Who can stimulate the economy?

Regarding a Sacramento Bee editorial: “Jobless, not richest- deserve helping hand”, the real argument isn’t about “tax cuts” for the so-called wealthy; it’s about stability in the tax structure to allow investors and business to plan investment and expansion. You can’t do that when you don’t know if your taxes are going up or staying the same.

It’s why banks aren’t lending and businesses aren’t expanding. They’re not sure of the future in terms of taxes and regulation, so why take any risk at all? Instead, they’re hoarding unprecedented levels of cash – cash that could be used in expansion and more employment. Even Paul Krugman, the economist darling of the left, ought to be able to understand that.

To be fair, the Bee rightly agrees with the GOP assertion that any extension of unemployment benefits must be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in actual government spending. However, their leftist insistence on penalizing individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 a year is wrong-minded thinking at its worst. When was the last time a member of the working poor created a business that created jobs?

Once again: government cannot create jobs and stimulate the economy – only a prosperous private sector can.

Why is that so hard?

The Immigration Game

Once again, the Sacramento Bee, like other liberal newspapers, is doing its level best to fog the issue of illegal immigration. Running a multi-page special by Peter Shrag and a companion column by Ruben Navarrette, the intent (as part of a division tactic) is to brand certain segments of the US population as “anti-immigration”, when the real issue is border-jumping by individuals not entitled to be here.

Let’s stop dancing around semantics and get real, shall we? The actual issue at hand is: How doe we stop people from entering the U.S. uninvited? How do we protect our borders?

Does that make us “anti-immigration” as Shrag suggests? Not on your life. We simply reserve the right to expect those who enter this country to do so legally, with proper ID and documentation – just like every other nation on the planet demands. We simply cannot afford an uncontrolled /open-door policy regarding our borders. It’s an issue of economics and national security.

Folks want to live in this country because it offers economic and societal opportunities unparalleled anywhere. But they need to follow Tom Hanks’ admonishment Matt Damon in the film, Saving Private Ryan: “Earn this!”

And that means following the rules, not breaking them.

GOP accused of threats?

While observing the Obamacare drama unfold over the past several days, I've noted the Democrat leadership's failed attempts to provoke Obamacare protestors and then attempt to hide their legislative misdeeds behind accusations of claimed epithets,racial slurs and threats of violence against various members of Congress. While predictably, the U.S. news media has taken a very pro-Democrat stance, and despite the presence of private and news media cameras, no evidence of any kind has surfaced to back up their claims.

Today, the Sacramento Bee published an editorial titled: "What hath the GOP unleashed?", in which the Bee's editorial board attempts to lay blame on the GOP for these claimed "attacks".

I simply couldn't swallow any more of this malarky, so I sent them the following letter:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This latest editorial - “What hath the GOP Unleashed?”, goes beyond the pale. I’ve simply got to ask the Sac Bee Editorial Board: How does it feel to be a shill for the progressive left? How stupid do you think the American citizen is? Anyone with a grade school education can figure out the game Democrat leaders are playing. They’re following a game plan that author Saul Alinsky laid out decades ago. Haven’t you read “Rules for Radicals”? It’s so obvious, it’s positively painful to watch!

Democrats are in big trouble. Their party has been hijacked by the progressive left. They’ve antagonized American taxpayers with forced Obamacare and they’re desperate for a smokescreen to hide behind. That screen is - once again - the race card. Saturday’s Congressional Black Caucus march directly through a crowd of Obamacare protestors and Sunday’s Pelosi-led parade (while carrying a sledge-hammer sized gavel) again, through the same crowd, were both designed to do one thing – provoke an angry response. Both attempts failed. Alternative routes were available. Yet both Congressional groups chose to arrogantly flaunt their power.
When the desired response failed to materialize, Democrats had to manufacture a few. Yet, with all the media-fed hoopla over these “incidents”, it’s fascinating to note that despite so many cameras present, no episode was caught on tape. Accusers have no evidence; when questioned closely, details become vague.

Passage of Obamacare truly is an historic milestone - historically corrupt and historically partisan. Americans know what’s at stake. We’ll exact our retribution for Democrat treachery at the ballot box come November - and in 2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Haven't heard anyting from them yet. I wonder if they'll even bother to respond...

Are liberals listening?

One wonders if liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, or any of his far-left brethren really are. My impression is “no”, because as typical of hard-core liberals, he thinks he knows what’s best for you. If only you would shut up and listen.

Liberals like Krugman unendingly preach the same shrill message. So, why won’t people listen? Because we‘re smarter than what the left gives us credit for. The summer’s town hall protests, tea party marches and recent election surprises have had little effect. These undeniable grass roots signals are no more than background static to committed left-wingers. They simply must keep pushing their end goal: complete control of your life. Their version of health care "reform" is just the first step. And that’s why they’re so exasperated – you can see it in their stunned disbelief and arrogance at town hall meetings. Remember Texas’ Sheila Jackson Lee and her cell phone in the middle of being questioned by a constituent? Remember Massachusetts’ Barney Frank’s flippant commentary?

Krugman’s references to “passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill” are prophetical. “Imperfect”? Make that disastrous! History-making? You bet – if passed, it will mark the point where this nation slides off the edge into a free-fall toward economic and societal destruction. With complete control of the House and Senate, Democrats have yet to push Obamacare into law. They have the votes to do it without a single GOP vote. Yet they haven’t .

Doesn’t that tell you something? To Krugman, it doesn’t matter - he’s an ideologue; it’s the agenda above all. He wants what the Administration wants: one step after another towards some sort of socialist utopia, right here in the United States. You think the President was kidding in what he said to “Joe the Plumber” about “sharing the wealth? He’s dead serious! And like every other acolyte of “the cause”, Krugman and his ilk just keep pressing the issue.

While Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has had trouble lately in defining communism vs. socialism regarding the Obama agenda, his many guests have not. And the answer is…Socialism! Obamacare is the first step in this President's promised fundamental change of America – to a socialistic state, much like Europe. Any doubt about that? Just take a look at statements made by members of the Administration’s closet cabinet of czars. Any questions?

Claiming that GOP opponents convey nothing but lies is weak: Krugman’s so immersed in ideology, he has trouble separating fact from fiction. Here are a few factors he’s missed:

Tort reform – where’s that? Well, as Democrats love to say: “follow the money”. Trial lawyers are key, highly influential contributors to the Democrat funding machine. As such, Democrats are loath to irritate them. Yet, limiting award judgments in medical law suits through tort reform would go far in reducing the staggering cost of malpractice insurance, as well as ease the need to practice “defensive medicine”.

Supply - Krugman the economist knows you can’t escape the law of supply and demand, but says little about it: In this case, if you massively increase demand through universal coverage without a corresponding increase in the number of medical care-givers, you inevitably wind up with rationing. In fact, I believe that the care-giver supply would actually begin to decrease as doctors, facing further reductions in Medicare reimbursements, would further reduce their Medicare patient loads, just to keep their heads above water. Hence that term Democrats can’t stand – “death panels”. Call them what you want, but someone will have to decide how a finite supply of medical care is allocated. It’s that simple.

“Process” - Republicans’ objections to reconciliation (the nuclear option, requiring a simple 51-vote majority over the customary 60-vote supermajority), to push the health care bill through are clear. They contend that reconciliation is typically used for passing the fine points of selected funding bills, not for a far-reaching overhaul of a major component of our economy – our entire health care system.

Emotional rather than rational arguments – In typical fashion, liberals focus on personal “sob stories” and ignore the far-reaching budgetary havoc wreaked on the entire economy.
Republican plan – a “race to the bottom”? - Conversely, the structure of this 2,500-page Democrat plan would more surely trigger such a decimation of available coverage. Insurance providers, faced the increasing pressure of government regulation would slowly be weeded out of the market to the point where Democrats could claim that the private insurance option has failed. This, of course, would open the door to the liberal holy grail – the “public option” or single-payer health care, just like Canada and Europe.

Finally, here’s an immensely telling line from the Krugman rant giving a hint of his true colors: “One of the great virtues of the Democratic plan is that it would finally put an end to this unacceptable case of American exceptionalism.” Now, what does that mean? To me, it illustrates Krugman’s preoccupation with European socialism and his embarrassment with our refusal to embrace the European mode and instead, cling to our silly notions that we Americans know there’s a better way.

And you know what? We do!

The Thursday Showdown

The “Thursday Showdown” on health care reform is shaping up to be high drama. For the past two weeks, pundits on both sides have been quite vocal. Liberal columnists such as E.J Dionne, Paul Krugman and others have hammered away at the GOP, still claiming it to be the ”party of no” which seems rather silly, in light of the fact that GOP members have been shut out of participation in framing health care proposals throughout the process. They have also urged Democrats to “do the right thing” and pass the two highly unpopular health care reform bills, regardless. Conservatives have fired back, pointing out that with such a majority, the Democrat leadership has still been unable to muster the votes needed to pass the stalled legislation out of Congress.

It’s utterly amazing that even now, perhaps as a veiled threat, Democrat leaders are still talking about forcing the current bill through the Senate utilizing “the nuclear option”, aka, the 51-vote reconciliation tactic in place of the standard passage with 60 votes. While it looks like even money in terms of getting it through the Senate, it appears to be the House where votes for the final push are lacking. Many members there are now reluctant to “take a bullet for the President” when they see nothing in it for themselves – sort of an aimless Kamikaze attack.

Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly calls the impending showdown a “High Noon” scenario, Bush Administration strategist Karl Rove terms it “Kabuki theatre” and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris dubs it a “Romeo and Juliet” plot. In any case, comedian Dennis Miller nailed it in terms of suggested tactics for the GOP: Simply file in, smiling and calm, and in a non-confrontational manner, lay out maybe – five key proposals and then say: “Mr. President, we yield the rest of our time to you.” And sit down. If Obama attempts to turn the exercise into a papal audience, it’s been suggested that the entire GOP delegation rise, and quietly file out the door.

Brilliant.

Boston: The reality sets in!

Wow! Here it is – Thursday – and I’m still recovering from the Boston surprise! It feels like there are still aftershocks rocking Washington – along with an attendant change in democrat attitude. Suddenly, it’s all “bipartisanship” and “reaching across the aisle” again. What’s happened?

Perhaps the overwhelming message from voters has finally gotten through: “We’re tired of your arrogance; we’re tired of closed-door haggling; we’re tired of the exclusion from the process; we’re sick of the lies. And we want no part of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid forced agenda.”

Witness the speculation regarding possible post-election shenanigans: Some were concerned with an attempt to slow down Brown’s taking his seat if elected. In fact, two weeks ago, Massachusetts’ other senator John Kerry reportedly stated that he would seek to delay Brown’s seating if he won - to allow health care reform to pass. But now, all the players appear to be singing a different tune, including Kerry, who this morning, said that Brown’s confirmation and seating should proceed as quickly as possible. In fact, when Brown visited Kerry’s office this morning, his tone was entirely different. Kerry even went so far as to lecture Brown, telling him: “You have to work across the aisle around here to make things happen”. “The message that the people sent was – ‘Get the peoples’ business done. Do it responsibly, without partisanship’”. “I’m totally in favor of that”. (Now, that’s quite a reversal!)

So, how does this bode for Obamacare and perhaps other pending legislation like Cap and Trade? Apparently, a lot. In yet another bombshell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now conceded that it isn’t possible to simply pass the Senate bill in the House. Doing so would allow bypassing the rest of the reconciliation process and instead, send it directly to the President’s desk for signature. In effect, she could be acknowledging the fact that she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are dead in the water. Regarding health care reform, we could very well be back at the starting point. Both sides are probably assessing that possibility right now.

The message from the voters has been delivered. Is Washington finally listening? We’ll see…

The Boston Surprise!

What a stunner! Tuesday’s election was just that. Who would have thought that the political course of this nation could have shaken to its very core by a Massachusetts Senatorial election? But it looks like Republican Scott Brown’s convincing victory over Democrat Martha Coakley has had that much of an effect.

The shocker began early in the evening, even before polls closed. Exit polling revealed voters, in a major break with tradition, were close to electing a republican to a Senate seat held for more than 50 years by democrats. After the polls closed, early results indicated a 53-47 split in favor of Brown. As more vote counts continued to come in, the margin remained unchanged and not much later – surprise! Coakley was already on the phone to Brown, conceding the election. In fact, Coakley later gave one of the classiest concession speeches I’ve ever heard. And Brown graciously responded in kind. To all observers, it was an amazing progression of events. Most expected the election to be close and a few were predicting a slim win for Brown, but no one expected it to be as decisive as this.

What are the implications? Democrats no longer have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof, stranglehold majority in the Senate. Their only option now - other than limited use of the 51-vote “nuclear option” to force through certain bills - will be to “reach across the aisle” and actually work with their Republican colleagues, rather than continue excluding them from every step of the process. The era of closed-door, back-room negotiations is over. If democrats want to save their version of health care reform, they’ll need to reconcile and pass it prior to Brown’s being seated. It’ll be interesting to observe how Congress proceeds in this respect.

Moreover, in the lead-up to 2010’s and 2012’s elections, this victory will force Obama to abandon his determined progressive agenda of “change” and make a major course correction toward the center. If he doesn’t, he’ll wind up being a one-term president.

What a difference a night makes!

Glenn Beck: Satan or Saint?

I think it’s safe to say that with the stellar exception of Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post is a determined bastion of liberal propaganda. This past Sunday, the Sacramento Bee reprinted a hit piece by Post writer Dana Milbank, aimed at FOX News phenomenon Glenn Beck. The article, “Glenn Beck exalted by the masses” makes it clear that the far left believes him to be the antichrist – perhaps even more dangerous than Sarah Palin.

This particular offering is so egregious, it simply begs for a response. Amusing, isn’t it, that so-called “liberals” can’t stand opinion or philosophy that conflicts with their own? Nothing “liberal” about them. That’s why the term “progressive”, might be a better term instead. Rather than argue the merits of an issue and try to persuade, these folks go after the individual. Utilizing ridicule, isolation, outright attack, when all else fails, they resort personal destruction. That’s why progressives are so desperate to silence him. However, it’s no surprise to Beck, who often reviews these slam tactics during his show, reminding the audience that they originate in Sol Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (a how-to manual for leftist agitators).

Dissecting the article, first few paragraphs are devoted to broad-brushed smears. By paragraph 4, Milbank gets down to specifics, insinuating evil connotations over Beck’s discussions. These range from the possibility of “death panels”, “FEMA concentration camps”, etc., to Hitler’s SA-type “civilian national security forces” – most of which are either implied or contained in actual health care reform language, or the latter – specifically called for (for whatever need anyone can imagine), by then-candidate Obama, himself.

Another jab - at Beck’s urging viewers to read “Mein Kamph” - misses, because Milbank flubs Beck's message in the warning: Not learning from the lessons of history condemns one to repeat them. I’d personally recommend the Alinsky book as well. It helps explain the disdainful, condescending attitudes displayed by Washington politicians toward their tea-partying constituents.

Further along, Milbank asks: “Is Glenn Beck America?” As much as this may pain him, I’d answer in this manner: America is Glenn Beck – not the "liberal/progressive" elite. Like it or not, there’s a good reason for Beck’s raging popularity: He brings a message of truth that resonates with America. He voices our anger over the lies; he voices our frustration with campaign promises not kept; he voices our concern over the currently misguided direction of the country we love. He represents us – the “tea baggers”, “town-hallers” and “Astroturfers” – you know, the folks progressives and many of our misguided representatives in Washington just love to hate.

This rabid hatred is underscored in various ways throughout the rest of the article, including a few bullet points that fall flat:

“Cultural Impact” - Of course! Glen Beck has given America a voice and a direction to challenge what they see as impending disaster in the White House. That’s a huge impact. Will Beck eclipse Oprah? Why not?
“Scalps” – What, if anything about Van Jones’ departure can be considered a scalping? Jones’ own questionable history did him in. Beck did nothing but bring it to light.
“Followers” – Becks’s revelations regarding the “shadow cabinet” of Obama “czars” should have been exposed by House and Senate leaders long before Beck turned on the spotlight. What took them so long to catch up?

Finally, Milbank’s screed ends with a failed twist of one of Beck’s own frequent lines: “I fear for this country.” Sadly, it backfires on Milbank, revealing him as just another petulant pecksniff, with a very dull political ax to grind…

Fire the TSA Chief?

Should TSA chief Janet Napolitano lose her job? In the words of Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” In a TV interview, Crandall went on to say we need someone in the job who actually knows something about security and transportation – not some politician.

Now that’s the most cogent pronouncement on the subject since the “Fruit of the Loom” Bomber’s attempt at jihad on Christmas Day.

The President has referred to this episode as a “systemic error”. How much of a breakdown was this "error"? Consider the following: A young foreign national male, traveling alone, flies from Nigeria (a destination publicly listed for questionable security procedures) to Amsterdam. He buys a one-way ticket, pays cash, and has no luggage. He then transfers to a U.S. flag carrier bound for a U.S. destination – Detroit. Upon his arrival into Amsterdam, any one of these factors should have triggered heightened observation and further evaluation of this individual. In the absence of an additional security check, why didn’t the Delta Airlines station agent request one, or at the very least, call for further questioning of this individual?

In the face of this catastrophe, Janet Napolitano’s attempt to deflect blame for this lapse by stating “the system worked” was utterly idiotic. It underscored the fact that she is in way over her head and has no clear idea of the magnitude of her responsibility. Make no mistake: This is an issue we simply must get right – the first time, every time. Yet, this Administration has yet to hold anyone accountable. Instead, the President claims a broad-based “systemic” error. How many more such “systemic” errors can we afford?

To put it in military terms, the Obama Administration clearly does not understand the responsibility of command. If a Naval vessel winds up stuck on a sand bar or suffers some other mishap, it doesn’t matter who was on the bridge at the time; it’s always the skipper of the ship who bears the ultimate responsibility - and the consequences. Sadly, that concept seems lost on this regime.

Considering this Administration’s stances on a number of issues so far (health care “reform”, intractable national debt, massive stimulus spending, bank bailouts, illegal immigration, etc.), it makes one wonder if Obama may actually be trying to wreck this nation on purpose – to facilitate its radical re-shaping into the socialist society he apparently craves...

GPS for Illegals?

Ruben Navarrette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribute, frequently appears in the Sacramento Bee. His recent tortured narrative “Border-hopping app belies a poor grasp of civil disobedience”, discusses a cell-phone application that guides the user through the southern California desert, aiding illegal immigration, by pointing out emergency water stations along the way. In his discourse, he seems confused over certain issues like proper use of state taxpayer funds and the legality of such devices. If it’s a cry for help, perhaps I can assist:

The production of a device or app that provides guidance and assistance to those attempting to enter this country illegally is against the law. Any individual who produces such a device is a criminal.

Navarrette states the thought that “state tax dollars may have gone to fund this research” doesn’t bother him. Oh, really? Well it certainly bothers me – and I suspect - the majority of my fellow California citizens and taxpayers.

If Professor Ricardo Dominguez developed and produced this device on UCSD property, utilizing public funds, he should be investigated, dismissed and - if appropriate - prosecuted. Such utilization of UCSD facilities and funding certainly do not lie within the scope of activities most California taxpayers would consider proper.

Moreover, if we have individuals or groups who place their ethereal notions of “trans-global rights” above this nation’s border sovereignty, we need to examine their motives carefully.

Regarding immigration, my surname clearly does not trace back to the Mayflower. Navarrette often tries to fog the issue by blurring “immigration” with “illegal immigration”. However, they are two entirely different topics. While I encourage immigration through proper channels (like my father did), I strenuously oppose illegal immigration. Those who participate in or facilitate the latter are, in my mind, criminals.

Simple enough?