The Crowbar

DailyKos’ Jed Lewison distorts a Washington Times story about Republican lawmakers who opposed the stimulus and are now trying to direct federal money back to their districts – you know – where the money came from in the first place.

In that magikal world that is DailyKos, this means that these Republicans secretly believe the stimulus was a good thing.

If there’s one thing that unites the Republican Party it’s that the stimulus bill was a job-killing piece of legislation that was the worst thing in the whole entire world for the economy, right? Or maybe that’s just what unites them in public, because in private the Washington Times reports they’ve been working overtime to get their hands on job-creating stimulus cash.

Is anyone surprised that a DailyKos author sees conspiracy in this? Someone please tell Lewison that taxpayers live in Republican districts, too. 

Basic Economics

Lewison is missing (or purposely avoiding) the idea of opportunity cost. So, 50 jobs are “created” by stimulus funds, but how many were lost as a result of the of increased taxation and government inefficiency? It’s more than 50 because government is always inefficient; it costs time & money to gather taxes & redistribute them. Here’s a simple formula for Lewison’s review:

Stimulus Jobs Created – Jobs Lost From Taxation – Government Inefficiency = Total Jobs Created

Let’s give the Government the benefit of the doubt and say the government was mildly inefficient (choke!) so we only lost 1 job due to inefficiency. Since the stimulus money is really taxpayer money designated for job “creation” we can set the Jobs Lost From Taxation equal to 50.

50 – 50 –1 = NEGATIVE 1

Government created jobs ALWAYS cost MORE jobs than they create, even in the BEST case scenario!

The Republican lawmakers aren’t being hypocrites, they’re cutting their losses. They can’t unmake the law so at least they’re getting SOME money back for their beleaguered constituents.

Omissions

Lewison leaves out this enlightening part of the Times article:

Another House member who has scored high ACU rankings, Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama Republican, also voted against and criticized the stimulus.

“Rather than create jobs or stimulate the economy, this massive spending bill was a laundry list of programs that focused on states with big-city urban communities,” he wrote in the Oct. 4 edition of the Daily Mountain Eagle newspaper.

Three days later, Mr. Aderholt sent a letter to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation seeking stimulus money to expand broadband services in his district.

“Congressman Aderholt supported some of the ideas in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but disagreed with much of it and that’s why he voted against it,” Aderholt spokesman D.J. Jordan said.

“Since the bill was passed and became law, the congressman wanted to help a local foundation receive some of the broadband money that otherwise would go to another state.” [emphasis mine]

So Lewison, out of ignorance or cynicism, condemns the Republican lawmakers who are trying to make the best of a bad situation that was hoisted on them by most Democrats and many fellow Republicans. 

Lewison concludes:

Kudos to the Washington Times for having done the leg work of filing the FOIA requests to expose these examples of Republican lawmakers talking out of both sides of their mouths, publicly lambasting the stimulus as a job-killing measure, but privately conceding that it actually created jobs. It’s hard to imagine a more effective way of demonstrating Republican hypocrisy on the question of whether the stimulus bill creates jobs, and Dems should remind them of it every waking day.

The Dems probably won’t do as Lewison recommends (except the electorally safe ones) because they know the truth, but I hope they do because it would allow Republicans to demonstrate to the public how the stimulus harmed the economy. But my question for Lewison is: if the stimulus was creating jobs, why do we have anemic jobs recovery far beyond what the stimulus propaganda predicted?

Gurgling up from the Cesspool of the Grubby Left erupts a stinky bubble of false indignation. Witness Robert Schlesinger, regular believer reader of the fringe left site ThinkProgress, masquerade as the Righteous Defender of Retards Everywhere.

So, what’s the real story? You see, Schlesinger, a fanboy of Rahm’s, is angry, very angry, that Sarah Palin called for his hero’s resignation as Obama’s Chief of Staff. What’s scorned fanboy to do? Hold on to the wrath and unleash it a just the right moment, of course!

Enter Rush Limbaugh, determined to stir the puddin’:

LIMBAUGH: Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.

Yeah, OK, Rush is being an insensitive ass, as usual. He wrong to compare liberal activists to retards – it’s an indignity to retards. Seriously. “Retards” are usually loving, innocent people. Members of the hard left are usually bitter, nasty, hateful, crude, creepy, and generally extremely unpleasant to be around.

Sarah’s response to Rahm’s comments was vehement and personal, but why – what’s behind it all? 

How can anyone forget how Palin was treated by the “professional” press after she was announced as John McCain’s running mate? It was a mob mentality, Palin was outright abused by the press. Did Obama’s campaign do anything to dissuade the press from the hideous smears and maltreatment? Emanuel was Obama’s chief strategist and, considering his bully temperament, I suspect he actively encouraged the press to be horrible to Palin. We know that Emanuel, Time’s 2009 Person of the Year, has had an all-too-cozy relationship with the press. Remember Begala, Carville, and Stephanopoulos’ daily chats with Emanuel back in January 2009? Is there any question that he still “chats” with them on a regular basis?

We all know what’s going on. Emanuel is an ugly, blind partisan filled with Chicago-style ball-busting vulgarity. Is this really who the Democratic Party wants to be one office away from the President? Given Emanuel’s severe lack of grace on every front and on nearly every issue, selecting Emanuel for Chief of Staff not only shows poor judgment on Obama’s part; it shows political naiveté. Even lefty pundits have major reservations about Obama selecting him. It’s past time for Emanuel to go.

I totally agree that Palin should call out Limbaugh on his insensitivity – Limbaugh should apologize to the special needs community. But, Limbaugh isn’t a hyper-partisan public official with a history of inappropriate-for-a-public-officials vulgarity. Should he be fired? No. The now-defunct Air America radio hosts said much worse than Limbaugh, which probably lost them listeners and ultimately their jobs. The audience will ultimately judge whether Limbaugh is still worth listening to.

As for Schlesinger, the newly self-appointed Righteous Defender of Retards Everywhere, he’s a hypocrite. I see no blog entry of his condemning Emanuel’s private-made-public comments. Fanboy Schlesinger is just as bitterly partisan as his hero, Rahm Emanuel. He’s interested in helping his side maintain power, not doing what’s right for special needs people.

I joined Twitter almost exactly a year ago, but I don’t consider myself an expert on Twitter etiquette. Most third party analyzers accuse me of not engaging my users enough, which is probably true. Engaging every person who tags me for Follow Friday takes a lot of precious time that I often cannot afford.

The Follow Friday phenomenon is a great thing, Twitter users staking their reputation on you and vice versa. It’s an honor to be tagged. When I first started on Twitter I returned every #FollowFriday, but then it started taking away from my Twitter experience. It became too tedious and disingenuous, so I stopped – probably to my detriment, but I just couldn’t do it.

Then, along came Twitter Lists. It slowly dawned on me that I could use it to permanently and continuously thank all those who honored me with a Follow Friday tag.

Now, every person who tags me for Follow Friday gets added to my Follow Friday list. Then, every Friday I tweet the link to the members of my list, making it much easier for potential followers to add them. 

I also watch my Follow Friday list as a stream of tweets, as Twitter intended. It’s great to be able to do that for a specific set of Twitter users. 

It’s not perfect. Because of my method, a Twitter user I recommend for Follow Friday will not see a reply from me. But, that’s why I’m writing this post – so I have a way to tell them that I’m not brushing them off and that I’m grateful for the Follow Friday nod.  

Typical of Millhiser & ThinkProgress to attempt to bully legitimate opposition, the only available strategy to those who’ve already lost the argument and won’t honorably concede. Of course, his job, career, and reputation are on the line, so I get his desperation. Too bad he chose the wrong side.

Millhiser’s chosen bullying tactic is to inappropriately marginalize those who question Congress’ authority to force everyone to buy something merely because they exist. He calls us “Tenthers,” a lame attempt to sweep us to the fringe along with Birthers and Truthers. The Tenther moniker even has it’s own Wikipedia entry. Created on Sept 26, 2009, the article is already slated for deletion for violating Wikipedia’s general notability guideline – which means someone just made it up.

For the record, I’m a Firster Through Tenther.

Concern over government overstepping it’s authority is a very basic concern, shared by everyone who is sane. It’s somehow fringe to not entirely trust those in charge? It’s odd that someone of Millhiser’s stature would so readily dismiss something so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Does Millhiser advocate unconditional trust of all government authority? Please. Here he goes:

Pelosi is right to be dismissive of the fringe right-wing theory behind this question, which has no basis in the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states” as well as the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power to regulate commerce.-Een ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges that these constitutional provisions give Congress sweeping authority to enact laws that regulate “economic activity.”

Yes, the Commerce Clause. A favored liberal citation to justify power grabs – because it just gives so much wiggle room:

The clause does not represent some indication of a shadowy list of “other powers” as needed to suit your convenience. It simply establishes a mandate for Congress to be able to enact legislation to carry out the specific powers which are granted. If we were to assume that this empowers Congress to do whatever it wants as long as it promotes the “general welfare” then just as Professor Hutchinson argues from the other side, the rest of the document could just be thrown in the trash.

Further, I must wonder if Millhiser actually reads the cases he sources because Justice Antonin Scalia had a lot more to say than just the words “economic activity:”

This principle is not without limitation. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court–conscious of the potential of the “substantially affects” test to “ ‘obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local… [The cited case] rejected the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the effect that it may have on interstate commerce through a remote chain of inferences… “[I]f we were to accept [such] arguments,” the Court reasoned in Lopez, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

Limitations on Congressional authority? Goodness me, whoever heard of such a thing?

I hate to say it, but it’s painfully obvious that Millsner operating with an agenda in mind, he’s less interested in protecting your rights and more interested in his ’side’ retaining and gaining power.

Politico.com’s inconsistent bias (accused by both sides) leads me believe they may suffer from collective ideological Bipolar Disorder. Politico has previously claimed it’s not all that ideologically biased, but it’s doubtful they’ve managed to root out worldview bias, which is ideological in nature.

Regardless, at the moment, Politico seems to be in the midst an anti-conservative mood swing. 

Jim VandeHei and Michael Allen paint outspoken conservatives as “hard-core” miscreants who are going to ruin the Republican Party’s 2010/12 chances because their “flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone” is chasing away the sensitive moderates. They’re shooting at Limbaugh, Beck, et al, but, surprisingly their target is also the rank-and-file teaparty conservatives: 

Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.

Their message is for conservatives to quit pressuring their weary leaders to be more conservative:

…some Republicans worry the party could squander an opportunity to capitalize on voters’ concerns about Obama and the Democratic Congress because they come off looking shallow, sharply partisan or just plain odd to persuadable voters.

This is standard RINO fare, those who are in the Republican party but whose animus is ‘conservative Democrat.’ Do you have any doubt that the “many top Republicans” they speak of are John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Eric Cantor? You shouldn’t doubt it, since the article names them specifically.

Politico attempts to demonstrate their point:

This big tension is playing out in a smaller way in the special election in upstate New York. Congressional leaders are backing moderate Dede Scozzafava, despite her liberal views on abortion and other issues, because they think she has the best chance of winning this swing district. Conservatives, including many who participated in the much-publicized “tea party” protests, are convinced she is insufficiently Republican, so they are throwing their support and money to third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

 The result: Polls show the Republican vote could be so split that a lackluster Democratic candidate could pull off a win. If Republicans blow this race, it will leave the GOP holding only two of New York’s 29 House seats. A decade ago, it had 14, most of which were occupied by Northeast moderates who no longer feel welcome in the party and were voted in by independents who remain very skeptical of the party’s policy solutions

But, Even Tim Mak on RINO David Frum’s website Newmajority.com opposes Scozzafava:

Across the country, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering, “How in the world did we end up with Scozzafava?” How did the GOP pick someone who is in favor of card check and had been approached by the Democrats to be their nominee? How did the Republicans in upstate New York choose a candidate who, according to one rating system, is more liberal than 43% of New York State Assembly Democrats?

Gosh, maybe “Republicans” like Scozzafava who support betraying basic democratic ideals like, you know, voting privacy, shouldn’t be welcome in the Republican party?

How clear it is, now, that Politico is trying to manipulate it’s readers by omitting the rest of the story.

I take it back, it’s not Bipolar Politico is suffering from, it’s just plain old emotional detachment that we see all too often in political analyzers who like to play games with people’s lives.

Thomas Sowell > The artificial raising home ownership numbers by politicians is responsible for high unemployment

We can only hope that Alec Baldwin never gets into a serious position of power. In an article that reads like a water cooler politics conversation, Baldwin blames automakers’ resistance to stupid environmental regulations for their current plight:

they spent billions of dollars attempting to bribe the Congress to avoid putting in seat belts and air bags, installing catalytic converters and reaching more ambitious fuel efficiency standards. For the most part, they succeeded. [emphasis mine]

Obviously, the industry did not succeed in it’s resistance to seat belts, airbags and catalytic converters. So, now we know that Baldwin has only green on the mind. More:

I feel horribly for every single man and woman who will suffer as the result of this heartbreaking turn of events. I was the voice of Chevy Tahoe TV spots for five years in the early 90’s. I drove a Tahoe then and loved it. Now, I drive a Prius.

LOL. Yeah, I’m sure he feel sooo “horribly” for them. So now we know that Baldwin drives an ugly fish-like car… er, I mean a Prius. And, finally, we get to the heart of Baldwin’s water cooler screed:

Let energy conservation and fuel efficiency rule the day. Let the carmakers go under.

So here we have Baldwin, who feels “horribly” for all those people “who will suffer” advocating for automakers to go under for the sole reason that they resisted idiotic environmental regulations. Nice.

Of course we all know that those people “who will suffer” would be the unions, who are the real reason US automakers are in the mess they are in. Unions are unsustainable in a free market, which is why they always attempt to regulate the market in their favor, etc. Automakers would be wise to abandon an impossible situation.

Baldwin’s popularity declined by 2% this week. If his acting is as lame as his attempts at political writing, that might explain it.

If ever there was a column to read about the idiotic “torture” debate in America, this is it. 

Sowell brilliantly explains the moral confusion amongst liberals who refuse to grow up:

Whatever the verbal fencing over the meaning of the word “torture,” there is a fundamental difference between simply inflicting pain on innocent people for the sheer pleasure of it– which is what our terrorist enemies do– and getting life-saving information out of the terrorists by whatever means are necessary.

The left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence.

I recommend that everyone read his column, it brings amazing clarity to “torture” issue that few other commentaries have.

Cheney is B-a-a-a-D!

Say what you will about Cheney, but the top left bloggers really REALLY hate him with a passion. They’ve recently devoted lots of webspace to their rage:

HuffPo’s Borowitz spews out lame satire at Cheney, saying the Former VP is To Travel Around Country In Sound Truck. Groan.

DailyKos’ David Swanson verbosely explains the Three Worst Reasons to Delay Putting Cheney in Prison. Like all morally confused liberals, Swanson is SO for “enforcing laws.” Of course, laws only apply to liberal causes, they can be skirted with “empathy” when laws cause “social injustice.” Aside from that, it’s doubtful that any laws were actually broken, and there will never be prosecutions b/c top Democrats would be dragged down, too. 

The fringe leftists at Democratic Underground indulge in ancient Cheney-based fantasy claiming Cheney Confirms Iran-Contra Cover-Up; says Cheney:

“I went through the Iran-contra hearings and watched the way administration officials ran for cover and left the little guys out to dry. And I was bound and determined that wasn’t going to happen this time.”

Because he used the word “cover,” he has now admitted a “cover-up”? Oy.

The ever-excitable Andrew Sullivan has another go at Cheney, implying that Cheney betrayed his oath of office by supporting harsh interrogation of deranged psychopaths bent on killing Americans. Says Sully, “Is Cheney’s ultimate defense is that he didn’t understand the oath he took?” Go ahead and believe that Sullivan, you’re already a lost cause.

ThinkProgress works it over hard, trying to make Cheney look bad because he’d choose Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell. Who in their right mind would choose Powell the Backstabber?

Greg Sargent at Plumb Line gets himself all excited when he finds out White House To Declassify “Holy Grail” Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney. The report supposedly says it’s “difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.” Just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean it’s impossible, duh. Another secret the White House will give to the terrorists for free. How quaint.

Josh Marshall at TPM is so hot and bothered he decided to share a Dick Cheney Deep Thought, “Megalomania is a hard drug to kick.” Save it for twitter, Marshall. 

Heather at Crooks and Liars thinks she really has something in taking advantage of Cheney and Limbaugh’s negative poll numbers. Take a look-see at Mary Matalin: Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh Exemplify Conservatism. Heather seems to think that Republican policies have been rejected by a large portion of the electorate. Yep. That would be the self-identified “Democrats.” Brilliant like a stone light bulb.

Hilzoy at Political Animal gets dramatically offended by Cheney and decries, “How Dare He?”

Dick Cheney forfeited the right to lecture anyone on their willingness to sacrifice American lives the day he decided to deceive us into an unnecessary war.

Please stop with your Superior Moral SuperForce, Hilzoy, you’re making the chickens nervous.

HuffPo gets wacky with it (as of 9:32 AM 5/8/2009):

The NERVE!

Here we have the implication that Amazon does not worship (as everyone should for their own good) the Left’s One True Living God With Glistening Pecs: Emperor Obama. How could Amazon NOT consider the EXTREME IMPORTANCE of ensuring the Great One’s name is pronounced correctly? Only those who harbor RAAACIST HATRED would overlook such a detail. 

It’s clear that Amazon is on the Angry Left’s hit list, especially after the GLBT book delisting debacle. HuffPo links to a NYT article and even the article acknowledges another instance of the Kindle mispronouncing:

Kindle owners in Boston, however, may want to avoid the sports pages for now. The Kindle pronounces “Celtics” with an initial hard “c.”

This must mean that Amazon harbors deep antipathy toward the Boston Celtics too!

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos debunks the idea that there’s anything amiss:

When asked about the error in pronouncing the president’s name, Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon.com, said, with his trademark laugh, “that’s unfortunate.”

The next day, an Amazon spokesman, Andrew Herdener, wrote in an e-mail message that Nuance Communications, the Massachusetts-based company that licenses its text-to-speech engine to Amazon for the Kindle, had added the correct pronunciation of the president’s name.

Once again, the Angry Left harms their credibility.