” A follow-up statement should been, “Well, yeah.”

Through the Eyes of an Independent.
It is difficult for a partisan to understand an independent. It starts with the belief that either party is just a capable to run the country. The current trend toward voting out incumbents has little to do with any conservative mandate. What the Independents want is the balance our founding fathers tried to build into the system. Independents tend to ignore negative politicking, they are more concerned with a candidates strengths and beliefs, rather than weaknesses viewed through a partisan prism. It is a misnomer that the American voter is easy swayed or manipulated. The reality is, after generations of being the target of the most sophisticated marketing strategies ever conceived, the American voter has become the most difficult group of people on the planet to manipulate. But they continue to be offered everything but what they really want; honesty and transparency.

Those Sexy Financial Instruments
The purpose of the stock market is for a business to sell stocks, or a percentage of ownership, so the money can be used to grow the business and the investor can share in the profits. The Glass-Stegall Act (1933), stopped the practice of betting on stock movements; a form of legalized gambling. When Glass-Stegall was repealed in 1999, the practice resumed as naked derivatives. Rather than inject money into business or economy, these derivatives allow investment banks to create debt on a scale never believed possible because they are not based on the purchase of any underlying assets, but a bet on whether they will go up or down. The problem with these instruments is their uselessness; they’re identical to playing craps, where the shooter is betting $5 on the pass line and there is a $100,000 being played on odds bets. But there is no funding of anything.

Democrats; Their Own Worst Enemy
The President and Democrats have been trying to convince voters that the problem in Washington is the Republicans so called obstructionism. Certainly there can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with the help of President Obama has created the most partisan Congress in modern history. The plan was simple, the Democrats believed, since they had the Presidency and control of both houses, a filibuster proof Senate and near 2/3 House, there was no need to include the Republicans in any of the Health Care reform debates. The only offer of bi-partisanship to the Republicans was to vote for what ever bill Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi came up with. But half the Democrats wanted single payer and the other half did not. Still, in their arrogance they thought could pass a bill needing 100% agreement without the Republicans; the result stymied the Democratic Party and there lies the blame.

Juan Williams and the Carpetbagger Progressives

I am constantly impressed with Juan Williams’ readiness to discuss his beliefs and those of the left in a reasonable and none threatening matter. Unlike most liberals, Williams is comfortable enough with his belief system that he does not need to personally attack those with differing opinions. Further, in the political world of Kool-Aid drinkers on both sides, Juan Williams as a left leaning journalist is not bound by the political dogma of the left. In other words, even though I disagree with Juan Williams politically, I admire him as a journalist and his personal of integrity, the two being almost mutually exclusive these days, especially from the progressive left. On October 20th, Juan Williams exposed an emotional bias that many have since 911 against those in Muslim "garb" at the airport, saying it "makes (him) nervous". This is not bigotry, it is bringing emotional belief systems to the surface to be examined. All of us have emotional reactions to persons and situations that do not reflect our worldview. One can keep them buried and brand any discussion as bigotry and/or racists, or we can be open to any subject for discussion. Part of drinking the progressive left Kool-Aid is the former; the shutting down of free expression.

In an similar incident to the October 20th, 2010 incident on the O’Reilly Show, Juan Williams said on January 26, 2009 that Michelle Obama needs to be careful not to overplay the Black victimization card, “Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine is suggesting, her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross.” The result was NPR ordered Williams to refrain from mentioning employment with NPR when on the O’Reilly Show. On the 20th, he made the below statement and NPR fired him after 10 years of employment without any discussion.



The progressive left continues to define itself as the protector of the common man and those who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or sexual orientation. But to be accepted by the progressive left, each of these sub-categories are required to play a role and take on a forced consensus of victimization. Those of a protected race must identify themselves as victims of racism; those of a nationality or religion must consider themselves a victim of discrimination; females must believe that abortion is an inalienable right; and homosexuals must demand not parity but approval of their lifestyle. But when a black man, like Juan Williams, who has a long background of supporting civil rights, actually attempts a dialog on discrimination, he must be silenced and if possible banished; NPR ends up firing their only black journalist and in effect tried to discredit him as such. A similar banishment was seen in the Climate-Gate emails, where global warming scientists contacted colleges to try and get them to rescind the skeptics degrees and redefine the peer review system by only allowing one point of view.

This not only has the affect of cooling any meaningful discussion, it appears that there is a cleansing going on. George Soros, the world government billionaire, who views himself as god like, has been the man behind the curtain in funding just about every left wing anti-constitution group in the country through his Democracy Alliance, including the Tides Foundation (a foundation dedicated to protecting left wing money trail), has just dumped another $1.8 million into NPR to hire reporters through his Open Society Foundation and another $1 million to Media Matters. Media Matters has reportedly claimed not to have received it’s funding from George Soros directly, as if there is a mystical wall between Soros and his Moveon.org or Center for American Progress, which has funded Media Matters with tens of millions of dollars. Almost immediately after Williams was fired, a Media Matters writer called for the firing of another NPR member that shows up on the O’Reilly Factor, named Mara Liasson. NPR Senor fellow, Eric Boehlert replied to the Media Matters posting with, "I'm not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox," Boehlert writes. "I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox."

So what is happening is a ratcheting up of the left wing propaganda machine. The left sees it is losing it’s grasp on the American people, but it also knows the average American is angry at government and somewhat divided, which creates areas of weakness to exploit. The left has been selling its message for the need of it's elite leadership and more government control with a corresponding weakening of individual rights, so more government-controlled entitlements will be available for the collective. But the message is not taking hold. There is no doubt that the majority of Americans feel the same way as Juan Williams, but the progressive left relies on a lack of discussion of any critical societal issues. They prefer that citizens see these issues as irreconcilable without the controlling hand of big government. But, this can not happen when journalists like Juan Williams are willing to bring these subjects to the surface for discussion; areas where American exceptionalism has a history of blending differences through the prism of equal opportunity, individual rights and liberty. In the south, racists had a word for blacks that did not know their place and refused to kowtow to their world order. It seems the progressive left has resurrected the concept and that’s a long ugly trip in the wrong direction.

Lord Monckton and the History of the Global Warming Scheme

Lord Monckton has no ax to grind but the truth. A self schooled mathematician he has taken on Man Made Global Warming and is quite possibly the most articulate and knowledgeable person on the subject on the planet. Having the ability to explain extremely complicated concepts in an very understandable manner, he was challenged to debate MMGW at the world famous Oxford Union, the world’s premier debating society and won. To this date Al Gore nor any other MMGW advocate will debate him on the subject. Below is an interview he did for infowars.com.

Keynesian Economists and Drug Addicts

One of the main Blame Bush talking points is that the economy was in such bad shape after the Bush meltdown, that it will take more than the last 18 months to turn the economy around; and there is some truth to this. The problem is Obama seems to be going in the same direction that Bush was going in when the economy failed. While the sub-prime banking failure pushed the economy over the edge, the economy was already suffering a slow down that caused Bush to institute a $300 billion stimulus plan. The cause of the economic slowdown was primarily the rising cost of oil, which had risen to from $45 a barrel at the end of 2006, to $80 a barrel at the end of 2007 (it would continue to rise to $135 a barrel in 2008). So one could argue that the recession and banking meltdown, while closely related at the time, are now two different problems. And with the banks repaying the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money and oil prices at least the same as 2007 levels, it would seem the economy was ripe for a Keynesian stimulus. The problem is Keynesian economics is a farce and stimuluses don't ever work.

President Obama poured over $800 billion into the American economy as a stimulus with almost nothing to show for it. He said this stimulus would be dealt out to shovel ready projects to get the economy going again. But what became obvious almost immediately, was the money instead disappeared into state coffers, unemployment insurance and left wing projects dreamed up by the Apollo Alliance (the liberal think tank that wrote the stimulus bill). This left even the heavily partisan Paul Krugman, to denounce in several of his Op-Ed pieces that the stimulus wasn’t a stimulus. Paul Krugman said that the $800 billion stimulus needed to be much larger and used more for stimulus projects, such a repairing and building infrastructure, such as a rail tunnel so workers in New Jersey will have less traffic when they drive to and from New York, even though both states have unemployment rates over 10%. While Krugman has not given a specific figure, one can suppose that he is talking trillions of dollars; this would be added to the $2.5 trillion debt left by 8 years of Bush Administration and the additional $2.5 trillion in debt already attributed to President Obama in his first two years. And of course, if a theoretical $1.5 trillion 2nd stimulus did not kick start the economy, than Krugman would say it’s because it was also not big enough. I would like to borrow a line from Krugmaniswrong.com who deconstructs every Paul Krugman Op-Ed piece. “They convince themselves that if only they had “more” everything would work perfect. Two types of people in this world have that mentality. Keynesian economists and drug addicts.”

But in a rare refreshing moment, President Obama in a recent interview with the New York Times, conceded that the shovel ready projects his stimulus was supposed fund, not only didn't exist, but there is "No such thing as shovel-ready projects". But it does make one wonder, then where did all the money really go? All that is necessary now is for the President to realize that government cannot create jobs; that borrowing large amounts of money to stimulate the economy and loan to bankers, makes about as much sense as cutting taxes without cutting spending, and simultaneously fighting two wars. And finally, while cutting taxes is not the answer to everything, increasing taxes is certainly the way to increase unemployment, especially raising taxes on the top 2% who are the ones that will most likely fund most of the new jobs. But I may be asking for way to much.

Krugman Reduced To Shilling for the Democrats

The other day I heard a liberal radio program KSCO “What’s Left” rag on the Republican Pledge plan. The primary ammunition was an article by Paul Krugman (Downhill With the G.O.P.), where he cites another economist Howard Gleckman of the “nonpartisan” (quotations added) Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” The deejay hammered anyone who called with an alternate view with, “There is no way this will work, look at what a nonpartisan economist said.”

The flaws in Krugman's article starts with the Tax Policy Center, which is anything but non-partisan, and is part of the Brookings Institute, which is a progressive think tank that embraces Krugman's Neo-Keynesian theories. As I said before Krugman views taxes and revenue as a zero sum gain; the more taxes the more revenues, the less taxes to less revenue. They refused to acknowledge decades of history that that have shown higher tax rates create diminishing returns (see video below). During the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush years, tax cuts actually increased tax revenues; the fact that Regan and Bush redistributed increased government spending as debt, does not negate the fact that the tax cuts did increase revenues. The true root of Krugman's belief system is businesses in the free market can not be trusted to properly invest and spend the money they create, so it is necessary to heavily tax all earnings so the government can re-distribute earnings through targeted tax breaks and low interest loans; in other words they want to tax business and loan the money back to them as they see fit.

Krugman is also using the Progressive spin on the Bush tax cuts. What they want you to believe is Congress is going to cut taxes. This of course is ludicrous, because the tax cuts we are talking about occurred 10 years ago. What the Democrats are talking about is raising taxes, about $700 billion over 10 years on those that make over $250,000, which they call the rich. What’s interesting is the Democrats have already spent the money and are bemoaning the fact that if they can’t raise these taxes on the rich, then they will have to borrow the money, which will add to the deficit. Don’t you wish you could use this logic on your boss? There is also no doubt in anyone’s mind any tax increases will increase unemployment and reduce GNP by as much or more as the tax revenue it raises. And since the $700 billion figure is based on 2009 GNP computed over 10 years, there is a real possibility that the tax revenues will be considerably less as the GNP is reduced.

When John Maynard Keynes wrote his theories on macroeconomics, he was still a firm believer in the free market and argued that his theories were designed to save capitalism. He was also pragmatic; when asked what he would do if he was wrong about any of his theories, he was famous for saying, “I will change my mind, what do you do?” But Krugman's Neo-Keynesian theories have thrown out any real attempt to save capitalism, concentrating more on Social Justice and the redistribution of wealth; in this matter Krugman has become what Keynes called idiotic, which is a Socialist; more accurately a New Deal Socialist. Krugman has forsaken any real economic thought and has simply created a partisan economic theory based on the spending wants of the progressive Democrats. This was driven home in his most recent article “Fear and Favor”. In this article Krugman throws away any credibility he might have had left, and shows himself as nothing but a shill for the Democratic party. While he had one passing economic comment about the Bush tax cuts, the rest of the article was a non-economic tirade against Fox News; starting with calling the Tea Party the Klu Klux Klan, “A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation.” Then, being true to form, he marks off a list of the tired old complaints we have already heard about Fox from the progressives, “Ministry of Propagana”, "Orwellian fair and balanced”, and of course Fox now runs the Republican Party, which has been bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch.

So now we know Paul Krugman and Robert Gibbs pretty much have the same job. The only difference is, much like Krugman’s allegation that Fox hires lawyers, scientists and economic prostitutes, Krugman complains most about what he has become, and much like the Climatologists that worked in obscurity until global warming reared it's ugly head, he has sold his soul to extend his 15 minutes of fame beyond it's usefulness. I will leave you with these three You Tube videos. The first is an Obama and Hillary debate. In this debate, Obama said he would raise the Capital Gains tax, even though it would reduce tax revenues for the sake of "fairness". This is the same logic used by Krugman and the political elite who really don’t care about tax revenues, they just want control of income so they can be the ones who re-distribute wealth according to their economic planning.



The second is a debate between Linda McMahon and Dick Blumethal for a Connecticut Senate seat, which has become an overnight sensation on "how to create a job". This is the best example I have seen that demonstrates how someone as intelligent as Paul Krugman, is so clueless to how the world really works outside academia.


And the third is Nancy Pelosi explaining how food stamps and unemployment insurance are the best way to create jobs.