Election 2012 - The Battle for the House

While everyone is focused on the Presidency, which is already lost for the Democrats, the real battle in 2012 is for the House of Representatives. Humbug you say. Well think about it. With few exceptions, 1994 to 2006 when the Republicans controlled the House for example, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 50 years after World War II. Through that control they have created some of the worst policies ever devised in an effort to control the lives of the American people. Think of today's problems and almost all of them can be traced back to policies created, nurtured and passed in the House of Representatives. Once created and passed by the House many of these bills lay dormant for years and suddenly appear whey they have a chance to pass. The Healthcare Bill is the perfect example. Before it was ObamaCare, it was HilaryCare and before that it was the Public Option. That bill lay quietly in the House for nearly 50 years before it was passed in 2010. Not even the Speaker of the House knew what was in it. It was a Democratic policy goal 50 years in the making and finally made it through. So in this election year when everyone is focused on the Presidency the Democratic Party will be focused on winning the House because all spending and legislation originate there. And you know that old saying-If you want to know why, follow the money.

Our Blacks are Better than Theirs

Once again the intellectual antics of politics provides us with what can be called by some a "teachable moment." A moment where both sides, if that's the right term, can learn valuable lessons. In an interview, which I watched after the fact, witticist author, Ann Coulter, apparently referred to conservative blacks as "ours," apparently outraging even many conservative blacks. Cornell West may well be calling for her head tomorrow, putting himself in the unusual position of defending black men like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and Thomas Sowell, all the while lamenting over the legacy of slavery that so many blacks, in his view, cannot escape from. @Right_of_Black on Twitter said "Did Ann Coulter say "our blacks are so much better than their blacks” ? Will someone tell this woman black folks aren't commodities?! hrmpf!" @carlamitch also on Twitter said "Our blacks are better than their blacks" do I even need to comment on this Ann Coulter quote? Does this mean we're back on the plantation?" Finally @i_EAT_nerds said "Someone needs to tell Ann Coulter white people don't own us anymore." These tweets were retweeted by the wonderful @arlenearmy, who I follow along with @dphaw and @theblacksphere to name a few. I am almost positive that Ann Coulter did not mean this the way it was received, but I will let her apologize for herself. But it does demonstrate that the ghost of slavery lives on even in the purest hearts. My own tweet was "Not to defend Coulter, but it never surprises me how easily minorities are offended," and was the inspiration for this column.

The Dirty Little Secret about Underwater Mortgages

It's almost always the things the media doesn't tell you that are vitally important and the current discussion about the President's bill to help underwater homeowners is one of those. The President's bill is designed to help refinance the mortgages of homeowners who are not in foreclosure and are current or not far behind in their payments. The dirty little secret about this is that if you are current in your payments and you can maintain them it doesn't matter if your home is "underwater." It only matters if you want to borrow on your home or if you want to sell. If you do not want to do either or both you can wait out the market, and even though it may take some time to recover eventually your home and the real estate market will recover. If you want to borrow in the current economic climate you should reconsider, as you should if you want to sell. This is not a great selling environment. People who are going to lose their homes due to foreclosure will not be helped by this bill. People who have to move will not be helped by this bill. The only thing that can help them is a recovering real estate market and this President is doing little to help that; and that is the dirty little secret.

Wind and Solar will Double Energy Costs

Do you think your gas and electric bills are too low? Do you think you should pay more for gas or diesel? Well if you’re a supporter of wind and solar energy you can count on paying higher prices. According a new report obtained by the Financial Times, the European Commission is reporting that wind and solar energy will double the cost of power bills for European consumers. Further the report indicates that as the share of wind and solar power rises in the energy mix the higher prices will continue to climb. The report also exposes the real goal of the alternative energy movement. The goal is to get force European and American consumers to use less energy by raising prices and increasing taxes. It is already apparent that the developing world (China, India and Malaysia) will reject this strategy. We must force the Congress to stop the EPA war on fossil fuel or we will be priced out of our homes and cars.

Did Obama Kill the Golden Goose?

The economy is in the tank, the banks have been forced into a corner, and the government is picking winners and losers in many industries. Is it time to ask "Did Obama killed the goose?" If your wondering which goose, it's the one that laid the golden egg; America. Never before in the history of the world has one nation (I suppose some would argue Rome) done so much for the world at a large. In both war and peace America has outshone, outperformed, and outdone every nation past and present. America has created more or bought more of everything there is. You name it and we have either built it or bought it when somebody else made it. America's capitalist economy is the envy of the world because it has made Americans the richest people in the world. In addition to American firms, nearly half the countries in the world rely on American consumption of their goods to maintain their own standard of living. As American's have become less wealthy for whatever the reason (housing crisis, job loss, or reduced income) the world has felt the repercussions. America was the home of the world's biggest consumers, but it has become the country that killed the goose who laid the golden egg. Can we get another?

First Solyndra, now BrightSource

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for alternative energy and President Obama along comes BrightSource Energy. A solar power firm with connections to the President and a loan guarantee almost three times the size of the now-bankrupt Solyndra. According to a story that appeared in World Net Daily, BrightSource is the recipient of a $1.37 billion federal loan guarantee, the largest loan ever to a privately-held solar energy firm. The Chairman, John Bryson, was nominated by the President to be the Secretary of Commerce in June of this year. The Senate has held hearings on Bryson, but he has not been confirmed to this point. Many Senators including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Diane Feinstein raised some concerns about Bryson views on energy. As the founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former co-chairman of the Pacific Council on International Policy, Bryson is thought by some to be an environmental extremist and unfit for Commerce Secretary. The loan guarantee will be used to build a solar energy plant that uses mirrors to harness the sun's heat to boil water and use the steam to spin turbines to create electricity. Called the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, it is viewed by some as the 21st century version of Robert Fulton's Steam Engine. Given the technology and Bryson’s connections to the President this is widely expected to be a subject of Congressional hearings.

10th Anniversary of 911

In 1966, I lived two blocks from the World Trade Center on the corner of Rector and Greenwich Streets. Except for the old apartment buildings in that area almost all the space was commercial. I was told that the building we lived in was once a hotel where seaman stayed when their ships were in port. Battery Park City did not even exist yet and the tenements along West Street and the Hudson were razed under Eminent Domain for the construction of the towers. I don’t remember the exact date, but during 1967 the South Tower began to raise, a few floors at a time a first. At some point it blocked virtually all the light on Greenwich Street south of the tower. The street remained dark until September 11, 2001, the day the towers fell. Days later when the dust cleared looking north you could see the light of the sky for the first time in more than 30 years. In this case seeing the light had a two fold meaning. First it meant we came to understand our enemies had to be taken seriously. Since Viet-Nam we had waltzed through our conflicts. With some small exceptions we had not seen death and destruction by a foreign enemy on our own soil. Second, The World Trade Center, which had become for us a symbol of our financial power and influence in the world economy, had become for our enemies one of the ultimate prizes they sought to destroy to demonstrate America’s weakness. Ten years have gone by since the day the towers fell. I have been back a few times to see the progress on the site and to see the old apartment building, which still stands. The location of the Freedom Tower will not block the light like the South Tower did when it stood. Likewise America will not be blinded to the intentions of its enemies as we move forward on this 10th Anniversary of 9/11/2001

More Spending Now Cut Spending Later

Will Americans continue to fall for the more spending now, cut spending later proposals of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party? The President's America's Job Act is exactly that: an act. It is just another $500 billion of new spending now that will be paid for by cuts in mythical projected spending some time in the future. The President's approach is to eliminate the need for a House and Senate by urging them to "pass the bill" now. There is no bill. A bill, in Congressional terms, is legislation. It is law. It is not a wish list, a compilation, or an amalgam of items. It is a document that spells out specifically the rules under which taxpayer money will be appropriated and spent. The President has offered no such bill for the Congress to pass.

Why Liberals Hate Fossil Fuel

Have you ever asked yourself why liberals and progressives hate fossil fuel? Does it ever make you wonder why the Democratic Party, which calls itself progressive, would prefer that you, the taxpayer, be forced to pay dearly for the priviledge of using energy? The energy that lights our homes, powers our appliances, moves our trains, planes and automobiles. Fossil fuel is the lifeblood of modern civilization. Without the amount and flexibility of carbon-based fuels (coal, oil and gas) modern civilization as we know it could not exist. Without them all other energy sources fail. When there is no wind turbines fail. When there is no light, solar panels are useless. Not to mention the breadth of material that are oil-based including building materials, plastics and fabrics without which our society would exist, but would hardly be referred to as modern. So why then do modern Democrats and Progressives want to deprive you of these wonderful sources of energy, which are cheap, plentiful and the key to modern life? It's because they cannot stand that your are not living in a straw hut, getting your water from a stream where you also go to the bathroom, growing your food in a clearing and dieing from Marlaria. They can't stand it because with fossil fuel you can live as well as they do. Because with fossil fuel they cannot control your environment. Because with fossil fuel even if you are not as bright and gifted as they are you can have a nice life; and that is what they despise the most.

Can Americans Trust MSM Polls?

Polling has become the weapon of choice. Polls are used by many organizations in ways that are inherently dishonest and are designed to create news stories, support a certain point or as a wrecking ball, like push-polling. If recently publicized polls are to be believed Americans think that the Tea Party caused the S&P rating downgrade to AA+, that Republicans were reluctant to compromise and that the Democrats weren't. This would be okay if it were true, but in fact it demonstrates exactly how the MSM uses polls to shape public opinion and makes lies facts and facts lies. For example, The S&P downgrade was caused by the Tea Party; The Tea Party is a minority of Republican members of the house. The compromise bill that went to the Senate did not have their support but was passed. So in fact, the Tea Party had very little to do with the downgrade. However, their support for Cut, Cap and Balance would have prevented it. Another example is that Republicans were unwilling to compromise. In fact the Paul Ryan Budget Plan and Cut, Cap and Balance would have both prevented the S&P downgrade, but both plans were rejected outright by the President and the Democrats in the House and Senate. So in fact it was Democrats that were unwilling to compromise. The deals that lead to the S&P downgrade were Democratic deals crafted by Harry Reid in the Senate and reluctantly agreed to by the Republicans. The bill offered only minor cuts in the upcoming budget year and guaranteed more spending to the end of the President's first term. Despite all this the latest CNN poll shows that Democrats have a 13-point edge over Republicans in being re-elected in 2012. If you have any doubt which political party most CNN staffers favor, everything I have said will be meaningless to you. However, if you take note of how CNN uses polling to create a false impression, you may recognize it when it’s done by The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and most of the major outlets. The one thing I take from this poll is that Speaker Boehner and the Republicans would have been better off if they offered Cut, Cap and Balance as their final offer and let the chips fall.

The Cain Oath of Loyalty

When Presidential candidate Herman Cain said he would require any Muslim appointed to his Cabinet to take a loyalty oath liberals went crazy. They screamed about how "un" American it was to require such an oath. After all, they said, this is America, land of the free, so why should a loyalty oath be required? From the liberal perspective this is certainly understandable. After all when government employees leak confidential information it is a good thing; right? Well maybe. If it is about mismanagement, political firings, and inappropriate activity I can see that. But if it is about information that informs our enemies such as the exposure of wire tapping methods, CIA "black camps" used for questioning terrorists and secret military strategy information, maybe that is different. So obviously it then becomes a question of discretion, which requires thoughtful consideration and adherence to the law. That is, no government employee is required to break the law for a superior. I understand there is a grey area here, but that too is governed by internal agency rules and regulations. The point is that, Cain's statement aside elected and appointed officials and military volunteers already take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those that fall short violate that oath, regardless of race, color, creed, or gender.

I Think Someone Forgot the Rules

Up until the Obama Presidency the federal government seemed to operate by a set of rules established by the Constitution. Now it seems many of these rules have been turned on their heads, so to speak, to accommodate a President that either doesn't care about the rules or just ignores them. Take the current Debt Ceiling and Budget debate; there are rules that govern the raising of the debt ceiling and approval of a budget. The House of Representatives proposes a raise in the debt ceiling or a budget. When passed it is sent to the Senate that accepts or modifies it. When the House and Senate pass the same version of the bill it is sent to the President for his signature and it then becomes law. That is the procedure written in the Constitution. While it has become customary for a President to submit a budget proposal, it is also customary for Congress to originate its own proposal with some consideration of the President's priorities. So for the record, the debt ceiling and budget debate should be between the House and the Senate, not the House and the President. So far the only piece of legislation (Cut, Cap and Balance) has been produced by the House. The Senate hasn't acted and the President has not even offered a proposal in writing. Americans need to insist that the President and the Congress follow the rules.

The Gang of Six, Real Cuts in 2012 and Polls

@RepFredUpton So far Cut, Cap and Balance is the only bill passed in Congress. The Senate plan is just a plan and the President has offered nothing.
Obama loves the Senate plan because it has new taxes, no spending cuts and empty promises about future cuts. Where is the Third Estate?
The gang of six plan is incomplete and is not in legislative form. It cannot even be voted on. More importantly it contains no cuts in 2012.
For those that care: The Gang of Six Plan does not cut spending in 2012. The only bill with any cuts in 2012 is the House plan.
Why doesn't the press ask Dem Senate why they have failed to submit a budget proposal? The gang of six plan will not pass the House.
@SpeakerBoehner Mr Speaker: We must continually point out that Obama does offer any spending cuts in 2012. We can win on that issue.
@SenatorKirk Any deal must have cuts in 2012 or it is meaningless. Republicans will be called on this.
@RepDanBurton Any deal must include cuts in 2012 and Republicans must make MSM report that Obama wants no cuts in 2012.
@Politisite Why am I never surprised when NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, CNN, PEW and Gallup polls show Obama favored over Republicans?

MSM in Traction

@thenewnarrative George Rudolph
@stephenfhayes the major pitfall of the McConnell plan is Obama.
The New Narrative Daily is out! http://bit.ly/g30bmL ▸ Top stories today via @repdennisross @examineropeds @heardonthehill @jimpethokoukis
@EmilyMiller @cefilby The GOP must defeat these Dems one vote at a time. We need the R's to act like a machine, stand together and vote.
@washingtonpost And you all ate it up porridge and never contested Obama's lack of process knowledge or his veracity. Shameful
@DavidLimbaugh It is discouraging they are afraid to confront his lies.
@TheKudlowReport I hope Russert can do better than just repeating Obama's talking points.
@NancyPelosi There is no jobs bill, there is just a no-jobs President.
The liberal media knows Obama is not serious and McConnell is just stating it plainly. Spending is the heroin and the MSM is the needle.
@GOPWhip @natresources because the war on fossil fuel continues.
@newtgingrich McConnell is just saying Obama won't deal honestly because spending, not cutting is his goal.
People who know how SSI and debt ceiling work know the President is just selling "woof" tickets. That's trash talking for you youngsters.
@LadyFyreAZ @gopleader The press is really failing in it's major role to keep gov't in check. The failure to be embarrassed is scary.

The Spend Now, Save Later Trap

According to remarks by David Vitter on Larry Kudlow’s talk radio show, the “deficit reduction” group with VP Joe Biden, and House and Senate members are using the 10-year window for spending cuts. For Republicans this is the Spend Now, Cut Later Trap. Because the current Congress cannot lock future Congresses into spending targets spending cuts are always pushed to future budgets and spending in the current budget is usually increased. This is the way Congress has operated for several decades, and that is why despite all the lip service given to spending cuts, they never materialize. Cuts made by this Congress must be made in the current budget year, if raising the Debt Ceiling is to have any real meaning. While the real cuts in the 2010 budget only translated into $350M at least they were real cuts. We need more in 2011. The House Leadership must not fall into the “Spend Now, Save Later” trap.

Obama and The ME Peace Process

The President has walked back from what seemed like an obvious desertion of Israel last week, but he has not walked back from the one statement that is the key to Israeli security and its very existence. "The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state." After listening to his Arab Spring speech last week and reading his AIPAC speech today one thing is clear. Despite the President's rhetoric his declaration that a Palestinian State must be "contiguous" means Israel must give up the Southern half of Israel or the Palestinians must give up the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. In truth the only real solution is for the Palestinians to trade the West Bank for an enlarged Gaza to form a nation between Israel and Egypt. Without that trade there is no peace.

The Alternative Energy Pipedream

American taxpayers are providing $2 million for a wind turbine energy project that will save a municipal bus company $35,000 a year in energy costs. At the current cost of energy it will take 57 years of energy savings to pay for the project, while the turbines have an expected lifespan of 20-25 years. In truth there are no savings because the turbines will have to be replaced before the savings are achieved. So in the final analysis alternatives such as wind and solar are far more expensive per kilowatt hour than fossil fuel. Although this is a small project it demonstrates all the shortcomings of alternative energy in a neat little bundle. The equipment is expensive, the “return on investment” is negative and the entire system requires a fossil fuel backup system to insure constant energy generation. America must continue to use fossil fuel until these alternatives are developed to the point where they are competitive without subsidies because while the location in question will save $35,000 a year in energy costs, it will cost the American taxpayer $2 million it will never get back. So once again the taxpayer is the victim of the alternative energy pipedream. America must continue to exploit its carbon-based fuel resources or find itself in the economic dustbin of failed nation states.

The Greatest of Them All

The death and disappearance of Osama bin Laden will grow into the largest conspiracy in the 21st century. In 2067 it will still be under discussion: "Hey, have you heard that they may have discovered bin Laden's shroud at the bottom of the Arabian Sea." Are we to believe that there is no film of him being carried off the Helicopter on the USS Carl Vinson. Some Admiral just said clean him, wrap him, and get him over the side. Not one seaman, officer, or civilian on board took any pictures, movies, nothing? What about the guy who prayed over him? Who is he? They just say; "We killed him, he's gone. That's it." Give me a break: If this doesn't say conspiracy, nothing does. If this doesn't say something funny is going on, nothing does. If the conflicting accounts don't confuse you, what does? Obama's strategy will make Osama bin Laden a martyr in half the time a great conspiracy theory could.

Thinking the Unthinkable

Barack Obama decides to change his politics and become a Conservative. He sees the light on taxes, jobs, regulation and decides to turn the economy loose. He cans Benanke, eviscerates EPA and Interior, orders immediate oil, gas and coal processing and reads the riot act to State, Justice, HHS and the Treasury. Maybe it's too much to ask for, but there is always hope that running with the winners’ means something.

Spinning your Wheels

It seems like no matter how much you warn someone they are about to open a big can of worms they often do it anyway. For example in January we warned House Budget Chief Paul Ryan that entitlement reform was a trap for Republicans being set up by the Democrats. It is not a question of whether or not we need it, we do. But it is a question of recognizing a briar patch before you enter it. Brier Rabbit did not look before he leaped and you remember what happened to him. (The Song of the South) On the rare occasions when Republicans achieve a majority in the House or Senate we always hope that they have learned from the past. But apparently that is too much to hope for even in this day and age of lighting fast communication and information dissemination. In addition to the Entitlement Trap (Jan 26, 2011) the Republicans have also fallen into the second trap the Democratic minority has set for them; Budgeting for future years that are not under their control. It is the "Dirty Little Secret about Budgets."(Feb 16, 2011) Republicans have a great opportunity to cut spending in the 2012 budget by getting the work done in the 12 appropriation bills that make up the federal budget and eliminating the need for a "Continuing Resolution (CR)." Surgical budget cutting is more easily achieved in committee with the goal of reducing spending one budget cycle at a time. The Republicans need to spend less time spinning their wheels and more time in budget surgery.

The math is simple, the dishonesty is obvious

Since President Obama doesn't think that Paul Ryan is serious about reducing the deficit, as indicated by his off-the-record comments overheard on a hot mike at a fundraiser I thought I would take the opportunity to expose the President's own lack of sincerity about reducing the deficit. You may recall in his Wednesday speech he said he wanted to reduce the national debt by $4 trillion over 12 years. In the same speech he called for the repeal of the Bush tax cut for those making over $250,000 a year, which would result in an additional $1 trillion in tax revenue. This policy, if followed, would lead to an additional $8 trillion in spending over the 12-year period. The $12 trillion in additional tax revenue minus $4 trillion of reduced spending would equal $8 trillion in increased spending which would raise the national debt to $22 trillion over the 12-year period. The math is simple, the dishonesty is obvious.

Obama 2.0

On Wednesday President Obama will try to convince America he is serious about cutting spending, when he is only really serious about increasing taxes. He will promise multi-trillion dollar cuts in the next 10 years, but increased spending and taxes in the 2012 budget. And therein lays the dirty little secret. No President or Congress can compel future Presidents or Congresses to spend or not spend money. In America budgets are done one year at a time. By putting cuts off in future years that can be ignored by new Presidents and Congresses the Federal government enables runaway spending in the current budget year with the empty promise of cuts in the future. The American people have been taken in by this little parlor trick for 50 years. Hopefully it will end with this President and a new revived Congress than can bring common sense back to government budgeting and spending.

On the Budget

Obama has added 1.5 Trillion in the last two budgets, allegedly to help create jobs and overcome the economic slowdown with government spending. While it has helped government it has done little to encourage job growth in private industry. It seems logical to say this is $1.5 Trillion that could easily be saved in each upcoming yearly budget by simply not spending it. I'm sure that's probably too simple.

Evolving View on Nuclear Power

So many of my colleagues were surprised to learn about my switch on nuclear energy. They called it an "over reaction to Fukushima" and said there was no reason for alarm. But some elementary research was all it took for me to have a change of heart. I learned a few things: Nuclear energy is as much as 6 times more expensive than oil, coal or natural gas. It is as highly subsidized as solar, wind, ethanol and other forms of alternative energy. Spent nuclear fuel can never be made inert. Any catastrophic event than causes its exposure is an unstoppable disaster. Nothing can live there for a long time. So given the cost and potential for catastrophe my view has evolved. We must use coal and gas for electricity, and oil for all the things it is used for now. Alternatives must be competitive in the market. When they are they will sell, create jobs and push our country forward. Eventually they may replace coal, gas and oil. We'll see. But it's not fair to penalize Americans until alternatives have proved themselves. Turn our fossil fuel energy firms into the giant job creators and money-makers they are. Stop the war on fossil fuel.

Coal is Starting to Look Good

Given the intransigence of the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd I never thought I would change my mind about nuclear power. However, given the disaster in Japan and the basic problem of disposing of spent fuel rods I have had a change of heart. To quote a guy in my office "you are a fossil (fuel) man;" And I guess it is true. As you may or may not know no matter what type of fuel you use the basic principle behind generating power on a large scale is an updated version of Robert Fulton's steam engine. Large furnaces heat water to boiling, which is then pushed through turbines to turn generators that produce electricity. Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power are the prime generators of electric in America and account for over 90-percent of our power needs. It is no secret that we have huge coal and natural gas reserves and with some rational thinking America could solve its power needs for electricity for several hundred years. It would also give us a chance to develop alternatives that are up to the task. What has caused my change of heart is the issue of spent nuclear fuel. It is clear that these rods are dangerous and really cannot be disposed of in a non-lethal way, and we have more nuclear plants than any country in the world. If they ever become exposed the radiation will kill. This is the lesson of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. The only by-product of coal is ash, which can be recycled. Coal and natural gas are starting to look pretty good to me.

Senator Menendez: Use Oil, Cut Spending

Senator Robert Menendez- Democrat NJ - I listened to you on the John Gambling radio show today. With all due deference to your point of view: It epitomizes the liberal view of oil (in the form of energy) and government spending that is destroying the country. You ramble on in an incoherent narrative about alternative energy, which you know will not replace oil for at least 50 years, and you continue to justify reckless spending and refuse to examine any serious way of cutting the cost of government. People like me, who are not famous or celebrated, have been writing for years on the topics of energy and government spending. What is the Democratic fixation on reducing "America's addiction" on oil? Oil is one of the most vital compounds in a modern mechanized society. Oil, next to CO2, which is another vital compound to our existence, is something without which life could not exist. Yet Democrats in the Congress seem focused on eliminating both. And what is it about spending that you and your colleagues do not get. In my view cutting $61B, which is the Republican proposal, is not enough. How about the $105 billion tucked in for ObamaCare beneath the radar. That alone almost triples the cuts being proposed and the Democrats are still stuck at being unable to find more $10B to cut. America is now at the time where the rubber hits the road. You and your colleagues better get it together. We must use oil and we must cut spending. It cannot be said more simply. That's what you get paid for. Do your job. Get America moving.

Love Thine Enemies

Michael Goodwin of the The New York Post may be asking the most important question of all: Why was President Obama so quick to condemn and desert Hosni Mubarak and so slow to demand similar action on Libya’s Gadhafi and Iran's Ahmadinejad. Obama sided with the protestors quickly when they were opposed to a leader than was an ally and yet dithered and shrank when it came to support the protestors in Libya and Iran, whose dictatorial rulers killed protestors without hesitation or remorse. Our President is one of those people who "bites the hand that feeds him" with relish. He admires our enemies like Iran, Libya, Venuzeula and Cuba. He despises our friends like England, France, and Israel, just to mention a few. Obama has never passed up an opportunity to insult them. One of the first things he did when he became President was return the bust of Winston Churchill to England. At a European economic summit he chose working out in his hotel over an invitation to have dinner with the President of France. Not to mention his abysmal treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu or the Dali Lama. The answer is simple: Obama loves our enemies more than our friends.

Life Always Exposes Planned Parenthood

When Planned Parenthood calls upon one of its biggest racial gunslingers, you know someone touched a nerve. In an attempt to quiet Life Always, an anti-abortion group, Planned Parenthood called on Al Sharpton to help have a billboard taken down that calls the 36-percent abortion rate of black women the number one killer in the black community since 1973. Life Always board member Pastor Steve Broden notes that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a supporter of Eugenics, which espouses the theory of a master race and contemplates the elimination of inferior individuals. In her book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor people as "...human weeds, reckless breeders, and spawning... human beings who never should have been born." She once wrote "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." There are many who believe Margaret Sanger was a racist as well as a believer in the master race concept espoused by Adolph Hitler. There are many that say she founded Planned Parenthood to achieve those goals. Has she succeeded? Life Always would say yes.

Baby Boomers Should Retire Early

If the pathetic whining baby boomers had any real gratitude and guts they would retire and get out of the workforce so the younger generation of workers could find some meaningful work. For example almost every money show gets a phone call from some baby boomer who has at least one pension, a million plus in his IRA, owns a primary residence and a vacation home or time share, but he wants to continue working. It's common for government employees to retire at 50% of their salary and come back to government work as a consultant for as much or more money that they were making when they retired. What about all the old windbags on TV who have more money than they can ever spend, but they keep working. Okay I'll mention some names: Bill Bradley, Bob Schieffer, Ted Koppel, Barbara Walters, John McLaughlin, Eleanor Clift, and that's just off the top of my head. Yea Rush too, he's almost 60 and he's got plenty. Get out, brother and play some golf. The Baby Boomers may be the most rewarded generation America the world has ever seen. Stop whining, retire now and make room for the future generations your always taking about.

A Modest Effort to Reduce Spending

Whenever people want to criticize those who say cut spending they say “give me specifics.” This column is dedicated to those people. This is The New Narrative’s contribution of a spending cut that can save over $6 billion this year. Do not replace any federal employee that retires in 2011. That simple step would save the Federal Government $6 billion this year alone. A modest research effort demonstrates that approximately 86,558 federal employees have retired every year since 2000. While there are some variations in what an average federal employee earns the numbers range from $66,000 to $74,000 so I selected $70,000 as the calculating amount. Put it together and you have a savings of $6 billion. That's billion with a B or if you prefer $6,000,000,000; enough zeros for doing nothing? Give us a little time; we can probably come up with more.

The Dirty Little Secret About Budgets

The dirty little secret about Congressional spending authority is that no current Congress can commit a future Congress to spending cuts. The current Congress can only cut spending in the budget currently under consideration. Because budgeting is done one year at a time typically future cuts are used as tools to justify increases in current spending. The 2012 Budget offered this week by President Obama is a perfect example of a budget that cuts spending in the out years of a 10-year plan and increases spending in the first year. Cuttung $1.1 Trillion over the next decade is meaningless in real spending terms because the only budget being considered is the current one. The problem is that the President does not have the authority to enforce those future cuts and that is why, as we noted in a previous column future cuts never happen. Proposed cuts, whether proposed by the President or the Congress must be done in the budget under consideration. Future cuts must be rejected and exposed for what they are: empty promises.

The Entitlement Trap

Reducing the number of federal employees is the surest way to reduce the cost of government. In a previous column we said that Republicans must begin the process of paring government by reducing the number of employees by attrition as a way of reducing the most expensive part of any budget: personnel. As the House approaches dealing with the CR and the 2012 budget it must avoid getting dragged into the “entitlement trap,” which Democrats hope to use to beat the Republicans in the next election. While we think that everyone agrees entitlements are a long-range problem, it does not mean that non-entitlement cuts or cuts in personnel are meaningless. In fact if you combine non-entitlement cuts with personnel attrition in entitlement programs you can reduce the deficit in a meaningful way and at the same time reform entitlement programs in way that can reduce their cost by privatizing some of the programs. Republicans must avoid the characterizations used by the Democrats against the Gingrich Congress in order to enact meaningful budget cuts and assure their reelection.

Why Tomorrow's Cuts Never Happen

This little item is in preparation for two things: One is the President's SOTU message where he will propose spending cuts in future budgets, but spending increases in the upcoming budget. The other is to expose the dirty little secret about Congressional spending authority. No current Congress can commit a future Congress to spending cuts. Therefore the current Congress can only cut spending in the budget currently under consideration. Future cuts are merely tools to justify increases in current spending. So when the Republicans say they are going to cut spending, they must do it in the budgets under consideration this year; The new Continuing Resolution, which is the second half of the current year budget and the upcoming budget, which has not yet been proposed. Any future cuts must be rejected and exposed for what they are: empty promises. If your Representative or Senator tries to get your support for future cuts, tell him or her you wants cuts now, not later or the budget hole will never be closed and spending will never be reduced.

The Elementary Science of Junk Food

Generally speaking I have little interest in discussing food, but the new bevy of sin taxes on so-called junk food and soda caught my attention because the argument is being made that this will encourage people to make healthier eating choices which will supposedly help people lead healthier lives. This is simply not true. In other words it’s a lie and all that is required is a little refresher course in elementary school biology to illustrate the point. You would not think that most American would need such a refresher, but the simple fact is that we have forgotten and now ignore the most basic scientific facts to suit our own political points of view. There are those that believe that “junk” food and “processed” food is what makes people fat. This is not true. It is simply the amount of food that makes you fat or not fat. The basic biology of food consumption is that whatever you eat is transformed into starches, sugars, and proteins. If it cannot be transformed into one of those things it is excreted and with some small exceptions stored in your cells. If a person is overweight it simply means they eat too much. If they are too thin they don’t eat enough. Your body does not distinguish whether or not food is “healthy” or “junk.” It either digests food or it doesn’t. I don’t expect this little piece of writing will change anybody’s mind, but it is useful to know the truth about food.

A Rational Plan for Moving Forward

Few would disagree that our nation is in financial trouble. The amount of debt and unfunded mandates is an insurmountable, but not impossible, sum of money to deal with. What we need is a rational plan for moving forward. This must be a plan that is free of sacred cows, budget gimmicks and special interest politics. It must include both short-term and long-term fixes and must account for political change over the long term so that the prize, which is a stable and manageable budgeting system, can be achieved regardless of the party in power. Achieving this goal requires recognition of two basic realities. One is that any plan that covers more than single budget cycle is doomed to failure and explains why the multi-year plans never work. For example, the Congress may agree to cut spending over the next ten years by $2.5 Trillion and then put all the cuts in future budgets, while increasing spending in the current year. The dirty little secret is that the next Congress may ignore the plan is the next budget cycle so the projected savings are never realized (sound familiar?). The second reality is that the major parties just disagree about the role of government. Given these realities a rational plan must feature budget cutting in the current year budget. The Congress must no longer put off cuts to future budgets. The second ingredient must be cuts by personnel attrition. Since personnel costs represent the biggest part of any budget, the government must operate in the mode of not replacing people who retire unless they are essential. Although it is difficult to quantify, approximately a million people enter the Medicare system every year and since all people reaching 65 must sign up for it, it probably represents a fair estimate of those retiring. If more than a million retire, or people retire earlier, the outlook is even better in the long-term. A plan of this type achieves two objectives. The first is to cut the current level of spending in a way that only affects the current budget and the second is to reduce the number of government employees, the most expensive part of any budget. This would permit cuts to be modest on a yearly basis and at the same time reduce the long-term cost of government by reducing the number of employees. A plan like this is far from perfect but the CBO could score it and predict the result. On the surface it seems like a better alternative to the Democratic plan, which is to continue to increase the size and spending habits of government, and the Republican plan, which is to cut the size and spending habits of government. If we combine some yearly spending reductions and some long-term personnel attrition we may be surprised at the result.

Astro Turfed in Tucson

Readers of The New Narrative know we have contended for a long time that Obama events often include built-in cheering sections near media cameras and microphones. The primary reason is there was always applause and sometimes it seemed to coincide with what are called "applause lines" in speeches. In some cases the cheering and applause took place in what seemed like inappropriate places or events like the recent civility speech in Tucson. If you look closely you will see the word "applause" in the lower corner of the jumbotron in Tucson. It confirms that much of the crowd reaction was manufactured. We are not shocked but certainly disappointed that the Obama team would use such devices at any event, much less a memorial to the deaths of innocent people. I apologize for failing to credit the taker of this photo. I will amend this column if I am able to identify him or her.

Sunday Morning Acid Heads

If there was a more serious punditry in America I probably wouldn’t be writing this piece. But to listen to the Sunday Shows you would think that Barack Obama just became President and had nothing to do with the atmosphere that had developed over the past two years. It was like John McLaughlin, Chris Wallace, David Gregory and Christiane Amanpour had taken acid and were having hallucinations on television. Obama’s Tuscon speech and his subsequent peace offering to the Republicans is an admission of his failure to live up to the unifying campaign promises he made in 2008. His speech was filled with all the right words, but they were just words. A slurry of platitudes does not a great speech make. He was speaking, but he was not listening as the raucous crowd made it sound like a rally rather than a solemn moment. At any time he could have asked his adoring fans to show some decorum. At any time he could have said that cheering, shouting and whistling were inappropriate. He didn’t. I should like to single out Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times who said in view of the incident the audience should be given some slack. I would only add that these were college students, not teeny boppers at a rock concert. Sweet also gave a pass to those who blamed Sara Palin for the shooting saying those that did were just “upset.” As far as Obama reaching out to the Republicans goes, the simple truth is he must if he hopes to accomplish anything. The Republicans control the one thing Obama wants the most: the purse strings of the U.S. budget. The speech in Tucson, his call for civility and a new tone does not change the fact that Obama and the policies he supports were soundly defeated in November. It does not change the fact that he has been one of the most partisan President's in recent history. I hope the Republicans do not forget it. Maybe the passage of time will help the effect of the LSD taken by the hosts of these shows to wear off.

Are We Coming to Our Senses on Fossil Fuel?

I first ran this post in December, but thought it was worth reposting because of the sudden interest in energy reform by Larry Kudlow and Eric Bolling, as well as the new Republican majority in the House. It provides some background on how fossil fuel became the boogeyman and what we need to do to restore fossil fuel to its rightful place in our economy.
If America wants a recovering and expanding economy it must declare a moratorium on alternative energy and return to the cost efficiency of oil. The Oil Depletion crowd of the 1970’s was wrong. The world is not running out of oil and there will still be plenty left when we have moved on to a more efficient source of fuel. But for the near future oil is the most organic, diverse source of energy ever discovered by man. It is more useful than almost all other forms of organic material and is the residue of all organic life that ever lived on the Earth. Unlike coal whose versatility stops at burning and diamond making, or natural gas, which is a little more flexible, oil is the most versatile of all existing energy sources. The list of products derived from oil would fill a book merely by listing them without an accompanying text. Some of the basic categories include fuels, solvents, plastics, fabrics, resins and medicines. Within each of these categories are many of the things we use in everyday life that are cheap and widely available. It is the secret of the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed and the secret to the wealth of modern society. More expensive alternatives merely rob us of that future. Alternative sources of energy are still in the infantile stages and will remain that way for a long time. We should not abandon them, but we should be more realistic about what is good for our future and our country. Congress must lift the moratorium on oil drilling. The government must permit the refining of oil, oil shale and other oil-based alternatives on federal and private land. States must reduce the level of bureaucracy and increase the number of permits issued for oil exploration and production. America began its search for alternatives to oil when it was thought we were running out. The environmental movement began as a vehicle to support the move from oil to other fuels. It is now almost forty years later. We use more oil than ever and more is being discovered everyday. The world is not running out of oil and America should not suffer because some people think it may happen someday.

Mr. Speaker: Take off the Gloves

Mr. Speaker - It's time to take the kid gloves off and stop this President and our Democratic friends from kicking Republicans around like tin cans. Since the election the President is trying to appear as though he is veering to the center. All of a sudden he is about cooperation and bi-partisanship. It has only taken the Democrats two days to resort to ridiculing, belittling and arguing with Republicans on every little point. It is time to make the President and the Democrats eat crap every day. Why should Republicans give the President and the Democrats the chance they were never given. Where was the cooperation and bipartisanship in the previous two years? All of sudden the President cares about jobs and the economy. All of a sudden the President and the Democrats are concerned about the national debt. Republicans now have the opportunity to demonstrate for the American people that Obama's policies as put in place by a Democratic Congress are bad for the nation. For example an honest submission of the cost of ObamaCare to the Congressional Budget Office would show its actual cost to be much higher than reflected in the legislation. The so-called "Doctor Fix" alone adds over a $1 billion to the cost. This destructive legislation must be put in the spotlight and fairly analyzed so the America people know what kind of smoke and mirrors are at play. And ObamaCare is only one policy. What about the President's energy policy? What about the Justice Department or other Departments where unaccountable people make decisions every day to overcome the failure to legislate. They too should be put under the microscope. Obama and the Democrats should have to answer every day for their failure to legislate policies that create growth and jobs. The President and Democrats do not want the Republicans to be successful. They want you, Mr. Speaker, to fail. They hope to lay on you the terrible effect of the legislation they have passed. Unless you expose them you will pay the price. I hope you will bring the spirit of Mark Anthony to Washington with the goal of politically burying Obama and the Democrats.

Three Things the New Congress Must Do

No one would try to argue that the Republicans will be able to do all the things required to put our budget in balance, create jobs and improve the economy in one budget cycle. But they must make some modest cuts ($100B is modest) in the second half of the 2011 budget and more serious cuts in the upcoming budget. In addition they must establish a ground game to create the conditions for economic recovery. Three areas include energy reform, housing reform and tax reform. We recently talked about energy reform ( America Must Have Energy Reform http://t.co/jsK48sO ) and we will continue to focus on the other two areas as well. Reform in these areas will do the following three things.
1) Increase the flow and reduce the cost of fossil fuels and establish an unsubsidized market for alternative energy.
2) End subsidies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sell off their assets and property portfolios to the banking system. This will permit the housing market to find bottom and we can begin a real recovery in the housing market.
3) Develop a tax reform that reduces taxes on activity that leads to growth and penalizes activity that is bad for the economy.
Each of these categories requires extensive analysis to reach the right mix of carrot and stick. But if America is to continue to be the greatest economy in the world and be a force for good throughout the world we must reform ourselves and lead the way.