Feb
25
Open Post 25th February
Filed Under Uncategorized | 84 Comments
Feb
25
The left and the Democratic Party are a little miffed that the filibuster exists in the Senate to stop their legislation. Some want to act to get rid of it, Obama and Democratic leadership are proposing using reconciliation to pass their healthcare bill, but there are times when words come back to haunt you:
This isn’t a partisan point, Republicans fare no better here. After all, for Democrats to be angry about the use of the filibuster now whilst being for it previously just means that Republicans provide the opposing dynamic. They were once against it but are now for it.
And for those on the left who want to scrap the filibuster. Imagine you succeed and that in 2013 Sarah Palin is the President, Michele Bachmann is Speaker of the House, Jim DeMint is Senate Majority Leader and the Vice-President Dick Cheney represents the 51st vote in the Senate. Still want to sacrifice the filibuster?
Feb
25
I read these Andrew Sullivan commentary on the resignation of Sarah Palin’s spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton and I’m struggling too see how Andrew Sullivan uses this Stapleton quote:
“Earlier this week, I handed Governor Palin my resignation, effective the end of this month. While I had hoped to work together on so many more projects, time with my precious 2-year-old has been further minimized with the whirlwind commitments of all things Palin. I have done my best to scale back, but Isabella is now resorting to hiding my BlackBerry, and she shouldn’t grow up begging for a mother to start acting like a mother.”
to be able to make this point:
Meghan Stapleton, the most loyal of all Palin’s aides, has now quit. She was the most loyal of the loyal, the most inner of the inner circle. In the end, even the closest aides cannot keep telling the kind of lies that Palin demands of them. Money quote, which surely reflects back on Palin’s decision to launch a national campaign, a book tour and a cable news career while having custody of an infant with Down Syndrome:
Now as he himself repeatedly tells us, Andrew Sullivan is a very smart man. And I’m just a dumb Palin-supporting conservative. So obviously he knows best, but I’m just not seeing the logical journey he made in this instance.
Feb
25
Conflict Of Interest?
Filed Under American Politics | 1 Comment
The Democrats and the Toyota inquiry:
Two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are holding hearings this week concerning allegations of sudden acceleration problems in Toyota cars and trucks sold in this country.
Among the witnesses appearing today at the hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was Toyota CEO Akido Toyoda, grandson of the company founder. On Tuesday, James E. Lentz, Toyota USA’s top sales executive, appeared before the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
There is a combined total of 59 Democrats serving on these two panels, which hold potentially life-and-death power over Toyota’s ability to continue offering its products to American consumers. So far this year, 31 of the 59 have received re-election campaign contributions ranging from as low as $500 to as high as $10,000 from the United Auto Workers union.
I wonder at what level a conflict of interest has to get for a politician to decide that such a conflict exists and that they should recuse themselves from a hearing. In most cases, the dollar amount isn’t that great (usually £2,000 to $2,500) but even so.
It’s ironic that even as this conflict arises, Democrats are trying to start legislation to restrict the role of financing in politics. What’s the bets that trade-union contributions won’t be covered?
Feb
25
Supposed Conservatives
Filed Under American Politics | 9 Comments
As you all probably know, John McCain is being primaried from the right by a former Congressional Republican and talk radio host JD Hayworth.
For some unknown reason, JD Hayworth has become a darling of the right. For example, Rush Limbaugh, although not explicitly endorsing Hayworth yet, takes Mitt Romney to task for endorsing John McCain.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the whole point of the conservative/tea-party movement to change politics for the better, to end corruption and the brown envelope under the table type of politics.
So in the red corner we have John McCain the champion of the fight against the corrupting influence of pork in Washington politics and in the blue corner is JD Hayworth who…
1. Is closely linked to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In fact, he was the largest recipient of Abramoff campaign contributions:
The real issue for me, however, is that while John McCain has many problems, there’s no reason to believe Hayworth is the solution. As conservatives look to young leaders with fresh ideas, Hayworth is a step backward. For starters, he was heavily involved with former “super-lobbyist” Jack Abramoff. Although he later cooperated with federal investigators and was never found to have done anything illegal, Hayworth was the largest recipient of campaign money from the now-convicted Abramoff.
2. Hayworth is a supporter of big-government Bush programs:
Hayworth’s support of Bush’s big-government polices included voting for the No Child Left Behind Act; the paperwork- and red-tape-friendly (and business-unfriendly) Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the pork-laden 2005 highway bill that included the infamous “bridge to nowhere”; and, most expensive of all, a Medicare drug benefit that created more than $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities. What is more, his support for a monstrosity known as the 527 Reform Act, which was intended to close “loopholes” in McCain/Feingold, and which was arguably worse for conservatives than the original article.
3. Hayworth, according to wikipedia payed his wife nearly 30% of the PAC money he raised in the period 2001-2005, over $20,000 a year. This is one of the oldest tricks by politicians; pay the family member for their ’services’ and in my opinion, it’s tantamount to corruption. And if nothing else, it’s $20,000 a year that didn’t go to conservative causes.
From what I’ve read about him, JD Hayworth is exactly the type of politician that conservatives and tea-partiers should be going after, not supporting. It eats away at their credibility when they support big government, lobbyist friendly politicians. John McCain is far from perfect, but is it worth sacrificing conservative principles because McCain’s a bit dodgy on campaign finance and immigration? Personally I don’t think so. And as Hayworth is a birther, I have even more reason to support McCain in this fight. Hayworth is the type of conservative that gives conservatives a bad name.
Conservative energies should be focused elsewhere.
Feb
23
Stealth (or Health) Taxes
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
In Tracy, California the city council have hit on an interesting (?) idea to raise revenues. Tax 911 calls. I can see that working really well.
Feb
22
Yes!
Filed Under American Politics | 28 Comments
Mitch Daniels is now “open to the idea” of a 2012 candidacy albeit reluctantly.
I don’t like Romney and Huckabee and unfortunately concede that public opinion probably rules out a successful Palin candidacy. Despite Obama’s poll numbers, I still think he’s odds on to win in 2012. But Mitch Daniels would be a game-changer I believe.
Daniels-Rubio?
Feb
22
Charlie Cook
Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment
Is one of the most respected political analysts in American politics and is regarded as non-partisan. His views are interesting to say the least:
I sort of reject the notion that there is a communications problem with President Obama. I think it’s just fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning. Of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush’s decision to go into Iraq.
I’ve spent the last couple of days talking to some of the brightest Democrats in the party that are not in the White House. And it’s very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don’t lose the House. It’s very hard. Are the seats there right this second? No. But we’re on a trajectory on the House turning over….
I suggest you read the whole thing.
Feb
22
Hypocrites?
Filed Under American Politics | 5 Comments
The latest critique from the left of Republicans is that they hypocritically welcome and seek credit for stimulus funding whilst having voted against it in Congress. Whilst not an entirely accurate criticism, it does have some merit, it’s not something that we who want a government with integrity should be tolerant of. At least on the corrupting influence of pork, John McCain was right.
But here’s a thought from Republican Rep. Aaron Schock, one of the ‘guilty’ Republicans in response to a Rachel Maddow question:
MS. MADDOW: …just this week you were at a community college touting a $350,000 green technology education program, talking about how great that was going to be for your district. You voted against the bill that created that grant. And so that’s happening a lot with Republicans sort of taking credit for things that Democratic bills do, and then Republicans simultaneously touting their votes against them and trashing them. That’s, I think, a, a, a problem that needs to be resolved within, within your caucus, because, I mean, you seem like a very nice person, but that’s very hypocritical stance to take.
Fair point. Schock offered his rebuttal:
REP. SCHOCK: No. I think that argument that liberals are making is absolutely ridiculous. With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you’re going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against? The fact of the matter is our country operates and govern by a majority. And I, along with almost all of my Republican colleagues and a good number of Democrats, have voted against the stimulus, the omnibus, all of this runaway spending. But we’ve lost those battles in the House. And at the end of the day, my constituents…
Hypocrisy of course exists on both sides. I wonder how much money Rachel Maddow, Barack Obama or Congressional Democrats have made from those hated Bush tax cuts. I wonder how many of them have handed the money they saved back to the federal government. Liberal criticisms of Republicans have no meaning until they are prepared to criticise their own on hypocrisy. But I think we’ll be in for a long wait on that one.
Feb
22
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Filed Under General Politics | 16 Comments
I’ve seen three stories today that really put into perspective the dangerous controlling influence of a government that feels the need to act, supposedly to help us but which actually put government in control of our, or businesses lives. The first two are from the UK which I found thanks to an excellent left wing blog here in the UK: Liberal Conspiracy:
Story One:
Workers judged to be lonely and to have a chaotic home life could be barred from working with vulnerable people, even though there is no evidence that they pose a risk, according to guidelines from the Government’s new vetting agency.
Decisions about staff will be taken by officials who have never met them, based on details passed on by their employers.
So what we have is a centralised regulatory agency making arbitrary decisions that could be better made by those interviewing potential new members of staff. How is it possible to determine the suitability of a candidate without actually speaking to him or her? How does one judge whether a home life is either “lonely or chaotic”?
Story Two:
People who inform on benefit cheats could be given a share of the resulting savings to the state under proposals being examined by Labour’s manifesto team.
I have no sympathy for benefit cheats. I’m even happy with honest and responsible members of the public reporting these cheats to the authorities. But to pay people to report others to the government. Really? Where does that slippery slope take us?
And finally a story from the United States and Obama’s new new healthcare proposal:
President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said Sunday.
This pre-supposes, firstly, that rate increases are excessive and secondly that government have the right to insert themselves between the consumer and the vendor. This new level of regulation is only possible, or arguably necessary, because the health insurance market is so heavily regulated anyway. Because states regulate healthcare to require certain types of coverage and because consumers are unable to buy insurance from outside the state, the consumer does not have the choice to find a better value for money insurer elsewhere who perhaps offers lesser services but a cheaper product.
The myth of personal freedom is being revealed for being just that. A myth! Should I seek a job working with “vulnerable people”, I now know that it’s not only the content of my character, my experience and qualifications that will determine my employability, but also the determination of my private life by a faceless bureaucrat who has never met me. Should I unfortunately need to receive benefits, I now have to worry about how others are judging me because they want to earn a little extra cash. And because of proposed ‘price controls’, I’m less and less confident that I have any power as a consumer. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that there a very few aspects of my life that I feel I am in complete control of, free of a bureaucratic Big Brother and the trend is not heading towards more freedom.
It is scary!