Solyndra 2: Green Restated

$0.00

Remember Solyndra?  Half a billion in loans before the solar panel company went belly up?  CBS is highlighting what looks like an early sequel to the stinkulus bonanza;

A company whose subsidiary received $118 million in stimulus grant money from the U.S. Department of Energy to build new electric car batteries has now been removed from trading on NASDAQ.

EnerDel got an Energy Department grant in early 2010 for battery manufacturing in Indiana but the stock of EnerDel's parent company, Ener1, fell from $4.04 in 2010 to just 9 cents on Thursday. By Friday NASDAQ had pulled the company from its listing leaving the stock at $0.00.

Wow. B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E.   Good thing the Obama administration is scandal-free.

Democrat Governor Inadvertently Accurate on Stimulus

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) was on Fox News this morning talking about the possibility of another stimulus and whether or not he supports it.

He stated that he didn't think it was time just yet for another stimulus but if there were to be one, it should focus on infrastructure projects instead of social programs. But that's not where he is right. Governor Rendell was speaking directly to his constituents in a state where unemployment is 'only' 8.6%. That's below the national average, but Pennsylvania is a state that could be impacted by the President's apparent hatred for coal. The rate could get worse. The Governor does have to factor in his own political survival, and the facts on the ground in his home state of Pennsylvania cannot be ignored when he speaks to a national audience.

But on that point, Governor Rendell is at least half right. A spending stimulus in the past has focused on shovel-in-the-ground projects. Roads. Dams. Bridges. At least they provide a tangible societal benefit down the road. Whether they have a stimulating effect on the economy is another thing. Social programs do not put people back to work.

Where Governor Rendell is right, albeit unintentionally, is - get ready for this - in his defense of the previous stimulus effort by Democrats.

What???

Let me explain that.

Governor Rendell claimed that the term stimulus has gotten a bad name/reputation of late. He's right. But his intended point is not. He was implying, being on Fox and trying to play to (and convert) the audience, that a stimulus isn't as bad as conservative media portrays it. Never mind that it has failed on every measurement including the President's own 8% unemployment cap.

But it HAS gotten a bad reputation and it's as a result of the Democrats' choice method of trying to stimulate the economy. A stimulus effort in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the devil is in the details.

When the economy is in trouble, the government has many levers it can pull: stimulus spending, tax cuts, interest rate reductions, and managing the money supply (wisely) are some of those options. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the government trying to reduce the impact of a recession. The question is "how". Prudent, incremental, unobtrusive steps that recognize the government's role as one to facilitate of business, not demonize it, would have been applauded by most.

But the Democrats have chosen some very wasteful if not destructive options as their stimulus package. It should have been named a spending package because they've sullied the term stimulus for a generation to come. Governor Rendell was right. A stimulus isn’t what it used to be. It has become synonymous with deceit, waste, and pork. Nice going Democrats.

By the way, the first round of stimulus was dubbed porkulus although I tried hard to call it stinkulus.  I say the next one down the pipe we call "stinkulus" rather than "prokulus 2". It sounds better, and less derivative.  It has nothing to do with ego, I swear...

EXIT Question: Does the fact that Rendell and other Democrats are willing to appear on Fox News, unlike the President, give away their hand on the 2010 elections? Will they take a good cop / bad cop approach that allows local incumbents to distance themselves from the President and come of looking good locally? Given the President's approval slide, particularly among independents, I bet that's the play they are going to run in many states.

Fox News should ask every elected official that comes on whether or not they support the President's position on Fox. What a way to out them. It doesn't matter if they answer truthfully or not - No means the President is wrong: Yes means they are self-serving hypocrites; anything in between will come off as disingenuous. If it results in an all out Democrat boycott, then the Democrats will come across as more partisan than Fox, not the other way around.

The stimulus tour surprise

I finally get how the stimulus package is meant to work, and I have to admit I'm quite surprised by it.

Politico is reporting that Team Obama has travelled to 66 events to promote the stimulus package and it's wondrous and amazing brilliance at saving 72 million jobs (hey, there's no way of measuring how many jobs were saved, it's an asinine argument, so why not go with an asinine and outlandish number?).

No surprise.

They're out there on the taxpayers' dime trying to promote the amazing job they've done so far, even though it's too early to see any of those effects. Even though unemployment has risen to the worst levels since 1983. Even though any recovery that's happened since the apparent bottom this year are either illusory or else happening pre-stimulus impact. Never let a good news story go to waste either, right Rahm Emanuel? Party on Wayne! Party on Garth!

No surprise that they want to take credit for the stock market rally, even if the layoffs are worsening. (After all, the link above has Yahoo painting it as things getting better with 'but job losses slow' in the headline).

The Team has travelled predominantly to states that Obama won in 2008;

But the numbers tell the tale: 52 of the 66 events were in states that backed Obama. And taken together, the itineraries amount to a veritable map of Obama’s election-night victories — big-money states like California and New York, swing states like Ohio and Colorado that Obama turned blue and other solidly Democratic states Obama kept in his column.

The events were weighted to big cities that provided Obama some of his biggest election-night margins: Cleveland, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia.

Of the other 14 events, Vice President Joe Biden and Cabinet officials often touched
down in places where Obama lost narrowly and that Democrats hope to pull into their column by 2012, such as Missouri, Arizona, Montana and North Dakota.

Only two Southern states were visited by Cabinet officials for stimulus-related trips: Georgia and Kentucky, according to information provided by the White House and an examination of news releases from all 21 Cabinet-level agencies.

Again, no surprise. Politics as usual.

The Team denied the location of the trips were political;

And the White House sharply denied that there was any political motivation to the travel. “Politics plays no role in implementation of the Recovery Act or highlighting its successes. Period,” said Liz Oxhorn, press secretary for the Recovery Act.

Yep, again no surprise.

But then it hit me. They've toured and toured but the stimulus money has barely begun to trickle out the door. Sure enough, Politico confirmed my surprise;

Still, the stimulus bill has the potential to be a publicity bonanza for the Obama administration for years to come — through the 2010 midterm elections and beyond. As of mid-May, the administration had spent only 6 percent of the money Congress allotted for the program, and the White House says officials will continue to travel the country until all of the money is spent.

[Emphasis added.]

6%? Really? Anyhow, what's the surprise? It seems like their plan to spend the stimulus money is just to tour the country until all the money is used up - apparently to be used up by the tour itself. That should be good for a dozen years. They're going to have to ramp up the trips, the Obama date nights and Hollywood galas to get all that money spent any sooner.

It will be like a Motley Crue tour by the end of it with debauchery and an out of control party atmosphere, but with the added bonus of Biden gaffes. It'll be a real hoot...

[NOTE: For those of you who don't understand parody or sarcasm, please disregard the entire above post. Clearly the stimulus money is not to be used for an Obama party tour. It's being used to pay off liberal sycophants and cronies. We all get that.]

Rubbing hands together gleefully

Well, the Congress has passed the stinkulus bill. Worth noting for Republicans - not a single GOP vote in favor of the bill, and seven Democrat votes against it.

According to Breitbart,

WASHINGTON (AP) - Handing the new administration a big win, House Democrats passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy on Friday despite a wall of Republican opposition. The bill was approved 246-183 and sent to the Senate, where a vote was scheduled late Friday afternoon.
...
Senate passage would meet a deadline of sending the bill to Obama before a congressional recess begins next week.
...
The 1,071 page, 8-inch-thick measure combines $281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending. The money would go for infrastructure, health care and help for cash-starved state governments, among scores of programs. Seniors would get a $250 bonus Social Security check.
...
"This legislation falls woefully short," said House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "With a price tag of more than $1 trillion when you factor in interest, it costs every family almost $10,000 in added debt. This is an act of generational theft that our children and grandchildren will be paying for far into the future."

Some interesting things to note about that - the AP is calling it a big win. Is it really a big win? Democrats knew it would pass Congress at least because they had the votes. The same is true in the Senate. It's a win. But that was assured. A big win would have required the bi-partisan support the Democrats were saying they were looking for. That was part of the spread the blame ploy they were banking on in case this stinker fails. So it's not a big win. Michael Phelps beating a 4th grader in the 100m freestyle is not a big win. Michael Phelps beating a seal, now that would be a big win. Michael Phelps blowing a bunch of endorsement deals would be a big Blagojevich. As in 'he really Blagojeviched that up, big time'. [Just wait, there'll be an Obama verb yet].

Something else of note - they're trying to pass this monstrosity before recess. Aside from the ironic comparison of Congress to Kindergartners (and unfavorably at that), there's the time limit on this. If they want it passed by next week, this would make the perfect opportunity to stonewall (i.e. filibuster). True, the Turncoat 3 would need to be brought in line hard. But if Gregg can do it, so can they. Call it wishful thinking because that's what it is, but stopping this bill would be so good for America. Does America need a stimulus package? Yes . Does it need this one? Absolutely not. In fact it can be argued that doing nothing is better than this bill. And certainly other options, that have not really been explored could do much better and at much lower cost. Republicans should marshal every means at their disposal to try and stop this, even though they will eventually fail. They just don't have the numbers to support a sustained filibuster until the recession abates.

As Alfred, Lord Tennyson put it:

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

‘Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!’ he said:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

In this case we're only looking for 40, not 600.

The fact that it massively increases the national debt, and mortgages the future and puts an enormous tax burden on future generations is the height of generational arrogance and selfishness. Did American forefathers do that 100 years ago? There was often deficits, but nothing on this order. Americans who support this should feel a profound sense of shame. They will go down in history as the biggest Me-First generation in, well, forever. Except for the Light Brigade and those who supported them.

The Democrats know they have this won - they are looking to buy support but it doesn't have anything to do with passing the bill. They are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of all this spending. It means pet projects, it means looking like heroes and it means buying votes. The bi-partisanship is to cover their rear ends in the event of a stinkulus bomb. It means claiming the victory but sharing the defeat.

The ONLY option for Republicans is to fight it tooth and nail until it finally passes and America gets Obama'd [see, I told you he was going to verbed] and the economy stays in recession, exits with hyperinflation or ends up with inflation and recession a la Jimmy Carter. And as bad as it sounds for America, at least their will be a light on the horizon in the form of a return to fiscal sanity with more REAL Republicans in the House and Senate after the mid-term elections. Let the Democrats rub their hands with glee at their bill becoming law. In two years, the roles will be reversed and come October 2010, the Republicans will be the ones rubbing their hands with glee because the opportunity to reverse the bad decisions of 2009 will be at hand.

Forward, the Light Brigade!’

Was there a man dismay’d?

Not tho’ the soldier knew

Some one had blunder’d:

Their’s not to make reply,

Their’s not to reason why,

Their’s but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

House - Learn to read.

This is as important to see as it is brief. GOP House minority leader John Boehner points out the biggest problem with passing this bill.

Remember, while there was a show of bi-partisanship, Republicans were, in addition to Boehner's concern below, shut out of involvement in the crafting of this bill



Democrats: At least make a REAL show of being inclusive. At least pretend to be responsible. Actually doing those things we can see is beyond your potential.

Next stop the Anti-Free-Speech Doctrine. The 2nd and 3rd volleys have already come -the latest from former President Bill Clinton.

Gregg Aftermath III

Previous Gregg analysis - impact on Gregg, impact on Obama.

There seems to be so many impacts from this, I'm beginning to think that maybe Gregg is not a Senator but rather a named Hurricane. Although I could be mistaken.

The Senator Gregg resignation as President Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary has a ripple effect on the conservative movement. How big those ripples turn out to be is still unknown. But there are three people for whom it should reverberate fairly loudly - Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. These three Turncoats, who should be drummed out of the Republican party with all the speed of a Democrat spending spree, will feel some impact from the Gregg resignation.

It's coming to the surface that all three benefited from their betrayal of conservative principle (if they ever even had it). According to a Newsmax article;

“From auto dealers to the home-building industry, big business appears to be the biggest loser in the final economic stimulus plan . . .” The Wall Street Journal online reported, noting that Democrats removed key tax cuts and benefits for business as political payback for Republicans who failed to support the plan.

Though Republicans who crossed party lines apparently got rewarded. The New York Times reported Thursday that Specter got $6.5 billion for medical research.

Well, well, well, isn't that a little better than a simple wining and dining? Now you have a liberal Republican Senator, bought off for the purpose of local pork, juxtaposed against another Republican Senator, Gregg, who on principle, withdrew his name from consideration because he realized how bad this stinkulus bill is. And worse for Collins and Snowe, in nearby territory Maine (Gregg is from New Hampshire), the effects might be even more obvious.

The net effect is that they seem even less principled in light of Gregg's resignation. The Senators shouldn't be expecting to remain untouched in the primaries for 2010. They are more likely to face opponents, hopefully decent ones, in primaries and will be harder pressed to win against an angry Republican base. Then again, if they make it past the primaries, they are probably well-positioned for the general elections, since they've managed to be the rare Republican Senators who've brought the investment back to their constituencies. And unfortunately, there's probably a pretty good chance they'd win their re-elections.

We'll have to wait to see if that's the case - hopefully they don't make it past the primaries next time around, and better still they get removed from caucusing with Republicans and lose GOP financial support.

Gregg Aftermath II

Previous Gregg analysis - impact on Gregg.

Senator Gregg's decision to step down as nominee for the Commerce Secretary position affects not only himself, but also President Obama and the Republican Turncoat 3.

What does it do for President Obama? Or more precisely to President Obama? A couple of things.

Firstly the Obama administration has to be shaking it's head at the number of mis-steps it's taken in the appointment process and the Gregg withdrawal, while not tax-cheat related like some of the others, is still another mark on the administration's appointment record. After issues with Richardson, Solis and Daschle (among others, including Geithner), and now the recanting of Gregg, the grading on the Obama selection/vetting/nominee process can at best be considered a D-. That diminishes his messianic image. If he's so brilliant, why all the false starts?

Secondly, President Obama is using up a lot of his political capital in pushing the stimulus bill. This expends another few cents of that political capital. Now while according to Gallup, Obama still has a lot left, others including Rasmussen are showing differently (at least on the stimulus). I'm sure he still has a lot of capital left, but it's starting to fall away in little bits, and we haven't reached the 100 day mark yet.

Thirdly it also shines a light on the politicking behind the Obama administration trying to co-opt the census process for political purposes. If nothing else, Gregg's departure helps de-brand Obama in the squeaky clean department. True, to the 'true believers' it won't matter one iota, but to moderates who swung towards Obama in the election, they might have through all of these impacts be swung back a little towards the red side of the spectrum.

Fourthly, the administration is looking a little vindictive and petty. From Townhall, According to Gregg he accepted an offer;

"The president asked me to do it," he said of the job offer. "I said, yes. That was my mistake."

Obama offered a somewhat different account from Gregg.

"It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic," Obama said in an interview with the Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register.

Hmmm. Who is telling the truth? My guess is the President is in full spin mode. According to the Boston Globe, the offer came from the President. Isn't it kind of hard to back-track now?

According to 538, the White House is steamed by the resignation (slight language alert);

Here is the statement the White House just put out on kicking Judd Gregg to the
curb, in full:

“Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart”.

Translation: Gregg asked us for the gig and lied to us, so eff him, this is his fault.As one longtime White House correspondent just told me, "I have never seen a White House statement that kicks someone in the balls that hard before."

Well now. That looks classy, even without the translation, after the Gregg comment, why would you contradict someone whom you previously stated was a great man for the post?

And what does it do for your image let alone credibility when you now try to knock him down after he slags your stinkulus bill? Nothing but hurts it, that's what. All the Republicans need to do, is have Gregg knock the stimulus bill and when Obama responds - play the above video in every major market. Another gift horse for Republicans and this time, unlike the Gregg nomination, it's not a Trojan Horse.

A line in the sand

Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, and that's what we did," Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, announcing the House and Senate stinkulus deal .



If by compromise he means between Senate and Congressional Democrats, then he's not full of it. But according to Connie Hair, the only Republicans involved were the three defectors, Specter, Snowe and Collins. They got the bill down to 789.5 billion, not exactly the 100 billion Collins bragged about axing in her negotiations. But Reid's results don't smack of consensus building, or compromise. If you get everybody on the same side of an issue to agree, you may have an internal consensus but you do not have bi-partisan consensus and you certainly don't have any significant compromise.

Now, there's plenty of reason to be angry with Democrats - they are swindling America here. But to be fair, it's to be expected of them. We know what they want to do and are attempting to do. And now thanks to these 3 Benedict Arnolds they have carte blanche to do it. The Democrats need only 2 Senators to prevent a filibuster. And that was the last tool the Republicans had to stand up against big government for the next 2 years. The Democrats now know that they can make paltry side deals with the weakest links in the GOP chain to get their way.

Now that everyone knows that, the GOP needs to focus its efforts on what it can still control which means two things - preparing for 2010 and penalizing these 3 for taking the only weapon available out of conservative hands (to ensure this doesn't happen again in future Congresses).

To those ends, they ought to be removed from caucus, removed from RNC support mechanisms and Michael Steele ought to challenge all three hard in primaries with strong, winnable candidates. It’s not much from a stop-the-liberal-agenda standpoint, but it does accomplish a couple of things by drawing a line in the sand.

Firstly, it establishes a party unity approach to future Legislative efforts, which given the super-minority status the party finds itself past the precipice on (thanks to the Turncoat 3), is absolutely necessary. Secondly, it goes a ways towards ensuring that party loyalty – you are on THIS team, you play ONLY on this team. No switching sides every inning. Thirdly, it keeps that bi-partisan double-talk from Democrats to a minimum. Even with three Republicans on board, the Democrats are going to try to crow about bi-partisanship accomplishments, reaching across the aisle, and the art and skill of their compromise. They’ll pat themselves on the back, as long as it looks like there’s going to be some success come out of this. And if it starts to turn sour, they can claim – “Hey, those Republicans were in on this too!”

Yeah, right. Kick them out of caucus and see how far that argument goes. The Democrats are pinning their hopes on the fact that this package will kick in to high gear in 2010 and get them electoral victory in the mid-term elections. It’s a gamble. But if they are right, expect that bi-partisan praise to evaporate quickly. It’ll be their plan, their recovery; only 3 Republicans came on board.

As Republicans, we want the country to succeed but we are convinced this will not work. If we truly believe that, as most conservatives and most Republicans seem to feel strongly that it will fail, then in this poker game, we need to gamble on its failure. Not by hoping for failure like the Democrats did on Iraq, but by simply not signing on to it. Step aside and make a big deal about how if it succeeds the Democrats own it and if it fails they own it. In 2010 if the recession is still in high gear or the high inflation has started, or worse still, stagflation has kicked in, Republicans will be poised for not only an I-told-you-so moment but BIG electoral gains.

It’s not wrong or treasonous, Anti-American or wanting failure to say you believe this plan is not going to work. This is an exchange of ideas. We believe our ideas are better. In the next few years, having granted the future generations of America a mountain of debt, we’ll have a better idea of this has become America’s lost decade. And if enough people are aware of the failure WHEN it becomes obvious and they know who is to blame, and they vote accordingly, then maybe it doesn’t have to be an entire decade that gets lost like it did in Japan.

Obama, Pelosi & Reid vs Dobbs

Pelosi - no pork;



Reid - trillion dollars;



And who can forget this Obama gem;



Well you'll just have to forget it;

Will the GOP go 2-0 on the Stinkulus Bill?

Not a single Republican Congressional Vote for the Democrat pork-laden, ideology-laden, bad-idea-laden, stimulus-lacking stinkulus bill. Score one for the GOP.

Today the Senate gets their crack at a vote. GOP support will be sparse. But is anything less than 100% opposition to it still a win? They should stick to the line drawn in the sand by their Congressional counterparts. It's possible they will;

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans suggested overhauling the Senate's stimulus
proposal because they said it doesn't pump enough into the private sector through tax cuts but allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy.

"When I say start from scratch, what I mean is that the basic approach of this bill, we believe, is wrong," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican. He added that he was seeing an erosion of support for the bill.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he doubted the Senate would pass the bill, contending that Democrats as well as Republicans were uneasy with it. He renewed a Republican complaint that Democrats had not been as bipartisan in writing the bill as Obama had said he wanted.

"I think it may be time ... for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, 'Look, let's do this the right way,'" McConnell said. "I can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far."

Looks like the GOP could start the season 2-0. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Alternatives to the Democrat stinkulus package

As conservatives, we deserve to be challenged on our distaste for the Democrat stinkulus package. What would we do instead? It's pretty easy to poke holes in a bad idea (I mean a REALLY BAD IDEA), and plenty of people have done so already. But what would Republicans do differently?

Is there anything that we could do, beyond looking at the bill, finding the pork-laden items and try to get them crossed off the list? Yes. That is not to suggest that those pork projects and things not related to economic stimulus should not be singled out, questioned and if required, ridiculed into removal. Those things should be done and in all likelihood will be done in the Senate today to some degree. But there is value in conservatives pointing out what we think would work better - much better - in solving the economic influenza the country is currently suffering.

There are plenty of conservative alternatives to the stinkulus package, including what top Republican Lawmakers have already proposed;

The Republican plan relies on cutting lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent, tax deductions for small businesses, and a ban on tax increases to pay for new spending -- which they say should be paid for by cutting spending in other areas.

It would also make unemployment benefits tax free, and offer a home-buyers credit for those who make a minimum down payment of five percent, according to a statement from the Republican leadership.

"At the end of the day, government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn," said Boehner.

Republican leaders were expected to meet with Obama next week to discuss the plan, as the House prepares to vote Wednesday on the Democratic plan and any Republican amendments.

But that's not necessarily an exhaustive view of what conservatism offers as alternatives. Tax reduction and tax credits are differing ways of managing the same problem for example. And while Republicans are lampooned as helping greedy corporations for trying to use that method, and Democrats are lauded for their ability to use a "scalpel instead of a hatchet" (of course in ways that suit their socio-political aims, those options should not be off the table either. If the Republicans were to proceed with specific, targeted tax credits, they would need to do so carefully with forethought and abetted by a strong PR campaign that the specifics are not evil-corporation-and-anti-justice manipulations.

Here's a far from comprehensive list of ideas that deserve consideration, thought and development (not 647 pages in 14 or so days, like our liberal counterparts have done);

*Repeal the destabilizing parts of the Community Reinvestment Act. It won't stimulate the economy but it will prevent a re-occurrence of the biggest fundamental cause of the housing bubble

*Zero rate capital gains taxes for 2 years for investment - in American investments only. It will promote investment in the nation. Investment is another key way to help the ailing GDP. While it is true that consumer spending accounts for about 2/3 of the GDP, it also accounts for the bulk of the reason for consumer debt being at such high levels and why the loosening of credit will not necessarily re-establish a spending frenzy. It's an inherently unstable way to grow an economy - there needs to be more balance between consumer spending and corporate research, development and investment. This is also a longer term approach but should be considered as part of a holistic fix rather than the stop-gap approach being thrust upon Americans.

*Reduce income taxes at the higher end of the income scale where the taxes are actually being paid. It's been pointed out numerous times, backed by IRS data, that the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of federal income tax, the top 25% of income earners pay 86%, and the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes. The table below is from the National Taxpayers Union.Clearly, providing tax breaks in the form of rebate checks to the bottom percentages of the grid is not tax relief, but re-distribution of wealth. The merits of that idea are for another debate. What is critical here, is that by reducing the tax burden on those with more considerable income, achieving spending or investment is far more likely than by spreading out to those who will spend it on debt repayment, or food. Nobody wants to see people going hungry, but wouldn't it be better for investors to hire people or avoid layoffs so that people can buy themselves the food they need rather than be dependant on food stamps or a rebate check?

*Provide tax credits for companies for additional Research and Development. This is the same idea as using a scalpel monotoned above. However in this case it could be an effective investment generating tool.

*Provide substantial tax credits for companies who repatriate labor or create new jobs. In a sense it's anti-free trade, but companies who outsource labor offshore are looking to enjoy the benefits of the American market without a commensurate investment into the people of that country. While the rules exist such that it is not required to do so, it doesn't mean the government can't incent companies to help with domestic production.

*Remove or reduce federally imposed restrictions on nuclear power, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and clean coal development. This will help reduce the dependence on foreign, often politically hostile oil. It will create exploration and development jobs, AND it will generate revenue for states that were looking for federal handouts as part of the stinkulus package. This would reduce the burden of that $888 billion boondoggle substantially.

*Allow banks and automotive companies and any other businesses who have acted recklessly to fail. Cover only FDIC protected deposits, like the rules say. Bad banks/car makers will be replaced by more efficient options. Where there is a void the free market will fill it. Allow companies who would benefit from restructuring to do so under Chapter 11 protection. Thee would be a lot of short term pain, but the reality is that OVER-REGULATION (e.g. CAFE standards, Community Re-investment Act), government intervention, is what has turned the American economy on it's head, not stupid or greedy companies, or stupid or greedy CEOs (although in some cases it's apparently true).

Ronald Reagan's warning about the government being the problem is no less true today than in his time. The government needs to back away from the economy and let the entrepreneurs and those in the know do their thing. Just watch the miracle unfold and reap in the tax dollars it generates.

*Reduce government spending enough to balance the budget. The crisis exists from over-extension of credits, more deficits are not the answer - fiscal sanity is the answer. This is not a fight fire with fire situation. Why such a no-brainer fails consistently to get the attention it deserves is beyond me. Let's just borrow from our grandchildren and the people of America won't care - the impact is too esoteric to understand. If that's true, it's a shame. Government should set an example, clean up it's wastefulness and spend money only where it needs to do so - roads, police, the military, things like that.

The above items are far from a comprehensive list, but they are ideas that certainly make more sense than funding contraception. How does that possibly tie in to economic stimulus? Maybe some other type of stimulus, but it's something the government clearly has no business being involved in.

There are a multitude of conservative ideas, that given the chance I'm sure conservatives would be willing to debate about the specific merits and/or shortcomings. Then again, Obama won. Pelosi won, and Reid won. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but the Democrats would have you believe there is. Another way of looking at it is that you get what you pay for, and if you paid nothing, don't expect a lot of quality in what you receive America.

Obama's panicky Pete moment

In a clear vote of confidence in his own party's massive spending plan, Obama had this to say about the American economy;

"Americans know that our economic recovery will take years -- not months.
But they will have little patience if we allow politics to get in the way
of action, and our economy continues to slide."

What's he doing?

1. Trying to buy time because the GOP won't play ball. It shows a lack of confidence in the stinkulus package being forced upon America that is more a design to push a liberal agenda rather than any type of real plan to save the economy.
2. Trying to convince a Republican, any Republican to play ball by scaring the public into thinking that Republicans are the issue here by playing politics.

Sorry Mr. President, the GOP won't fall for that little trick. At least I hope not. And saying it will take years does not mitigate the fact that your plan will make it take longer than a smarter, quicker, cheaper plan. And from the looks of it, all of those things could be achieved by a plan written on a napkin, with about 10 minutes of REAL thought put into it. (As opposed to contraception will benefit the economy).

Michelle Malkin Mistaken (partly)

Sorry Michelle, but I think a couple of conclusions you might have reached on the revival of conservatism might be a bit premature. I admire your work and almost universally agree with your opinions. In fact in this case, you are correct - yesterday's vote was a good day for conservatism.

So this might come off as a little nit-picky, but...

1. The Senate will likely be more bi-partisan and could let us conservatives down. The version they are drafting apparently has more Republican buy in than in Congress. That doesn't negate the positive aspects of the Congressional vote, but does mean that the momentum from yesterday may not be carried forward.

2. The final version of the merged House and Senate plans will need to be re-voted on in both houses. Will the same number of GOP representatives vote against it? There's no guarantee, if they've already been given (supposed) cover by voting against it the first time. The party line vote we saw against the stinkulus package may evaporate next time around. It remains to be seen.

3. One day of doing things right does not negate years of poor decisions, while in power or while in opposition. New found principles, while encouraging, do not a trend make. To be fair and draw the distinction, it was a good day for conservatism, but not redemption for the GOP leadership or members in either the House or Senate.

4. While we've now got the high moral ground and opted to wash our hands of an inevitable failure its still buys Democrats time and is not a lose situation for them.

5. There's still a raft of RINOs in the party that have not been purged.

So while you are right about it being a good day for conservatism Michelle, it's not a game changer yet, and it's not re-birth of the GOP. It's a first step, and a baby step at that. Let's keep it in perspective.

Obama's No Lose Strategy

The Democrat dominated stinkulus package that Obama is trying to get Republicans to knuckle under on, poses an interesting 4 quadrant strategy for Obama and the Democrats. Interestingly it's almost entirely upside for the Democrats, and the Republicans on the Hill, some at least, seem to be willing to play right into the Democrats' strongest position. That's bad strategy in card games, in Superbowls, in negotiations, in warfare - you name it. The breakdown below is important in terms of explaining Obama's rationale for is actions, how the GOP should react and it's also instructive in terms of the Democrats own thinking regarding the potential success of the stinkulus package.

Below is a 4 quadrant diagram of the situation. There are two interconnected outcomes (1) Whether the Republicans go along with the package (Buy in or opt out), and (2) Whether the stinkulus package succeeds or fails. [Note: Ignore the lack of artistic merit, I'm no artist.]

Obama is meeting Republicans and softly pressuring to avoid listening to Rush and try to work together to get things done. He doesn't need their support to get things done, so why bother? Well it makes sense when you look at the quadrants.

Quadrant 1: The GOP Buys in and the stinkulus package succeeds in halting, or minimizing the recession.

This outcome is a Win/Win - for Democrats. In the end, 2 years from now when elections are heating up, who is going to remember that the Republicans signed on to the package? Do you remember who came in second in the Miss America contest in 2006? Do you care? Who was the 2nd fastest 100m sprinter in the 2008 Olympics after Bolt? In fact you may care more about those thing than politics. So how this scenario plays out for the Democrats is simple - they get to take credit for what is obviously their package anyway. The GOP is dragged along grudgingly but there will be no credit shared in Nov. 2010. It will be positioned as 'The Democrats saved America'. And when the GOP protests that they helped too, the Democrats can say one of two things. Either they say well you did add some small components but we were the real designers and engineers behind the plan, or, they can say, "Yes you did help (in a small way) - and we did what's never been done before - we reached across the aisle and were inclusive in orchestrating this success. That's something you Republicans never did when you were in power and therefore we can be trusted to be bi-partisan and inclusive and you can't. Vote for us."

For Obama, this is a good outcome. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being a great outcome for the Democrats, this would rank as an 8. There is low downside risk to it, (see below).

For Republicans, the outcome ranks a 4. You helped save the economy by buying into a economic pillaging of America that luckily worked, but you get little or no share of the credit.

Net for Dems = +4.

Quadrant 2: The GOP Buys in and the stinkulus package fails to do anything meaningful about the recession.

If the package, as well all expect on the conservative side, fails then this is still not a bad news for Team Obama. They have a great out position here, that goes something like this;

"Look, we all tried here. But these are unprecedented conditions brought about by foolish Republican de-regulation put in play by Bush and his cronies. This reversal of fortune will take more time, and we need a steadier hand at the wheel during these times than the Republicans can provide. Besides, we solicited their input in this thing and tried to be inclusive." The sentence following that can veer into the whole we're more inclusive than they are shtick or into the idea that the reason it's taking longer than expected is BECAUSE of those Republican ideas that are making the recovery slower than it would have been if we just did it on our own. But don't forget, we're bi-partisan.

For Obama this quadrant represents an insurance policy. If the gambit fails, he can spread the blame and then if he wants double down on stinkulus 2.0 more spending and no GOP input. The insurance part means he can lay at least part of the blame at the feet of the GOP (plus Bush as per usual) and mitigate voter anger in 2010 and 2012.

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being a great outcome for the Democrats, this would rank as an 6. There is higher downside risk in that the Dems won't escape at least some of the blame, but perhaps spread enough to the GOP to retain the Legislature, even in significant numbers, despite possible losses.

For Republicans, the outcome ranks a 2. You didn't save the economy you sold out your ideas and your base will be even more angry than in 2008, but you get a share of the blame for the failure in the eyes of Independents and moderate voters, thereby minimizing potential gains in the mid-term elections.

Net for Dems = +4.

Quadrant 3: The GOP opts out of signing on to the the stinkulus package and it fails.

Here's a slightly good news scenario for the GOP, unfortunately it comes at the expense of America. As Rush Limbaugh has said, the Democrats tied themselves to failure in Iraq, and put politics ahead of the national interest. Republicans shouldn't be interested in doing that. But this is the worst possible case for the Obama and the Democrats. The blame is predominantly going to be focused on the failed stinkulus package, as it should. Of course the Democrats will fall back on the idea that the GOP so mangled the economy under Bush that their plan needs more time. Or it needs less GOP portions included, so let's cut them out of it and try again. They also have the opportunity to co-opt Rush Limbaugh's argument about them to their own talking points;

"Look, we're seeing the Republicans gleeful at the failure of this because they didn't sign on to it. Obviously they are putting party first and country second. You can't trust these guys." With Obama on message, and a lapdog MSM, they could pull that off far better than the right (since it seems like very few loudspeakers ever picked up Rush's meme and carried it along).

For Obama and the Democrats there is a high risk associated with this outcome - they will still get the lion's share of the blame but on our 1-10 scale this option nets out for Democrats at about a 4.

For Republicans this option also nets out a 4 - it's okay politically because the Dems will get most of the blame and lose seats, but bad for the country, and a potential backlash for not putting country first.

Net for Dems = +0.

Quadrant 4: The GOP opts out of signing on to the the stinkulus package and it succeeds.

For Democrats, this option is a no-brainer. You get 100% of the credit for saving America, saving the whole world economically. The upside is huge. "We did it, they were no help. Our ideas work, the right has no clue what works or what it's doing, they are out of touch with America and with reality. They are dangerous. Love us. Adore us. We are great."

The problem here is that you don't know if the package will work, it's a gamble and Obama knows it. Chuck Schumer knows it. That's why they still want the buy in from the GOP. They can't swing for home run here in case they strike out. You've heard of 'death by 1000 cuts'? That's the approach Democrats are willing to take. Rather than wiping out the GOP entirely in 2010 and 2012, let's work on that incremental march towards socialism and consolidate the gains we made in 2008. It's the safer bet, and it will still represent progress.

The scoring for this one would be Democrats = 10, Republicans = 0. Net for Dems = +10. But it's just too risky. Perhaps they know the plan can't succeed, perhaps they truly believe it will, but are playing it safe.

In any case if you look at the outcomes net positions you have;

Quadrant 1 - Democrats +4

Quadrant 2 - Democrats +4

Quadrant 3 - Democrats +0

Quadrant 4 - Democrats +10

firstly, you can see that this does seem to be a no lose situation for Democrats. At best Republicans break even under Quadrant 3.

Now if you assume anything other than a 50/50 chance of success by 2010 then that has to be reflected in the scoring. Let's say the Democrats think there's a 40% chance the plan will succeed by 2010. Keep in mind their opinion of Bush and as a result, how badly they believe the economy is messed up right now - less than 50% is a reasonable assumption. Many probably think it will take many years to fix, and some probably understand that the stimulus effect being provided by infrastructure doesn't put shovels in the ground right away, so 3+ years seems reasonable.

So if you run a little formula on the scores by quadrant and overlay the outcome probability you get a weighted score;

Quadrant 1 - 4*40% = 1.6

Quadrant 2 - 4*60% = 2.4

Quadrant 3 - 0*60% = 0

Quadrant 4 - 10*40% = 4

What the Democrats have some influence over is GOP opt in. The success is an unknown, which is why we've estimated it by the percentages above. Quadrants 1 & 2 combined (any GOP scenario) equal a score of 4. Whereas Quadrants 3 & 4 combined equal 4. That looks like to the Democrats it should not matter.

Unless...

either they don't weight the outcomes the same way I have, and perhaps less confident about their messaging or else they think the chance of success of their plan is significantly less than 40%.

The safest scenarios for Obama are quadrant 1 and 2. The GOP opts in and their outcome is positive if the plan succeeds and even more so if it fails.

This is a simple decision box, that might have been used by Obama. The numbers are easy enough to play around with in terms of the Net + by quadrant and the probability of the outcome. Perhaps it's something like the Obama team used, and that's part of why he's trying to appear accommodating. Scarier still is the possibility that the GOP used a similar thought process and are

1) Willing to accept minimized Democrat gains as opposed to the home run option.

2) Don't have the stomach to stand up against what they believe is wrong

3) Are using a stupid decision box like I just did.

The fact of the matter is that the package is likely to fail. Signing on to it has no upside for Republicans. And they can't do anything to stop it. So why support it? Why not stand on principle, expect that it's going to fail and get busy explaining to people how you will be ready to pick up the pieces when it doesn't save America?

When it comes right down to it, you aren't rooting against America by saying you don't think it will work. You input has already been negated by "I won." So state your belief that this is a bad plan, state what you'd do instead and then stand on the sidelines like you are going to have to do anyway for the next few years and wait. Save your breath for where you can have a real say in matters, and will use that opportunity. If the plan succeeds you've taken a risk and lost by playing your hand that way. But you know what that will signal to conservative voters? You think Obama's plan will work, and you know what that means? You're not really conservative after all.

Rush Limbaugh versus Insanity

While some things might be above President Obama's pay grade, apparently he's not above petty attacks of those who disagree with him philosophically. Never mind that the President elevates Rush Limbaugh by personally dissing him to the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such foolhardy behavior is not surprising - President Obama has already made some declarative statements that defy the understanding of the weight his words now carry.

In addition to a hostile President, a possible re-visiting of his position on the Fairness Doctrine, Rush now also has to deal with a Congressional Democrat petition and worse still, a spineless GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey complain about Rush in his showdown with Obama.

I've got news for you Rep. Gingrey, Rush is doing your job for you - he's carrying your water. You should be conserving your energy to stand up to the Democrat stinkulus package rather than telling Rush he's not helping. You know what -he's helping and you are too blind to realize it. Your political opponents are the Democrats. If Obama wants Rush to pipe down, don't you think it's helpful to your cause if he pipes up instead? This is so simple it's kindergarten stuff Representative.

We've come to expect anti-conservative venom from the Democrats, and the media, and in the schools. But when the GOP starts focusing it's efforts on Rush instead of standing up for it's principles, well, you have to give yourself a shake.

To paraphrase the youtube video "Leave Rush alone!" He's doing his job, you do yours.

First salvo in Fairness Doctrine fight

January 23rd - mark it down. President Obama referenced Rush Limbaugh in a debate with Congressional Republicans about the $1 trillion economic stinkulus package. While it's not directly related to the Fairness Doctrine and more concerned about the debate at hand, specifically the Republican approach to the stinkulus package. But there is subtext with the specific reference that cannot be ignored.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.

His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in
socialism.

The first part of the subtext is that there is either Obama's way or the highway. Clearly the bi-partisan facade is already starting to drop. If that continues, there will be some public waning in his approval numbers, which for conservatives is a positive though not as much as being in the minority is a powerful negative.

More importantly though, is that while it has in the past appeared as if President Obama might be resistant to a Democratic Congressional push to re-instate the unfair Fairness Doctrine, it might represent a turning point in either his thinking or his centrist facade. In the battle over the Fairness Doctrine , Rush Limbaugh is front and center with respect to the potential impact.

Tying the two points together it's easy to see the temptation for President Obama to change his stance - don't listen to Rush, I won so we do it my way, and silencing Rush because he's an obstacle to bi-partisanship. Hmmm, maybe the Fairness Doctrine makes some sense to him now.

Rush thankfully, doesn't take things lying down.

Implicit in the the Fairness Doctrine argument is that it promotes bi-partisanship, something that has been sorely lacking in America and is strictly the fault of conservatives. And now, given the sudden need for long overdue bi-partisanship (i.e. getting conservatives to shut up and knuckle under to Democrats because they have all the power and want to remove every speed bump possible), the Fairness Doctrine can only help America, right?

It's enough to make your ears bleed listening to the arrogance, and hypocrisy so blatantly on display, and yet so under-reported because the supposed fairness in media is so firmly rooted in backing the Democrat agenda.