Tighten Your Belts

Remember last week when the President told us DC had to tighten their belts, and feel the pain of the rest of us.

He lied.

He's taken his belt off, put on a pair of over sized sweat pants, and is doing a tour of the DC area All You Can Eat buffets.

That wasn't his only less than intellectually honest statement concerning his budget. In trying to explain away $1.56 Trillion in debt, Mr. Obama claims that he inherited a $1 trillion deficit. That's true, except the real "long term" deficit was about $560 in Bush's last budget. The rest was one time bank and auto bailout money.

Obama doubled down on that in his first budget, with $787 billion (now $850B) in stimulus money to come up with a $1.43 trillion dollar deficit for FY 2010, or a real deficit of about $640B. The 2011 budget he has proposed now has nearly $1.6 trillion in debt, yet no "one shot" stimulus type budget buster. So in just 3 fiscal years he's found a way to just about triple the real deficit.

But it's not just that deficit increase, included in that budget is tax increase averaging over $110 billion per year, meaning he's accelerating spending even faster than it looks like when you just see the raw numbers.

Most folks with any common sense would look at the results of the bail out era and realize that the bailouts and stimulus haven't worked. Stabilizing automakers and banks was supposed to trickle down to other manufacturers and employers, and make money available for hiring. Yet unemployment is up about 40% since we went Kenysian on the economy. Another huge dose of federal spending isn't going to fix that. It will make it worse.

The stimulus hasn't created private sector jobs, it's expanded government jobs, which just means the government needs more money to satisfy itself. Most of those jobs are at the state and local level, so after you get the whammy of new federal spending, your state and local taxes will have to go up to pay for those jobs no longer funded by the feds.

The tax increases are targeted directly at the group that creates self sustaining private sector jobs. 75% of the people who make over $200,000 a year are self employed as Type S corporations, small businesses. What do those folks do when they see an extra $8-10K a year in taxes? They either don't hire more people; and unemployment stays high; don't buy new equipment for their business; which impacts other businesses; or just shut down because the tax increases don't make running their own business worthwhile anymore.

The President's budget has a $5000 tax credit for hiring people, but in the small business world it will mean nothing, it won't cover the tax increases in the budget, or come close to the expenses of a new employee in most businesses. Large corporations might benefit some from it, but it will be negligible for them, also. The place I'm working this week found it cheaper to cut two full time jobs and have the rest of the folks in that group work four hours of overtime a week. I doubt a $5K tax credit would have kept those two on the job.

Even if those seeing the increases do as the Kenysians would like to think, and just take it out of their own pocket, it still has an impact. If you remove $150 from my wallet every week how do I adjust? Well, I probably go out to dinner 2 less times per week and kill a trip to the book store.

So what I've really done is taken that money away from other businesses. Multiply that by a few million people and all of the sudden it means unemployed waiters, waitresses, bus boys and cooks and clerks. As those restaurants and other businesses close it means less local tax income, since empty commercial real estate pays a lower rate than property generating income.

Or maybe they just won't invest as much, which means that the $110 billion in taxes doesn't go into the markets, keeping them lower, and every one's 401K suffers.

Remind me again why these tax increases are going to help.

Read The Full Post!

Take His Time?

So, my laugh of the day started yesterday, when I heard a newscaster say that President Obama planned to "take his time" in making a decision on if or when to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Really? Hasn't he already been doing that? A month ago we all heard that McChrystal had asked for more troops, and shortly after that we found out that the original assessment/request was sent in a month before that.

Two months, and now we hear that they are going to take their time? They have been taking their time already. My guess is whenever the commander in chief decides he has to decide, Congress will then want hearings to second guess whatever that decision is, delaying things even longer.

Here's where the real problem is for Obama. He can't ignore McChrystal, he spent his short time in the Senate telling GWB that he was an idiot for not listening to the commanders on the ground. )Well, until the commanders said they needed more troops, then he said Bush was an idiot for listening to them). The he complained he was wasting time in Iraq and not concentrating on Afghanistan.

Now he's in the drivers seat, and it's time to concentrate harder on Afghanistan, and those damn folks over there refuse to realize he is The One© and just lay down arms and sing Kumbaya. So the apparent strategy is just ignore everything, and hope everyone forgets to fight over there.

Read The Full Post!

60 Seats, So What

Well, the Democrats have what the left has always wanted, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a huge majority in the House. The left's agenda should go through unchallenged, right?

Well, not so fast. Today's news headline is "Democrat says health overhaul needs GOP to pass".

So how does that work? Simply put, there are democrats who are flinching at the costs, government control, and loss of individual freedoms in all of the bills in the House and Senate. In the Senate enough have voiced opposition that there would be no way to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

These are the pragmatists of the Democratic party. They understand that a bill passed on a party line vote could be the anchor that sinks them, and their party, in 2010 and 2012. Unlike the stimulus package, that got a few GOP votes, this one needs to get at least a dozen before the hesitant Democrats are going to vote for it. They know that getting Olympia Snowe to sign off isn't going to be enough to say it was a "bipartisan bill", and save them if the system goes haywire.

Nancy Pelosi has said that her House bill has the votes, and will be passed soon. As soon as it goes to the Senate it will die a quick, ugly death, and both Houses will have to start over. The new timeline is now before January, not by the August recess.

As much as the President and others would like to say the hold up in the Senate is the GOP, the media made much of the fact that with Al Franken in the Senate there is a filibuster proof majority. So the GOP can't be the hold up, and the people know it.

That means it's got to be Democratic jitters about the bill, not GOP stalling killing it's chances. And the public knows that if the Democrats in a solid majority can't agree on something, then they probably shouldn't do anything.

Read The Full Post!

Why Not Just Cut Taxes?

President Elect Obama has decided that the $175 billion "economic stimulus" he suggested during the campaign may not be enough to get the economy rolling again. So now, he's discussing a plan somewhere between $500 and $700 billion dollars. (GPO linked XL spread sheet. Cell BI)

To put this in perspective, that's between 40 and 60 percent of all personal income tax revenue estimated to be collected for FY 2008. If you do the low end of it, $500 billion, that would be every bit of tax income paid by the bottom 95% of tax payers; folks with an income under $153,000 in 2006. (Tax Foundation Table).

This begs the question, why not just eliminate the income tax on the lower 95% of the population for the next year or so? That seems to be the simple solution to getting that money out there. But there is are political reasons it won't be done.

Simply put, Mom and Pop feel better about getting a check from Uncle Sugar than they do about seeing their paycheck go up a few bucks. Over 40% of tax payers complain about their income tax, yet don't actually pay any. They see the money come out of their check, but then come April, get a refund with tax credits that is more than they paid in. They like that check, and seeing taxes deducted over the course of a year gives them something to bitch about, and politicians a way to claim the little guy is being screwed.

The second reason is that by cutting taxes directly, you aren't able to pay off the lobbies and interest groups that got you elected. If instead you send that $175 billion back to tax payers, and spend the other $325 billion on infrastructure projects, you can make a lot of folks in a lot of industries that invested in you happy.

For those not familiar with this method, it's known as the Chicago way. Our state leaders; the mentors of Barack Obama; have become the national experts at buying votes from interest groups with OPM (other peoples money). It was a trend started in Chicago (hence the name) to keep the Original Mayor Daley in power, and has spread to our state capital in a big way. Big enough to have the last Governor in prison and the current one under investigation by the feds.

If you think you need help from road builders, get a federal grant and spend a billion or so, spread among the 10 biggest, and redo every major freeway in Chicago, at once. Want help from health care providers, expand the state health care system to pay for just about anyone, then let the judges say it's illegal. It's how we do business here in Illinois.

President Obama would like to carry this quaint midwest tradition to the White House, deficit be damned. And, great for his union buddies, The Davis Bacon Act makes sure that all that infrastructure money gets funneled through them.

Yes, a tax cut would get the money back to the people in the most efficient manner, but let's not get confused here. The purpose of the economic stimulus expansion has much less to do with you, the tax payer getting something than it does with paying back political backers.

Read The Full Post!

Obama-Care Looks Like Hillary Care

For those who wondered, it seems that Obama Care will look much like HillaryCare. though not as many details will come out, so as to keep us from bitching this time around. Considering Barack ran his entire campaign by not releasing much info other than he "hoped for change" that shouldn't be a surprise.

The Wall St. Journal has a nice piece on what Obama Care will probably look like. They base it on what Obama has said, who he's probably picking to run Health and Human Services (Tom Daschle) and the policy blueprint making it's way around the staffers of the House Finance Committee.

Basically, the plan that appears to be coming together will be three pronged. The first, govenment regulation of the insurance industry to require all companies that sell health insurance to do it at a group rate. An expanded Medicare that competes against the private companies will also be part of that insurance pool. Everyone gets to chose their policy, but as many states do now, the Fed's will be telling the companies what they have to have in the policies.

Second, and employer mandate that a certain percentage of payroll must be spent on health care, or you'll get a tax penalty. As the Journal points out, that number has to be targeted correctly. If the penalty is too low, a lot of companies will just dump their coverage and pay the fine. Why not save some money if you can.

The reverse is also true, though. If the percentage is set too high companies will just shed jobs in the US and move them elsewhere. We already have the second highest corporate income tax of all industrialized countries, adding to that burden will cause some to leave.

The third the Journal devined from Max Baucus' policy blueprint. That is an individual mandate to buy insurance, or face a tax penalty for failing to. Obama campaigned against this, but if he wants the rest of the package, the guess of the Journal (and me) is that he'll cave to this demand.

For those who can't afford the insurance, a tax rebate will be given to help pay the cost. Who is considered to not be able to afford coverage? According to the Baucus blueprint, families making less than FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT of the federal poverty level, or about $85,000 a yearfor a family of four.

The reason for not getting to wonky on the details? Obama learned from Hillary. She brought in about 3 million "experts" from every possible interest group to help build her plan. Instead they ended up with a brawl in the White House and nothing getting done. Obama will limit the number of folks coming in to give ideas, and limit the amount of information that comes out, lest we get unruly about the details again.

There will be interst groups that do bitch. Unions will be the biggest. While they claim to love the idea of universal care, their members may balk at it; and then you'll have them asking for an exemption for collectively bargained benefits.

Obama say's he'll exempt small businesses from the mandate, but the level that equals "small" hasn't been set. Is it based on number of employees, gross income of the company? Who knows, and we probably won't until it gets to the floors Congress.

Baucus' plan gives no idea of what it will cost. "Conservative" estimates are about $150 billion a year. That's a joke folks, even if Katie Couric can say it with a straight face. Medicare, which only covers about 44 million people has a baseline budget number for 2009 of $420 BILLION. Somehow, for 1/3 that amount, we think we can double the number of people in the program, and more than likely triple it.

Tripling may actually be a conservative estimate, too. Consider that insurance companies will be asked to write group rate policies for everyone, and Obama has already said that he want's no pre-existing condition clauses. When you do the math on that, companies are going to walk from the business. Not being able to charge more to folks like me who are overweight, smoke, drink, and don't exercise means that they will have to jack up everyone's rates to cover us slobs. That means selling insurance suddenly becomes less profitable, if at all, and they'll start walking from the health coverage business.

If anyone doubts this, New Jersey provided a great example in the late 1980's and early 1990's with their auto coverage mandates. By the time the legislature there was done imposing restrictions on what could and couldn't be covered, and charged extra for, most of the big insurance companies just pulled out of the state.

That of course is the utopian vision of the left. Get rid of the private insurance companies, and just let the government handle health care all together. Seriously, considering how well they've done with Medicare and Medicaid why would anyone doubt their abilities to handle it for the rest of us, right?

Read The Full Post!

How Empty Is Your Life Today?

This is from the Onion. It's too damn funny not to post

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Enjoy

Read The Full Post!

Running Scared

It's getting fun to watch as "The One" finds out that he may need to scratch January 21, 2009 out of his anointment appointment book.

White women and independents are flocking over to the McCain Palin ticket, and Joe Biden won't be helping by telling people that her being elected would be step backwards for women.

Barack Obama is in full defensive mode, not knowing how to react to the media that's suddenly being somewhat warm to the opponent, and realizing that a novice senator with no record, and a 35 year Washington insider aren't exactly "change agents".

The problem for him is his lack of a record is starting to show. While Palin can claim some legitimate (and some questionable) reform victories in Alaska, and McCain has a record of bucking his party, Obama's campaign folks claimed are grasping at straws for anything that might look like reform.

Sunday David Axelrod got caught with his pants down by Chris Wallace of Fox News, when he claimed that Obama's support of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation were items that "went against his party". Wallace was kind enough to point out to him that both of those items were passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, no roll call needed. That's not reform, that's following the herd.

While Obama has decided that Alaska keeping the "bridge to nowhere" money is bad; even if it's now being used for needed infrastructure improvements instead of the bridge; he voted for that money, twice.

My guess is that in the next 3 to 4 weeks we'll start seeing McCain ads about earmarks, that Obama will have to defend himself, and fellow Democrats against. Remember that in 2006 one of the hallmarks of the party taking over congress was that earmarks would get cut down.

Instead, last year Obama asked for $330 million, including money that went to the hospital his wife works at and companies represented by Joe Biden's lobbyist family members.

Read The Full Post!

Obama Jumps Church

So, Senator and Presidential wannabe Barack Obama has decided to leave the Trinity United Church of Christ. He's clarified remarks about it, and decided it wasn't "a political manuever". Sure, and the 465 foot shot Russel Branyan hit in Milwaukee last night wasn't a home run.

Over at the Chicago Tribune, The Seeker blog asked the question "What do you think? Can a political figure join a congregation without putting it and its spiritual leader under the microscope?"

The answer of course, is yes. It happens all the time. In fact, Dick Cheney, one of the most despised politicians in the country goes to church regularly, can anyone name his pastor? How about George Bush's? Hillary Clinton?

The problem with "The Seeker" question was that it should have been "Can Obama pick a pastor that won't put himself under the microscope." Keep in mind, Oprah Winfrey left that church years ago because of Rev. Wright. So it's not like he just recently went off the deep end.

The Swamp has more insight from Obama on his decision, but the more he talks, the more it appears that he made a calculated political decision. While he says that he doesn't want the church coming under more scrutiny because of his candidacy, I think that the opposite is true, he's tiring of the scrutiny he's receiving for his choice in associates.

Read The Full Post!

Climate Security Act

Next week our Senate will be debating the "Climate Security Act", which in some circles is becoming known as the Economic Insecurity Act.

What the Act does is mandate reduced carbon emissions, by allocating every dwindling numbers of carbon credits to industry, then setting up a "cap and trade" scheme, in which your industry, if it's good, will have extra credits, and can sell them to those that don't.

Exceed what you are given and you either buy excess credits from someone else, or pay hefty fines to the new government bureaucracy set up to administer the system. Here's the Chamber of Commerce's depiction of the bill's regulatory set up. Go ahead, try and figure it out without getting a migraine.

A lot of focus is spent in the bill, and in editorials and other opinions on the problems this is going to create for the electric generation business. The only (viable) option to meet the reduction goals mandated is going to be replacement of coal plants. Since oil fired plants wouldn't reduce emissions enough to meet goals, that leaves "Green Power", nuclear, or Natural Gas as the fuels of choice.

Green is the least cost effective, and effective period, option. For a newer generation coal plant to be replaced would take between 25 and 50 square miles of windmills packed as tightly as possible. Solar isn't an economically sound option due to cost, and area required. In the areas where coal is most prevalent, the upper Midwest and North East, solar isn't viable due to sun availability.

Natural Gas would use many less carbon credits, but again, to fire a large enough plant to replace a coal generation facility, you'd need a much larger NG infrastructure. The bill contains no provisions to increase the supply of that cleaner burning fuel, or make it easier to transport. You end up with residential customers fighting utilities for a dwindling supply.

That brings it to nuclear. The problem is we'd need to more than double our current number of nuclear plants to replace our coal fired plants. The bill again contains no provision to make that happen, and the electric industry says while 150 new plants would be needed by 2020, the realistic number that could be built is closer to 30.

While cost is the initial barrier to nuclear plants, over their lifetime they end up costing less than coal plants because of reduced staff needed, lower maintenance costs, and obviously, not having to buy fuel daily.

The bigger problem, which again, the bill doesn't address, is the legal maze that pops up every time someone says "I want to build a nuke plant". Start planning now and you MIGHT be able to break ground in 12-15 years on a new plant.

Max Epstein, writing in the Washington Post points out other flaws in the bill, specifically how the "free credits" to power companies actually increase the cost to consumers of reducing carbon emissions.

The Wall Street Journal points out that the EPA has estimated a drop in GDP growth of between .9 and 3.8% by 2030, and 2.4-6.9% by 2050. That's somewhere between 1 and 3 TRILLION dollars of economic growth stiffled by the legislation.

They also point out that there are a lot of more transparent tax increases that could be used to try to adjust behavior. However, cap and trade lets the legislators decided who are the winners and losers, other tax hikes leave that to the people taxed. Congress just can't have that happening.

I will be writing both of my Senators this weekend (Durbin and Obama) and letting them know that this bill seems to be the worst possible option to try and drop the growth of carbon emissions, and that they should vote against it. I know those letters will be ignored, but at least I' can say I tried.

Read The Full Post!

Misleading Polls

So, I'm over at Yahoo, reading an article on Obama's softening support among Democrats, which isn't surprising, it's hard to remain in the 70% region forever. Later in the article, it notes that according to the NY Times/CBS Poll, both Obama and Hillary Clinton hold 5 percent leads over John McCain nationally. That sounded suspect to me, since Rassmussen and Zogby both have it the other way around.

Then, in the last paragraph, they explain it:

The nationwide telephone poll was taken March 28 through April 2, with 1,196 registered voters participating, including 510 Democratic primary voters and 323 Republican primary voters.

19% more of the participants in the poll are registered Democrats! Obama had a 47-42% lead over McCain from this poll, but 46% of the respondents were Democrats. That means if he got all of the Democrats polled to say they prefer him, then he only got 64 of the 363 non-aligned voters to say they'd vote for him. If 63% supported him (as they say earlier in the article), then he got about 50% of the non-aligned vote.

Regardless, having that big of a skew in the polled individuals is going to skew the results. Pollsters will tell you they "normalize" numbers to take out the inconsistancies, but a 20% difference is hard to normalize, or justify.

Considering the Times and CBS ran the poll I guess my surprise should be at the fact they released the numbers on who they polled.

Read The Full Post!

Even Less Love On Trade

Last weekend I wrote of the lack of love the Democratic contenders were receiving on their trade stances. That lack of love is continuing, with Newsweek International's editor, Fareed Zakaria, writing "The Democrats' Dangerous Rhetoric" concerning their trade stances.

Just this one quote from a Latin American diplomat should make folks on the left side of the aisle wonder if we'll really increase our world standing by electing either Obama or Clinton:

The backlash could be greatest against Obama because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat told me, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade - the issue that affects us so deeply - we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration." (emphasis mine)

That quote should send shivers through the spines of Democrats. Having other countries diplomats openly, and rather brazenly, stating they'd rather deal with Bush than Obama is not good for Mr. Obama's image as the great uniter.

The democrats are starting to find that they can't have it both ways when it comes to America's world standing. You can't be a "kinder, gentler giant" in one area and a protectionist thug in another, and have everyone base their opinion on the kinder side of things. Hillary Clinton's own polling profiles should tell her that.

One problem that Zakaria has, as do a lot of Americans, is confusing politics with leadership, and the electorate with people who will do their homework. In both cases the it's a poor assumption.

And isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear? There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization - and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care and infrastructure - so that we can compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy. Unfortunately, that is not what the Democratic candidates are talking about.

Yes, that is the point of leadership, but politics point is to get votes, regardless of how you do it, especially in primaries. One of the ironies of our election process is how many times in the last 20 years candidates have been burned for "flip-flopping" positions from the primaries to the general election season, and how they continue to do it.

In 1950 it was easy to say something in Dallas on a campaign stop and have it not heard anywhere else. Then when the convention came around the candidate could take a more populist, across the aisle stance, and no one would be the wiser. It doesn't work that way anymore, YouTube, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (for both viewers) are their 24/7.

Then again, both candidates on the Democratic ballot are running their campaigns on the trade topic as if it's the 1930's; both in substance (protectionism), and in their obvious belief that what's said in Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas or Pawtucket won't be heard outside those cities.

Too bad for them that it's not 70 years ago, that protectionism has been proven to be an economic disaster, and that the Internet and satellites exit. Editors will continue to run articles about how poor a position they've taken, and trade partners will continue to talk about the apprehension of having either of them in office.

Read The Full Post!

Taking Aim At Obama?

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post spent a good chunk of today's "Media Notes" column looking at the treatment of the press towards Barrack Obama, and found that for the most part he's been given a pass by them until recently. He also points out that many stories about Obama failed to gain traction the first time around, or got little coverage for weeks.

While Obama's folks claim this just isn't true, the Center for Media and Public Affairs studied newscasts from ABC, NBC and CBS and found that 83% of the stories about Obama from December 16th-January 27th were "positive" stories, while only 53% about Hillary Clinton fell into that category.

The same study found that; and this has to bug liberals; Fox News has been the most balanced outlet for news about candidates. It has also had the best coverage of actual positions, instead of the beauty pagent aspect of the election.

The previous study by CMPA (link is a PDF file) found similar results in the period from October 1st through December 15th, with Fox being the "fair and balanced" news outlet, having a 50/50 split on positive and negative stories on all candidates, and the most substance on issues.

The CMPA study doesn't look into newspapers, but with the exception of the Chicago papers little coverage nationwide has been given to the Tony Rezko trial that starts today. And even in the Chicago papers much more attention is being paid to Rezko's dealings with Governor Blagojevich than connections to Obama. This though, should be expected, since the focus of the trial is on the "Pay for Play" system that appeared to be in effect at the Governors office.

That could start changing as the Rezko trial gets underway, as it's widely thought that a number of witnesses will mention Obama in their testimony. It will be interesting to see the next CMPA study of positives and negatives and if the trial affects the newscasts.

Read The Full Post!

Name Calling Politics and Smears

Yesterday's buzz in the political world was Bill Cunningham, host of "The Big Show, With Bill Cunningham" repeatedly referring to Barack Obama at a John McCain rally as Barack Hussein Obama (the Senator's given name). Everyone this side of Mars knows the reason, it's to try and get folks to think (wrongly) Obama is a covert Muslim agent or some other silliness.

McCain repudiated the remarks, rightfully so, and spoke out pretty forcefully against Cunningham, who today tossed his hat into Hillary Clinton's ring. My though, good, she deserves you.

When I heard the story my first thought was that Cunningham has been reading too many blogs, on both sides of the aisle, that think name calling is some sort of "good thing". It's not. That's not saying I haven't done it, I'm sure that searching through nearly three years of dribble on this blog you'll find some instances of such behavior. That still doesn't make it right.

The truth is the folks who call Hillary Clinton 'Hitlery', or continue with the asinine Barack Hussein Obama, or any of the dozens of names attributed to G.W. Bush over the last 7 years don't look any smarter, more informed, or "in the know" than other folks. They basically look like childish folks who are (in many cases) hiding behind funny names on their blogs.

You are much less likely to sway an opinion based on using a derogatory names directed that the candidate you loath than you are with a well reasoned argument about their positions. Enough on that.

The other big story lately is the picture of Obama in the traditional Somali garb that has been making the rounds, evidently starting on the Drudge Report, supposedly provided by Clinton operatives. Obama's camp has called the circulation of the photo an attempt to smear him. That folks, is wrong. You see, the good Senator had that picture taken at a public photo op a few years ago while visiting Africa.

The idea that showing people something you did publicly is a "smear" is kind of reminiscent of John Kerry complaining when folks showed pictures from his war protest days. Sorry, but if you don't want something to come back and bite you later, don't do it.

The one telling thing on the whole incident is the Obama camp overreaction to the picture. The better tact, than implying someone was trying to smear the good Senator would have been to explain it as Gen. Scott Gration (USAF ret) did a day and a half later:

"And in the course of this, Senator Obama was given an outfit and as the guest that he was, the great guest, he took this outfit and they encouraged him to try some of it on," Gration said. "It was a thing that we all do."

The explaination was very simple, clear and above the fray, and not buying into what Drudge was selling, which was fear mongering. The "smear" accusations, and looking for a scape goat may have shown how unready Obama and his staff are for the real tests they'll face against unknown 527 hacks and other's should he win the nomination of the Democrats.

Read The Full Post!

Fractured Democrats

Funny things are happening with the party in charge of Congress lately. The kumbaya moments from November's election victory are quickly dissipating as Iraq, and the next set of elections start taking center stage.

As I mentioned last night, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha's position on Iraq has come under fire from Dick Cheney, who was on the news this morning not only standing by his comments, but increasing his attacks on Pelosi & Co.

Hillary and Barack Obama are fueding over who Hollywood should be supporting, and it's turning into an ugly throw down. Everyone expected Hillary to take off the gloves in the fight for the White House, it was a given. I don't think anyone expected haymakers to be thrown in the first round of the fight. Obama, to his credit, isn't doing a bob and weave, but instead firing body shots right back at the Senator from New York.

And finally, in what would be a huge blow to the party, Joe Lieberman has mentioned he could change his caucus vote to the GOP if the Democrats try to undermine funding for the war in Iraq.

A Lieberman switch would move Senate control back to the GOP, and lead to a bloodletting of the Democratic leadership in the Senate. Harry Reid has to know this and I'm wondering what he's going to do to both placate Lieberman, and the ultra liberal base that is running the party agenda.

Fun times in politics folks!

Technorati Tags: Lieberman, Pelosi, Cheney, Clinton, Obama, Murtha, Iraq, Congress, Senate, Reid

Read The Full Post!

Where's the Beef?

So, Barak Obama is running for President. Yahoo, really, Yahoo. One of the cornerstones of his candidacy is his thought of universal health care for America. He's mentioned it in a number of speeches, including yesterday's making his run officials. He tells us how important it is, but He's never given any specifics on how he's going to make it happen.

In fact, when you look at the issues section of his website, and click on the health care link, you find that there is no mention of this lofty goal. There is a lot of fluff, some of it recycled from George Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns (Medical Information Technology, Report Cards for hospitals and doctors). But no where is there a mention of universal health care, how it would work or where the money would come from.

I mentioned a couple of posts ago about some hurdles that have to be overcome to bring about universal health care, and Obama has, so far, addressed none of the issues with such a goal.

So, Senator Obama, I'll ask you that age old question "Where's the Beef?" when it comes to your desire for universal health care? How are you going to do this?

Technorati Tags: Obama, Health Care, 2008, Elections

Read The Full Post!