My inner Grinch stirs

Do these people want to turn me into the Grinch? From today's Wall Street Journal, a story that makes my heart shink three sizes:

Beyond Gifts, More Homes Make Room for Wrapping

Anyone wanting to buy all the gifts in "The Twelve Days of Christmas" should prepare to do a lot of wrapping—364 presents if all items mentioned in the entire song are wrapped.

Linda Howard is ready. The second floor of her 8,000-square-foot Los Angeles home has all the materials to give presence to her presents

"I have ribbons galore assorted by colors, little cellophane, big cellophane, boxes, wrapping paper of all colors and holidays, cellophane bags, gift bags, bows, flowers and candy canes," says Ms. Howard, a wedding and event planner and frequent hostess.

As the hours count down to Christmas, an increasing number of Americans are heading into their wrapping rooms, spaces found mainly in large, upscale homes
dedicated to gift-wrapping and other crafts. Real-estate listings are touting
wrapping rooms more frequently, and organizational outfitters like the Container
Store have created specialized products to trick them out.

In other news . . . does this woman want to turn her husband into the Grinch?

Real Life Grinch? Man Dislikes His Home's 27 Christmas Trees

Real life grinch - or simply a man who's had enough? You decide.

Of the more than two dozen Christmas trees in their home, B.J. Cornstubble is
only attracted to one -- the Grinch tree.

"We started out with one tree," said his wife, Jo Cornstubble.

"Those were the good ole days," B.J. joked. The Cornstubbles live in the historic Levi-Welder House, and each year, Jo adorns the 5,500 square-foot home with Christmas decorations galore.

She starts decorating in September, pulling ornaments and fixtures from their equally as big carriage house. It's an organized operation, Jo said, with plastic
bins stretched to the ceiling.

"In the middle of summer, I'm like, 'how far do I want to go this year,'" she said. "And I'm still at it."

Though he takes the Yuletide ambush in stride, B.J. is a self-proclaimed Grinch when it comes to the holiday, hence the Grinch tree lovingly dedicated to him.

And this year, Jo somehow managed to out-decorate previous seasons.

She decorated 27 or 28 (they lose count) themed Christmas trees . . .

Two thoughts: (1) Twenty-seven trees! (2) Cornstubble, really? That's a name straight out of Dickens.

Yet another scientific breakthrough produced by stem cell research that doesn't require the destruction of human embryos (a continuing series)

Timothy Ray Brown, an HIV-positive American living in Germany, received a stem-cell transplant in 2007 as part of treatment for leukemia. Three years later, he appears to be free of HIV. Reports the Huffington Post:

On the heels of World AIDS Day comes a stunning medical breakthrough: Doctors believe an HIV-positive man who underwent a stem cell transplant has been cured as a result of the procedure.

Timothy Ray Brown, also known as the "Berlin Patient," received the transplant in 2007 as part of a lengthy treatment course for leukemia. His doctors recently published a report in the journal Blood
affirming that the results of extensive testing "strongly suggest that cure of HIV infection has been achieved."

Brown's case paves a path for constructing a permanent cure for HIV through genetically-engineered stem cells.

The Huffington Post story leaves out a rather important detail. Were these stem cells harvested from human embryos? Fortunately, Fox News doesn't leave its readers guessing, and reports that the transplant was a bone-marrow transplant from a donor with "a rare, inheritend gene mutation that seems to make carriers virtually immune to HIV infection." What is more, the transplant appears to have cured Mr. Brown of leukemia too.


Unfortunately, this sort of treatment will not be widely available anytime soon, as explained in the Fox News article:

The transplant appeared to wipe out both diseases, giving hope to doctors, but Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has been studying HIV/AIDS for almost 30 years, said while this is an interesting proof of concept, it’s absurdly impractical.

“It’s hard enough to get a good compatible match for a transplant like this,” Fauci told FoxNews.com, “But you also have to find compatible donor that has this genetic defect, and this defect is only found in 1 percent of the Caucasian population and zero percent of the black population. This is very rare.”

Fauci said while this patient is “functionally cured” this is not something you can do with every HIV- infected individual.

“This is not prime time to me at all,” he said. “This is a very unusual situation that has little practical application for a simple reason. This donor not only had to be a good compatible match, but the donor had to have a genetic defect of cells that do not express the receptor that the HIV virus needs to enter the cell.”

Fauci also pointed to the fact that this transplant process is not only expensive, it’s incredibly painful and complicated, and requires the patient to start a whole new regimen of drugs.

“This patient is trading one poison for another. He may not have to be on antiretroviral drugs anymore, but he has to take immunosuppressant drugs now to prevent the rejection of his transplant cells. Again, what this is, is an interesting proof of concept, but it’s absolutely impractical.”

Dr. Thomas Quinn, director of Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health told FoxNews.com that he is very familiar with the “Berlin patient” case.

“This was a new report that looked much deeper into whether HIV could still be present or lurking in the body in some way, not cured, and since the transplant he remains viral free and his cells appear to be resistant to infection,” he said.

Quinn said he agrees with the researchers on this case that it would be qualified as the first HIV cure, opening the door to alternative means of curing HIV.

“He [Brown] has been without therapy for three years and appears to be free of the virus,” he said. “It gives hope to the millions of people infected with HIV that cure is a feasible option in the future.”

Even though Brown’s procedure proved to be successful, Quinn also warns that this was a rare case and a bone marrow transplant is not a cure-all for other HIV patients.

“It is a near fatal procedure that he had to have done because of the leukemia, but this procedure is very expensive and you have to be transplanted with a donor who is shown to be already resistant to HIV,” Quinn said. “You’re asking for a tall order to replicate this in the future.”

Even so, who would have predicted 10 or even 5 years ago that stem cells -- adult stem cells -- could be used to spare even one patient from death by HIV and leukemia? Many other cures we take for granted today were once considered "unusual" and "impractical" and even "near fatal." Who knows what will come of this in the years ahead? (Particularly, one hastens to add, if people who support funding for adult-stem-cell research along these lines are not pilloried as being "anti-science.")

I will leave for our readers to ponder why HuffPo chose to omit the fact that adult stems cells were used and perhaps give the impression that this amazing development was due to embryo-destructive stem cell research.

(Previous posts on stem cell research can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Of apples and rising seas

In the late 1980s, environmentalists charged that a pesticide called "Alar" left cancer-causing residues on apples, in such quantities that comsumers' health was endangered. Whether they were right about this or not (the EPA now seems to say not), there was a huge outcry about Alar in the press. I remember one of the network news reports showed a particularly tendentious image -- a lonely farmworker in overalls, sitting on a bench in the middle of an apple orchard, his work put to a halt due to the boycott on Alar-treated apples. It was an absurd photo, as if he was forced to sit out there in the fields until the EPA decided what to do about Alar. But it conveyed the right message: only did Alar threat our lives, it threatened this man's livelihood!

I was reminded of this by the Associated Press story from last week about how the rise in the oceans caused by global warming threaten the Marshall Islands. Titled "If an Island State Vanishes, is it Still a Nation?" the article explains that if U.N. projections are correct, much of the island may be underwater by 2100. It was accompanined by a photo of an islander looking on in sorrow as the ocean topples palm trees lining the shore near his home.

Lucky thing for that guy, it isn't actually happening. Follow the link to see why it's a safe bet he'll be able to stand in that same spot and eat an (Alar-free?) apple years from now.

Our ambassador to Haiti is blowing it

.... at least that's the takeaway from this column by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, who covers Latin America for the Wall Street Journal. She writes:

In a moment last week when Haitians were struggling to overcome yet another misfortune—this time a fraudulent election—the U.S. State Department's top honcho for the region, Arturo Valenzuela, put his energy elsewhere. He went to Tegucigalpa where he spent two days trying to force the Honduran government to drop criminal charges against deposed president Manuel Zelaya.

Very few U.S. administrations have gotten much accomplished when it comes to Haiti, but it would be nice if the present one would try.

(Readers who would like to help the situation in Haiti might consider making a donation to Hands Together for Haiti, or Samaritan's Purse.)

Megyn Kelly makes moral case against estate tax

I didn't think it was possible for Megyn Kelly to get more attractive.

Discussion on estate tax starts at 2:30:


By the way, Anthony Weiner makes the case for the estate tax on budgetary grounds. But the fact is that the estate tax raises very little revenue for the government, and some have even argued that it's a revenue loser.

Joy Behar not a literary scholar

“I read a lot of C.S. Lewis when I want some divine inspiration” – Sarah Palin

“Didn’t he [C.S. Lewis] write children’s books?” – Joy Behar

Find a CS Lewis bibliography here. Looks like more than fifty works, and only seven are the books from the Chronicles of Narnia series.

H/T to Katrina Trinko at NRO.

Obama calls GOP "hostage takers"

A new addition to Obama's greatest hits.

Oh, and this one: the "GOP's central economic doctrine" is "tax cuts for the wealthy."

Limbaugh: All savings are spent

Limbaugh nails it, debunking the myth that only Keynesian, targeted tax cuts "stimulate" the economy.

Okay I save it. What does that mean? ... Some goes in a bank account, but then what does the bank do with it? They spend it. Whomever I give my money to spends it. I might buy stocks with it. I might buy municipal bonds. Everything that people do with their money is "spending it", one way or another.

Amen. All savings are ultimately spent. Savings are just "spent" on capital, and capital is what is required for economic growth.

The two year tax extension...

...does not solve the uncertainty issue. If you are a business looking to make an investment in a new project, you don’t care what tax rates are in the next two years, you care what they are for the next 10 years.

Not only that, a business person probably cares less about tax rates in the early years, because a new project usually involves upfront costs, such as hiring and training new employees or purchasing new equipment, and those costs can usually be deducted either immediately or during the first few years. The profits, if they come at all, come in the out years.

Boehner backs Flake for Appropriations

This is encouraging.

Unfortunately, it looks like earmarker Jerry Lewis will be Chairman, but Stephen Spruiell has argued that Flake will have a major impact as a member of the panel.

This 60 Minutes feature on Jeff Flake and his efforts to ban earmarks is a must watch. I think it's from 2008.

This week's signs of the Apocalypse

Floridians behaving strangely. That could be a daily section in every Florida newspaper. For example, take this trio of fun headlines from the Palm Beach Post.

Loxahatchee Groves to decide what to do about overpopulated nudist camp

West Palm Beach woman charged with stabbing boyfriend repeatedly with fondue fork

12-year-old boy and father charged with beating elderly man at Delray Beach Target

[[[UPDATE - Dec. 2, 2010]]]]

Sigh.

Suspect lies about carjacking because he can't find his car, Boynton police say

Classroom Beating: Florida Student Gets Pummeled While Teacher Sits Back

That last headline is via Drudge, as is this one, which is too gross for me to copy here.

Sitting ducks

I am not going to over-react to the new TSA screening procedures, but I am concerned about one thing. It seems to me that a natural terrorist target is the line of people waiting to go through security at any major airport. All a terrorist would need to do is walk-up to the area with some kind of firearm or explosive device. The problem of getting through security is solved, because there would be no need to actually get on an airplane.

Shouldn't we be working on speeding the process up so that we don't invite such an attack?

Robin Hood movie

Finally saw Robin Hood with Russell Crowe this weekend, and added it to my list of the best conservative movies.

Bailing out Ireland

In 1997, I was in Ireland visiting some friends who had just arrived there and were planning on staying for about six months. They were looking for a job, but not having much success. One evening, they were talking to a couple of young Irishmen, guys in there 20's, asking them if they knew of a good place where a couple of Americans might find a job for 5 or 6 months. And they responded, "Why don't you just go on the dole?"

We laughed, but now I know, this is how that ends.

"We don't want to turn the social safety net into a hammock"

Extremist Paul Ryan on Charlie Rose.

High fives all around

The Alaskan Senate race has just been called for Lisa Murkowski. The Alaskan Federal contractor community is thrilled!

"Welcome to the club"

Christopher Hitchens reflecting on his support for the Iraq War:

I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness. Amazing. My conservative friends look at me and say, 'Welcome to the club. What took you so long?' Well that's what it took and I think it's worth recording.

The insanity of our tax code

Imagine a family where the father earns $100K, they have three children, and the wife takes classes at a local college and spent $10K on tuition and other related expenses. They have $15K in mortgage interest, $4K in property taxes, and $2K in charitable deductions.

The income tax for that family in 2009 would have been $2,540. That's right, by jumping through a bunch of hoops, a person who makes $100K can have an effective tax rate of 2.5%.

It gets worse. If he works really hard and manages to earn an extra $25K, making his total income $125K, their taxes skyrocket to $11,027. That's an additional $9K in taxes for an extra $25K in earnings. That's almost 36% tax on that last $25K, even though our highest tax rate is 35%.

Insanity.

Pelosi going after the toddler vote

Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that the deficit commission's proposal to raise the retirement age to age 68 by 2050 and age 70 by 2075 is "simply unacceptable", and that we need to keep our "promises to our seniors".

Does she realize that the commission is proposing raising the retirement age on my 4 year old twins?

Actually, I told my son this morning that it didn't look like he was going to get his social security until he was 70, and he said "No!!!!", just as if I was telling him that we didn't have time to go out for ice cream. So maybe Nancy is onto to something.

But seriously, if President Obama wanted to see his approval rating go up by about 10 points, he should come out against Pelosi on this one. But I doubt he will.

No son, you are not allowed to dress in drag for Halloween

This blog post by a mother about her five year old son who dressed up as Daphne from Scooby Doo is all over my Facebook news feed. Everyone loves her. The adoring comments have included "Thank God that there are mothers who are not afraid to let a child express individuality!" and "What a great mom!".

Besides the photo of the child, the thing that jumped out to me in this article was the following statement: "Halloween is the time of year that you can be whatever it is that you want to be".

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. He's five. Parents can set boundaries on what is and what is not appropriate. Actually, let me re-state that. Parents should set boundaries on what is and what is not appropriate.

Does this rise to the level of being inappropriate? To each his own, but I think so. If my son asked to dress in drag for Halloween, I would say no. Plain and simple. The list of costumes I would deem inappropriate is a long one, and dressing in drag is certainly on that list.

And it's not because I think it's going to turn him gay, or because I would be ashamed or wouldn't love him. I just don't think that it is appropriate for a 4 or 5 year old to dress up in drag. That's it.

Maybe Mike Castle deserves some of the blame

Yesterday on Meet the Press, political consultant Mike Murphy said this about the Republican Senate loss in Delaware:

I have a bone to pick with Jim DeMint...There has to be some level of pragmatism inside the party leadership

I never followed the Castle campaign that closely, but it seems to be that Castle deserves at least some of the blame for running a terrible campaign. Pat Caddell pointed out on a Ricochet podcast that Castle completely misread the primary electorate, and should have "thrown himself" at the tea party over the summer. Another idea? Maybe Mike Castle should have shown some "pragmatism" by picking up the phone and calling Jim DeMint. If he had done so, maybe he would be on his way to the Senate.

There has also been a lot of talk about the fact that the tea party Senate candidates fared poorly on Tuesday night. That is not exactly true considering what happened in Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

A clearer pattern is the fact that the self funded billionaires and hundred-millionaires all lost - Fiorina, Whitman and McMahon. I've read that the GOP backed these candidates in part based on their willingness and ability to fund their own campaigns.

But is that really the way to go? I mean, look at Scott Brown. He won in a deep blue state not because he was a billionaire, he won because he was a highly attractive, highly effective candidate.

And perhaps there is a conflict of interest here. Political consultants may love candidates like Meg Whitman because she can afford to spend $160 million on airtime and political consultants. Reports show that Mike Murphy was paid something like $90K a month to work on the Whitman campaign.

But according to Pat Caddel, Meg Whitman was completely mismanaged and overexposed. He argued that the campaign was designed to get consultants rich and not necessarily get her elected.

Perhaps there is an issue of incentives - an agency problem as they call it. Maybe political consultants don't always have the same incentives as the party or the candidates.

So maybe going forward we should be more "pragamatic" as Mr. Murphy likes to say, and focus on nominating candidates that can actually attract votes, rather than nominating candidates purely based on their ability to afford the likes of Mike Murphy.

Ed Shultz: Rand Paul hangs out with the birthers

"He's just the kind of guy that would keep the birth certificate conversation alive." -Ed Schultz

That's right, the guy who sincerely believes that we are in the midst of a debt crisis, is going to spend his time talking about birth certificates.

I think what they were really disturbed by was Rand Paul's Goldwater-esque acceptance speech:

America will remain great if and when we understand that government cannot create prosperity. We have to understand that it comes from ourselves. It does not come from government. We are the creators of that prosperity. Until we understand that, we cannot truly defend and protect our liberties.

Some thoughts from last night

I got two of my four wishes from last night. That's about what I expected, although Tancredo was never really close.

And I’m most happy about Rubio, Toomey and Rand Paul winning their elections. They are principled, smart, articulate, and persuasive. The Democrats would have loved to have Sharron Angle around to beat up on, but they won't get that opportunity. Instead, they will have to deal with these three very formidable Freshman Senators, and that will present a real problem for them.

And on Sharron Angle, she was just a weak candidate, and yes, maybe the tea party movement got carried away with her nomination. But with the tea party wave, yes, you might get some weaker candidates like Angle and O’Donnell, but you also get Paul and Toomey and Rubio and Johnson up in Wisconsin. I don't think in the real world you can get one without the other.

In the real world, the options are more like:

Option 1 (5 Republicans):Arlen Specter (yes, I know he switched parties, but stick with me), Charlie Crist (FL), Mike Castle (DE), Sue Lowden (Nevada), and Trey Greyson (KY), or

Option 2 (3 Conservatives and 2 Democrats):Pat Toomey (R), Marco Rubio (R) , Rand Paul (R), Harry Reid (D), and Chris Coons (D)

To me, option 2 is clearly the superior result, and that's the way it turned out. So overall, it was a great result, even in the Senate.

Oh, and another great result: the hot chick who drives too fast, can handle a weapon, and wants to slash federal spending is now the new Congresswoman from South Dakota.

Fear the boom and bust returns

A new video has been posted on youtube featuring an interview with the stars and creators of the Keynes vs. Hayek "Fear the Boom and Bust" music video.

The director of the video John Papola has this wonderful insight into the difference between Hayek and Keynes:

Too much aggregation is a problem that is pretty pervasive in the way these things are talked about. We heard about having too much slack capacity. Well, slack capacity to make what? What are we making with this slack capacity? If it’s capacity to build more houses that we don’t need, maybe that slack capacity doesn’t tell us anything about what’s going on.

I think Hayek looked at the world in terms of coordination, producing specific things for a specific demand. It’s not blobs of GDP that we buy and sell, and if we stop buying them, somebody else can buy them for us.

My wish list for tonight

Below is my wish list for tonight, in increasing unlikelihood.

- Pat Toomey wins in PA by 5+, Rand Paul wins in KY wins by 10+, and Marco Rubio wins in FL by 15+
- 60+ seats in the House, including an Allen West victory in my home district
- Tom Tancredo wins the CO governorship, so I can see some heads explode
- Rob Steele defeats John Dingell and/or Sean Bielat defeats Barney Frank. How glorious would that be?

The race card...again

Pulitzer prize winning columnist Eugene Robinson goes back to the race card one more time. He asks:

One thing that struck me from the beginning about the tea party rhetoric is the idea of reclaiming something that has been taken away.

...

Take it back from whom?...Again, who's in possession of the government right now, if not the American people? The non-American people? The un-American people?

...

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as "elitist," when he grew up in modest circumstances -- his mother was on food stamps for a time -- and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream can look at a man who lived that dream and feel no connection, no empathy. I ask myself what's so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He's black.

The words that come to mind when reading this column are predictable, un-insightful, un-imaganitive, and unoriginal.

Here's a clue Eugene. Before he was elected, the President said he wanted to "fundamentally transform the United States." Once he got into office and started governing, it became apparent to many that he meant it.

The tea party movement is opposed to this "fundamental transformation". The tea party wants limited government.

As Chris Christie says, "That's the fight." It's a fight between people who want government limited, and the people who believe there should be no limitations on government power. It doesn't matter what color the President is. That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now I am going to go vote for the Latino for US Senate and the black guy for US Congress.

President to hecklers: Don't stop heckling, go heckle the Republicans

What kind of President, when being heckled, doesn't ask the hecklers to stop heckling, but instead suggests they go heckle Republicans.



I put this in the same category as the "bitter clinger", "not thinking clearly", "you think they would be saying thank you", "Republicans need to sit in the back seat", "We're going to punish our enemies" comments. If I was an Obama supporter, I'd be shaking my head asking myself "What in the world is he thinking?"

Pat Caddel watched that video for the first time last night as a guest on Sean Hannity's show and said "This is not the guy people thought they voted for." Caddell and Doug Schoen elaborate on this point in this column:

Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining.

...

With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.

The Tancredo Surge

Get ready for heads to explode if this actually happens. Tom Tancredo is within the margin of error in the latest polling for the Colorado governor's race. As Glenn Beck said on his show today, if he wins, "what a message that would send".

Tancredo's number one issue of course is illegal immigration. Personally, I have mixed feelings on the whole illegal immigration issue. I see immigration as a free trade issue, and the fact that we have illegal immigrants is in large part due to the massive trade barrier that is our immigration policy. But I have always had a soft spot for Tom Tancredo. To him, illegal immigration issue is not a wedge issue designed to siphon off votes, it's a matter of principal.
Plus, he is a down the line conservative on all other issues, including economic issues, the role of government and Federalism.

Speaking of Federalism, on the Glenn Beck show today he discussed the idea of kicking off a 10th Amendment revolution. He describes it as an effort to "draw a line in the sand" when it comes to Washington's encroachment on the states.

The only thing that worried me was that he said the first person he is going to call to launch this effort is NJ Governor Chris Christie. Uh...I'm not so sure about that. A great way for Chris Christie's numbers to plummet would be for him to stop talking about teachers unions and the NJ fiscal crisis and start hanging out with Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo needs to give Christie some space to do what he doing up in NJ, and just maybe he will have the opportunity to move on and do it for the entire nation. So Tom, please don't call, and Gov Christie, if he does call, consider not answering.

Tea Party Extremist!

Remember when the GOP establishment told us that we needed to nominate Charlie Crist?

Behold, this performance, by Marco Rubio in front of the Miami Herald editorial board.

Government should neither discourage or encourage risk taking

Peter Robinson has an excellent post on supply side economics over at Ricochet. But he does include this statement which I take some issue with:

The government ought to encourage individuals to form enterprises, take risks, and invest.

One one hand, I understand what he is saying. The government is too often in the business of discouraging investment, work and risk taking. On the other hand, the idea that the government should be encouraging risk taking is problematic.

After all, the politician's favorite way to encourage risk taking is by putting taxpayers on the hook for losses. Whether these policies are explicit, (i.e. loan guarantee programs, deposit insurance, or other subsidies), or implicit (i.e. government sponsored enterprises such as Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Reserve's habit of flooding the banking system with liquidity every time Wall Street gets into trouble, or the broader notion of "too big to fail"), these policies distort the process by which the market prices risk. This leads to mal-investment, speculative bubbles, and ultimately, taxpayer bailouts. Exhibit A is the housing and financial crisis, as explained by Russ Roberts in his white paper entitled "Gambling with Other People's Money".

The amount of risk that should be financed in our economy is ultimately something that should get settled in the capital markets through millions upon millions of negotiated transactions between those who need capital (business enterprises) and those who provide capital (investors). The idea that politicians and bureaucrats are capable of shaping, molding and fine tuning the capital markets without doing harm is the kind of thinking that will lead to the next financial crisis.

Is Peter Robinson arguing for subsidies and loan guarantees and too big to fail? Not at all. My point is that if we are ever going to win the historical argument over what caused the financial crisis, I think we should get the language right.

UK Economy headed for depression

Well, that is what has to happen now that they've announced that they are:

cutting 500,000 government jobs, slashing spending by 25 percent, including a 19 percent cut in welfare spending, and changing the state pension age for men and women to 66 by the year 2020.

I guess this should be called de-stimulus. Think of all that money that's going to be "taken out of the economy". And what's going to happen to economic growth when the "multiplier" is applied to a negative number? Are they crazy? Haven't the Brits read Paul Krugman?

[Update]
Predictably, Krugman is now saying that the UK is likely headed toward a severe recession.

What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Jeremy Warner has this response in the UK Telegraph:

The big point missed by those who think elevated public debt doesn’t matter is that these periods of excessive debt utterly crippled the UK economy. Indeed, Britain’s decline through the twentieth century as an economic superpower directly correlates with increased indebtedness.

Michelle Obama violates election laws, ho-hum

Drudge is reporting that after early-voting in Chicago, the First Lady stuck around the polling place to ask voters to support her hubby's fellow Dems. Said one voter, "She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going."

Drudge notes that this activity would seem to run afoul of Illinois Statutes Section 17-29(a), which (he writes) provides: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place."

These sorts of statutes are common. Florida's version prohibits any person from attempting to "solicit voters" inside a polling place or within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. The election clerk assigned to each polling place is supposed to mark off the 100-foot no-solicitation zone before the polls open. "Solicitation" is defined broadly to include "seeking or attempting to seek any vote, fact, opinion, or contribution; distributing or attempting to distribute any political or campaign material, leaflet, or handout; conducting a poll [except exit polls]; seeking or attempting to seek a signature on any petition; and selling or attempting to sell any item."

The idea is to protect voters from being physically bullied, verbally browbeaten, or otherwise leaned on as they head into the polls. You know, like if a world-famous figure, say the spouse of the most powerful man in the free world, hung around telling voters whom they should vote for.

In all seriousness, it doesn't bother me too much that Michelle Obama talked up a few voters. It also does not surprise me when Democrats disregard election laws. In 2008, I served as a poll-watcher for the McCain-Palin campaign in a very heavily Democratic precinct in South Florida. A few weeks before election day, the campaign hosted a training for lawyers like me who were to serve as poll-watchers. They explained that, as poll-watchers we weren't there to promote our candidate (that was forbidden by the law prohibiting "solicitation"). Nor were we to offer any kind of advice to voters (that was a job for the election clerks and their deputies) or even speak to them. Rather, by law, our only role at the polling place was to observe, make sure election laws were being followed, and report any problems to the election clerk. Apparently the Obama campaign didn't tell this to its own poll watchers.

On election day, my counterpart from the Obama campaign sat next to the entrance to the polling both (within 5 feet of the entrance, much less 100), with a large, professional looking sign with something like VOTING RIGHTS HOTLINE in block letters, inviting them to call 1-800 number if they encountered problems trying to vote. I called the 1-800 number -- it was the Obama campaign's national headquarters, which answered with an automated greeting from the candidate. He also wore a cap emblazoned with "Florida Election Lawyer." When I asked him about this, he admitted that he lived in New York, not Florida, he was not admitted to practice law in Florida, and he did not practice election law. I also saw him speak with several voters well within the 100-foot limit.

I mentioned all of these things to the election clerk, who seemed markedly unfamiliar with the regulations it was her job to enforce. But after much cajoling, she asked the Obama poll-watcher to move, and after she asked him several times, he did so, at least for a little while, before returning to his (illegal) post. One saving grace was that he was incredibly lazy, and spent most of the day just sitting slumped under his sign. He was a cheater but not a very good one.

After consulting with the McCain election-law headquarters, I figured it was not something worth going to the mattresses over. The precinct was something like 99.5% Democrat, and the campaign's legal team had more important things to worry about, and so did the Florida Bar. And the fact is, the guy wasn't influencing anyone's vote with his sign or his stupid hat. But for me it was a little lesson in at least some Democrats willingness to ignore the rules on election day.

If you are in the tea party, you are not allowed to collect Medicare

A common critique from some on the left about the tea party movement is that many in the movement are hypocrites for saying we need limited government, while at the same time benefiting from various government programs. This article in Rolling Stone magazine promotes this theme by talking about how Senate candidate Joe Miller received benefits from something called the Denali KidCare program back in the 90's, but has since publicly criticized the program. Miller defended himself by saying that he is opposed to Federal funding of the program, not to the program in general.

The author then launches into a wider critique of the tea party movement.

I can’t even tell you how many people I interviewed at Tea Party events who came up with one version or another of the Joe Miller defense. Yes, I’m on Medicare, but… I needed it! It’s those other people who don’t need it who are the problem!

Or: Yes, it’s true, I retired from the police/military/DPW at 54 and am on a fat government pension that you and your kids are going to be paying for for the next forty years, while I sit in my plywood-paneled living room in Florida watching Fox News, gobbling Medicare-funded prescription medications, and railing against welfare queens. But I worked hard for those bennies! Not like those other people!

This whole concept of “good welfare” and “bad welfare” is at the heart of the Tea Party ideology, and it’s something that is believed implicitly across the line. It’s why so many of their political champions, like Miller, and sniveling Kentucky rich kid Rand Paul (a doctor whose patient base is 50% state insured), and Nevada “crazy juice” Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who’s covered by husband Ted’s Federal Employee Health Plan insurance), are so completely unapologetic about taking state aid with one hand and jacking off angry pseudo-libertarian mobs with the other.

(He really zinged Rand Paul on that one...ha, ha..."sniveling rich kid". And Sharon "crazy juice" Angle...stop, please stop. I am falling out of my chair.)

Anyway, on the surface, this argument seems clever, but if you use your brain for a second, you realize it makes no sense. First of all, it would be like me saying that anyone who was against the Bush tax cuts should refuse to accept them and send the money back to the US Treasury immediately; or that anyone who is demanding that we end our "addiction" to oil should not only refuse to drive a car, but should also refuse to buy any product that was ever placed on a truck or a plane; or that someone who believes in socialized medicine should refuse any treatment or medicine that was ever developed in the pursuit of profit.

But more importantly, does this guy realize that when the government takes over a function that was otherwise provided by business and/or charity, that it then puts those businesses and charities out of business? With Medicare, for example, the government essentially destroyed the private market for health insurance for the elderly. There are no private options. So what else are people supposed to do? Plus, people are forced to participate. They have to pay in, there is no opt out. So, is it really hypocritical for someone to oppose the existence of Medicare, but then also kindly ask their representatives in Congress to make sure that the government has the resources necessary to ultimately pay for the Medicare benefits that were promised to them - benefits that they were forced to pay for over the course of their entire career? I don't think so.

And on that Sharon Angle thing, getting health insurance through your state government, when you are employed by the state government and it's part of your entire employee compensation package, is not the same thing as receiving a government benefit. It's not even close.

This should make Paul Krugman happy

Greg Mankiw has a wonderful, must read essay today in the NY Times.

I am regularly offered opportunities to earn extra money. It could be by talking to a business group, consulting on a legal case, giving a guest lecture, teaching summer school or writing an article. I turn down most but accept a few.

And I acknowledge that my motives in taking on extra work are partly mercenary. I don’t want to move to a bigger house or buy that Ferrari, but I hope to put some money aside for my three children. They will never lead lives of leisure, but I hope they won’t have to struggle to find down payments to buy their own homes or to send their kids to college.

Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Now let’s put taxes into the calculus. First, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, I would pay 39.6 percent in federal income taxes on that extra income. Beyond that, the phaseout of deductions adds 1.2 percentage points to my effective marginal tax rate. I also pay Medicare tax, which the recent health care bill is raising to 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. And in Massachusetts, I pay 5.3 percent in state income taxes, part of which I get back as a federal deduction. Putting all those taxes together, that $1,000 of pretax income becomes only $523 of saving.

And that saving no longer earns 8 percent. First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings. So I get only 5.2 percent in dividends and capital gains. Then, on that income, I pay taxes at the federal and state level. As a result, I earn about 4 percent after taxes, and the $523 in saving grows to $1,700 after 30 years.

Then, when my children inherit the money, the estate tax will kick in. The marginal estate tax rate is scheduled to go as high as 55 percent next year, but Congress may reduce it a bit. Most likely, when that $1,700 enters my estate, my kids will get, at most, $1,000 of it.

HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?

By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. "

90%! I think about this stuff all of the time and never quite thought about it this way. Brilliant.

Can't we use this somehow?

This still amazes me.

My final thought on the fire department story

Dave Henderson at Econlog references a private fire service company in Arizona called Rural/Metro Fire Department. Their website is worth taking a quick look at. Henderson points out that this company will respond to calls from non-subscribers, but charges a multiple of their annual fee to provide the one time service.

Furthermore, I imagine this privately owned fire service, with a reputation to protect, would go out of its way to avoid the bad publicity that would come with sitting idly by as someone's house burns down.

On the other hand, the government run fire department in Tennessee, with its monopoly status, and its government employees blindly following dumb bureaucratic rules, and its lack of foresight on how to handle calls from non-subscribers, allowed the house to burn down.

And libertarians are supposed to be on the defensive on this one?

Fire story does not work as an attack on libertarianism

John Stossel made this point on O'Reilly last night, and Dave Henderson makes a similar point over at Econlog. In terms of this episode demonstrating the problem with libertarianism, there is one major problem: the fire-department was a government-run fire department. If there had been a private sector alternative, most likely, a for-profit fire service would have been happy to put out the fire for say a five or ten thousand fee. Instead, the fire fighters were adhering to overly rigid, bureaucratic rules.

Dave Henderson writes:

It's bizarre for a statist to attack libertarians when his own statist alternative works out badly...What's next... blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy?

Firemen watch as man's house burns down

There has been a lot of discussion about this story. Over at Volokh, Orin Kerr asks readers if paying for the fire-fighting service that the man neglected to pay for should be made mandatory, and over at The Corner, Dan Foster says that this episode is "bad for libertarians", and argues that the fire department should have tried to stop the fire since the homeowner was willing to pay full price for the service.

I agree that it's not exactly the best PR moment for the cause of libertarianism. I guess I wish that the fire department had stopped the fire and then sent a bill for every last dime worth of expenses and trouble they had incurred. And then if the homeowner failed to pay, they perhaps should have been to able to go to the man's insurance company to seek reimbursement (although that is a legal issue that I am not all that familiar with).

Which brings me to my main point. The other important player in this whole equation is the insurance company that was insuring the man’s home. Apparently, the insurance company is on the hook for the loss.

My guess is that insurance companies are now going to want to change their contracts to include a requirement that policy holders pay for a fire-fighting service if it's not otherwise provided. It would work the same way that a mortgage contract works, where the lender requires the borrower to maintain a homeowners insurance policy. The insurance company could even set up an escrow account on behalf of the homeowner to make sure the fee is paid.

So no, a government mandate is not necessary. The marketplace will work this out in about a second, assuming the state insurance board approves such a change and the mayor and the town hold firm on this policy.

[Update]

Arnold Kling, in arguing in favor of private, for-profit fire service , says:

I think that the solution to the problem of how to get people to pay the membership fee would come from fire insurance. I would assume that if you want to get fire insurance, the fire insurance company will be much more receptive to writing a policy if you maintain your membership fees. Mortgage lenders, in turn, will require fire insurance. As long as the vast majority of people who own their homes free and clear also obtain fire insurance, not many people would go without fire protection in this scenario.

Taxing the "rich"

I think we need to change the language. It's not an increase in taxes on "the rich", it's an increase in taxes on:

1) people who hire people
2) people that we buy stuff from
3) people who buy stuff from us, and/or
4) people who lend money or provide capital to people who do any or all of the above.

Socialism's war on the real world, part 402 -- Insurance

Adam Freedman at Richochet reports:

The Advocate General of the European Union's highest court has declared that insurance companies shouldn't be able to charge men and women different rates for products.

The suit was brought by plaintiffs complaining about men having to pay more for insurance. Advocate General Juliane Kokott didn't deny that insurers charge different rates based on actuarial facts -- women live longer, drive more safely, etc. -- but nonetheless insists that such differential pricing violates the EU's anti discrimination codes. The Advocate General's opinion isn't binding on the court, but it's likely the court will follow her.

Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article cited by Freedman (subscription required).

This is just another chapter in the Left's long war on real life. The Left's insistence that any unequal outcome (such as higher insurance rates for men than for woman) is evidence of discrimination leads to nonsense such as Kokott's report. Kokott admits that the insurers charge different rates due to actuarial facts, not discrimination. And yet, she finds that the insurers are in fact committing illegal discrimination. The maddening thing is that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, she may be correct -- the EU anti-discrimination codes may be so over broad as to outlaw decisions that are rational, well-intended, and probably essential to a well-functioning, non-discriminatory insurance regime.

What do the EUrocrats think is the alternative to insurers' setting rates according to actuarial statistics derived from real life differences in the way men and woman live? Do they imagine that banning the actuarial tables will result in lower rates for men? It seems to me that tailoring insurance rates according to how people actually live is a protection against racial or gender bias, in that they provide a way for insurers to base their rates on real life rather than assumptions.
It's not a perfect system (some men are very safe drivers, some women are very risky ones), but it allows for a degree of tailoring a system that ignores gender differences would not.

One hopes that the supergeniuses devising the Obamacare regs do not draw inspiration from Ms. Kokott.

Rush on the "Family Guy"

Here's a preview of Sunday night's forthcoming Family Guy episode, starring Rush Limbaugh.

Rush groupie: "Love the Hummer Rush, how do you like it?"

Rush: "It is the best. I'm not saying that you have to be gay to drive something else, but if you drive something else, it probably means you are a guy that likes to pleasure other men sexually."

As Rush says in the promotional interview, "If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no reason to be alive."

This week's signs of the apocalypse

LaBron James says race was a factor in the public backlash over the way he left Cleveland for the Miami.

Gap sells acid-washed, pre-faded blue jeans for toddlers. "This staple is both put-together and fun!"

The guy who invented the Segway died when his Segway rolled off a cliff. (This is so horrible it isn't even funny and does not belong in this silly post).

A story appeared in a major political publication with the subheadline: Ring legend Mick Foley explains how Tori Amos changed his life.

President Obama, in a fawning interview with Jann Wenner in this month's Rolling Stone, kinda sorta admits that his job involves more than just doing the opposite of whatever George W. Bush did; and in so doing reveals that he may have been the least thoughtful presidential nominee in history:

What has surprised you the most about these first two years in office? What advice would you give your successor about the first two years?

Over the past two years, what I probably anticipated but you don't fully appreciate until you're in the job, is something I said earlier, which is if a problem is easy, it doesn't hit my desk. If there's an obvious solution, it never arrives here — somebody else has solved it a long time ago. The issues that cross my desk are hard and complicated, and oftentimes involve the clash not of right and wrong, but of two rights. And you're having to balance and reconcile against competing values that are equally legitimate.

Oh, the irony

"Finding $700 billion is not easy." - President Obama, Wednesday September 29, 2010

Seriously? Since when has he had problems finding $700 billion? He's really killing it at these town hall events.

Thatcherism

A Margaret Thatcher quote referenced in Claire Berlinksi's new book, There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

We must not focus our attention exclusively on the material, because though important, it is not the main issue. The economic success of the Western World is a product of its moral philosophy and practice. Economic results are better because the moral philosophy is superior. It is superior, because it starts with the individual, with his uniqueness, his responsibility, and his capacity to choose.... Choice is the essence of ethics.... Good and evil have meaning only insofar as man is free to choose."

There is no sales tax provision in Obamacare

There is a misleading email going around that is getting people riled up regarding the health care bill. While I am generally in favor of getting people riled up in support of a good cause, there is a problem with this one.

The email says the following:

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after obama's re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? Does this stuff makes your November and 2012 votes more important? Oh, you weren't aware this was in the obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they've never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking.

Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.

People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November!

First of all, there is no sales tax provision. Yes, there is a 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income, and yes investment income can include capital gains from the sale of real estate. But it is not a tax on gross proceeds, which would be like a sales tax.

Second, even if a person does have some capital gains from the sale of a property, if the particular piece of real estate happens to be a "qualified personal residence", the first $500K (married)/$250K (single) in capital gains is exempt from all tax, including this new tax.

And third, the 3.8% Medicare surtax only applies to those making more than $250K (married)/$200k (single) in income.

But I do believe that the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income in general is a big problem. It’s a tax on capital and will encourage those people who have capital to spend more time and effort trying to avoid taxes rather than putting their capital toward its most profitable and productive use.

And even more troubling, the $250K/$200K threshold is UNINDEXED, meaning there is no inflation adjustment. So it’s going to impact more and more people over time. Eventually everyone.

Wall Street is shrinking

Yesterday, the headline on Yahoo Finance was Get Ready For The Fixed Income Bloodbath. The short article described the increasingly dire employment situation on fixed income trading and brokerage desks throughout Wall Street.

Fixed income desks are going to be subject to severe layoffs, according to a highly placed Wall Street insider with information about the plans of his firm and the plans of rivals. "It's going to be a blood bath. Volume is down for everything except Treasuries and Munis. These guys aren't making money and soon they'll be out of their jobs."

Today, Andy Kessler, a frequent columnist at WSJ writes:

“In my estimation, there are too many traders, bankers and salesmen to support the new level of business. Wall Street firms also have too much capital that they scramble to generate returns on. Both need to shrink over the next five years."

According to Arnold Kling over at Econlog, this is what the financial crisis was largely about. In other words, it was the market's way of shouting "the financial sector is too big and it needs to shrink". In the midst of the financial crisis back in September 2008, Kling wrote in an open letter to Ben Bernanke:

Today, it is clear that the U.S. financial sector needs to shrink. As another one of your former classmates, Ken Rogoff, has pointed out, the financial sector has accounted for an unusually large share of corporate profits in recent years. It is time for this country to shift talent and capital elsewhere. In order for that to happen, some firms in the industry need to tighten their belts, some weaker firms need to merge with stronger firms, and the weakest firms need to fail.

I also recall around that time one of the regulars on CNBC's Fast Money saying something to the effect of: "For too long, we have had way too much financial engineering and not enough real engineering. That's going to change."

So maybe that is what is happening. Despite TARP and despite 0% Fed Funds rates that usually ensure bank profits, profits and stock prices are down on Wall Street, which is the market's way of telling us that Wall Street still needs to downsize. And it looks like it may be happening. But fortunately for those in the cross-hairs, it's just happening very slowly thanks to TARP and 0% Fed Funds rates.

The Blaze.com: "Chris Christie's greatest hits mix"

As with any greatest hits collection, some fans may be disappointed to discover that one of their favorite tracks has been left off. For me, it's the track entitled "You punch them? I punch you.":

The tax issue is about property rights

I mentioned that here, and here is a post from John Hood making a similar point:

I know it’s been said before, but it merits repeating: the debate about taxes in general, and about extending the Bush tax cuts in particular, only sounds like the issue in question is fiscal. It’s not. The Right and Left differ on tax policy primarily because of a difference in values.

Broadly speaking, the Right believes that your stuff is yours. The Left believes your stuff doesn’t really become your stuff until the government says it is. So the Right sees taxes as a way to pay for necessary government services. The Left sees taxes as an instrument of social control and redistributive justice.

...

I agree with the supply-side argument that virtually all Americans benefit from the growth effects of keeping marginal tax rates low. But the most important reason to extend the tax cuts for everyone is that it is wrong for the government to steal and redistribute income.

Chris Christie on Squawk Box

Chris Christie spent yesterday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box and was fantastic as usual. Watch this segment where he discusses the idea of tax policy and uncertainty. When the Wall Street econ geek makes the argument that there was uncertainty during the Reagan years because taxes were cut more than people thought they were going to be, Christie responds:

That is such a false, fake argument. I mean seriously...The uncertainty of lower taxes is something people can deal with. The uncertainty of not knowing if you can meet your payroll, the uncertainty of not knowing what health care is going to cost, brings paralysis.

My favorite quote from Christie on yesterday's show was his response to the question about his manner and his tell-it-like-it-is approach: "My mom's Sicilian, so I don't know any other way to act."

"It's an important distinction"

Here is Chris Matthews commenting on the President saying that tax cuts are gifts.

He talked today for example about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That's not the way it works!

Obama: Tax cuts are "gifts"

The President brought up this idea that tax cuts need to be paid for today, but he also said something even more revealing and outrageous. When discussing the idea of extending the tax cuts for those making more than $250K (married)/$200K (single), he said that "we can't give $700 billion away to some of America's wealthiest people."

So not only do lower taxes need to be "paid for", we really should look at any tax cut as a gift. It really does sound to me like he believes that all income and wealth produced in an economy is by default property of the government.

Which brings me to another point. Many on our side are pointing out that raising taxes in a recession is bad economic policy. It is, but is that really the point? Doesn't that imply that it is okay to raise taxes when times are good?

This discussion and debate needs to be framed not it terms of "not raising taxes in a recession", it needs to be framed in terms of property rights. If there was ever a time the American people might be willing to hear such an argument, it might be now.

Dick Morris: Not the time to triangulate

Dick Morris was on Hannity last night and made the case that when the biggest issue to voters is deficits and fiscal issues, being on the "far right" is not a detriment like it can be with other issues. On the contrary, being a right wing conservative can be a benefit even in the context of a general election. Why? Because if voters are looking for someone who will cut spending and reduce the size and scope of government, and all of the candidates are promising to do so, voters know that only the conservative candidate is being sincere. When it comes to spending and deficits, he says "it's not about left vs. right, it's about sincerity vs. insincerity".

Say what you want about "Mr. Dickmorris.com", but occasionally he arrives at some very interesting insights, and I think this is one of those times.

[Update]

Here is the link to Dick Morris's column on the subject, and here is the part worth reading:

When social issues like abortion, gays, and guns dominate the political discourse, moderates have a big advantage. Voters in these times tend to measure themselves on a left to right spectrum and find those flanked sharply to their right to be extremist on these issues and reject their candidacies.

But these days, social issues are in remission and economic/fiscal problems have, understandably, taken center stage. In this environment, purists of the right have a big advantage because nobody doubts the sincerity with which they embrace the goals of limited government, low taxes, and reduced spending. Politicians of all stripes – including most Democrats – vow allegiance to them as does the overwhelming majority of the electorate. In this environment, the distinctions of left and right give way to the difference between sincerity and insincerity, leaving the voters to judge. With candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or DioGuardia in New York, voters don’t have to guess. They know real conservatives when they see them.

Also, this is where the nickname "Mr. Dickmorris.com" came from.

The Rush Limbaugh theory on Mark Sanchez's poor performance

Ines Sainz, in a Samson and Delilah sort of way.

After watching this CBS interview, it appears that the whole team was distracted.

Lileks on the power of Fox News

This from the comment section over at Ricochet:

I still remember the first time I stumbled across Fox news - I went into a fugue state, stood stock-still, wet myself, then lost 48 hours, after which I found myself on the lawn burning back issues of the New Republic. Even the ones in which I appeared. I don't know what kind of mind-control beams those guys use, but they are good. - James Lileks

Mike Barnicle on Boehner: "How is it that he ended up as a Republican?"

That was Mike Barnicle's response after watching Luke Russert's piece about John Boehner's working class background. Russert traveled to Boehner's hometown of Reading, Ohio, visiting the small home that Boehner lived in with his 11 brothers and sisters, and the family owned tavern that he used to scrub down for 4 or 5 hours at the crack of dawn each Saturday morning. Russert also explains how Boehner took 7 years to complete his undergraduate degree at Xavier because he was working full time during the day just to put himself through college.

As for Barnicle's response, it was typical, honest and revealing. For many, it is inconceivable how someone from a working class background could eventually become a conservative Republican.

Congratulations to Russert for doing the piece. It is devastating to caricature that the left is trying to create about the Minority Leader.

Watch the video here.

By the way, like I said, I love Boehner!

A new addition to Chris Christie's greatest hits

I love this man.

Boehner is making no sense

John Boehner has called for legislation that will preserve the Bush tax rates for an additional two years in order to create more certainty for small businesses.

What? How does passing yet another temporary tax cut reduce uncertainty? Two years is an incredibly short amount of time for a business that is deciding whether or not to make investments that will produce income far out into the future.

Let's stay focused here. It's the spending that's creating all of the uncertainty. No one is certain how all of this spending is going to be paid for.

This is why I have no confidence in this guy. Paul Ryan for speaker.

Obama and the ditch

"The Republicans drove our economy into a ditch." - President Obama

"Perhaps, but you are driving the economy off a cliff." - Me

The air is thick and so are we

South Floridians know well that as the humidity rises, the natural and holy constraints on human behavior seem to fall away, and not a day goes by without at least one truly bizarre story in the local paper. A few recent examples.

For starters, here's a headline from the final days of a hotly contested Democratic primary race:

• Battle of the robocalls: Greene enlists Star Jones after Pelosi phones for Meek in Dem Senate primary

(In a turn of events that will puzzle political scientists for decades to come, the Jones charisma offensive failed to sway the voters, and Kendrick Meek prevailed handily over Jeff Greene in the primary.)

The odd behavior is not limited to politics:

• A Miami Dolphins defensive end lost his 2.5 carot diamond earring at practice.
  
  
• When a man in Delray Beach came across a dead whale that had washed up on the sand, he knelt down and cut away two feet of the beast, including its tail. He wanted to eat it, and according to a reporter, "said he wasn't worried about health issues because the body still was warm and there was only one fly on it."
  
  

There is a subtle poetry to this one, like a haiku written by Ned Clampett.

Fla. man driving lawn mower charged with DUI

ANTHONY, FLA -- A central Florida man has been charged with DUI for driving a lawn mower drunk

Marion County Sheriff's Office spotted Richard Paschen driving the read lawn mower with a cup of beer sitting in the cup holder Friday night.

He told Deputy Gary Miller he'd had "a pretty good bit" to drink and had gotten lost on his way home. Paschen refused a breath test

Pasken has had several DUIs and his driver's license has been suspended.

Come to think of it, these guys ARE like an old joke

Maddow really sticks it to Chris Christie

The hilarious and stunning Rachel Maddow demonstrates her intelligent and clever brand of wit in this segment on Governor Chris Christie. Try not to fall out of your chair from laughter!

But seriously, here is Chris Christie commenting on the stupidity of denying the state of NJ an educational grant based on a simple clerical error. His best line was his comment on the bureaucracy in Washingon: "If you are a normal thinking, breathing, human being, you pickup the phone! ... Does anyone in Washington have a lick of common sense? Pick up the phone and ask us for the number!"



By the way, is this how rationing works?

CNBC's Joe Kernan asks "how can a tax cut be paid for"

This morning on CNBC's Squawk Box, David Gregory suggested that Republicans were going to have some difficulty because many are "still clinging to the idea of tax cuts even if they are not paid for."

In this comment, Gregory is repeating a talking point that attempts to equate a tax cut with spending, as if allowing a person to keep 75% of their income instead of only 70% is somehow a government program. And Kernan politely calls him on it:

Republicans would say, what do you mean you have to pay for tax cuts? Was the Clinton level written in stone and anything beyond that we've already spent? So we need to find money to pay for taking less of the money that's already yours? Do we start at 100% taxation and anything below that we need to somehow pay for? That doesn't make sense.

David Gregory looking completely perplexed, as if he has never heard an argument likes this (which he hasn't), replies:

I don't know what part doesn't make sense. If you are concerned about deficits...and you were a proponent of the tax cuts, and then got to a point where they needed to be paid for, I don't know how you square those two things.

Kernan:

Well, why don't you spend less? So what you are saying is that the spending is already done, and you were planning on having more tax revenue from the higher rates from the 90s before they were cut...?

It was a little clumsy, but the point Kernan is making is an important one. Allowing someone to keep more of his own income is not a government program that needs to be paid for. It's always and everywhere government spending, either current spending or previous spending, that causes deficits and thus "needs to be paid for".

And his point about starting at "100% taxation" is even more important. Saying that a tax cut needs to be paid for is almost like suggesting that all income and wealth produced in an economy is by default property of the government. And when the government allows people to keep some of it, it is in effect a government program that needs to be "paid for". Kernan points out that this is completely backwards, and I think most of us would agree.

You can watch the video here.

Where can I send money to get this ad on TV?

The Republican Study Committee has hit it out of the park with this ad.



My favorite line is "The more their plans fail, the more the planners plan."

Thanks for the pointer from Claire over at Ricochet.

Actually, it's that they are being lazy

No, I don't actually believe that Chris Matthews is "not very smart" or that Joe Scarborough is "dumb". It's more that they are being lazy. It's as if they make no effort whatsoever to understand the arguments that conservatives are making. (And for Joe Scarborough, that is quite a feat since he is a self described conservative).

Speaking of being lazy, this dispute between Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan has been entertaining. Paul Ryan commenting on Paul Krugman:

“I realize he’s a columnist and not a journalist, yet he could have easily tried to have verified his claims with a phone call or an email. Instead he went with his confusion and chose to impugn motives, which strikes me as a very intellectually lazy exercise or style.”