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?

What wasn’t considered?

During the initial discussion of the stimulus, the debate was framed almost entirely as a debate between Obama and those who said the stimulus was too big; the voices of those saying it was too small were largely frozen out. And they still are…

Yes, Krugman is a member of the Keynesian School of Economic Magick With a ‘K.’ This school of thought believes that government spending is imbued with special pOWerZ to make consumers & producers suddenly realize, “Wow, if the government is spending gobs of money, then everything’s going to be A-OK.” Sadly, such economics only work in places like Pleasantville. In full-color reality, government spending only changes who gets to decide where the wealth is spent – and that would be the politicians, of course, who Always Know Better That You.

So then, here’s the kicker:

the voices calling for stronger stimulus are, may I say, sorta kinda respectable — several Nobelists in the bunch, plus a large fraction of the prominent economists who predicted the housing crash before it happened.

Having a Nobel prize doesn’t mean squat if you’re pushing asinine ideas.

< Pause briefly to consider Nobel prize winners Climate Change Preacher Al Gore and Terrorist Yasser Afarat. >

Also, it doesn’t take a “prominent economist” to know when a housing crash is coming – a rhudimentary understanding of economics can easily provide such a prediction. It was pretty obvious to me (not an economist) a housing crash was coming – the frantic pace of growth was unsustainable, especially combined with free-wheeling credit.

But somehow, the pro-stimulus people are unpersons. Who makes these decisions?

Who? Thankfully, not Waaah-Nobody-Listens-To-My-Bad-Ideas-But-They-Should-Because-I-Have-a-Nobel-Prize Krugman.

The GOP’s Runnin’ Off the Rails tour continued this week with Sarah Palin announcing she will resign, Mark Sanford admitting he “crossed lines” with multiple women (while providing an instant new slang term for sex: “crossing the ultimate line”), James Inhofe welcoming Al Franken to the Senate by saying, “We are going to get the clown from Minnesota,” and John Boehner spending an hour on the House floor reading aloud portions of the landmark climate-change bill he labeled “a piece of shit.” Also this week, U.S. troops in Iraq were finally cause for celebration, fireworks, and dancing in the streets of Baghdad. It turns out it was not our arrival in Iraq that was greeted with flowers and sweets but our departure. It’s an agonizing lesson learned six years, $1 trillion, and 4,321 U.S. deaths too late.

All of the items cited are supposed to prove the GOP is “running off the rails.” It’s just so tiring to see either side of the political spectrum stoop to the extra-stupid strain of populism which declares the other side defunct because of the behavior of a tiny minority of it’s members.

Arianna Huffington is not a serious political commentator, she is a hack.

The Huffington Post as a whole emulates Arianna’s superficial treatment of politics, which is partly why it’s so popular. It’s mostly leftist authors are generally well known and their agenda-driven populist rants go relatively unchallenged.

Share/Save

Of course, the Chorus of Misery over at the DailyKos would very much like to get this horse inside America’s city gates to usher in an army of Universal Death Care zombies who wait patiently in long lines to feed upon the brains of the Evil Rich Who Dared To Prosper.

So, to this end, Drdemocrat of DailyKos (tis true – [mental] health professionals could be of great service to the Democratic party) employs the deception-by-headline technique used by SO many in the mostly-unprofessional mainstream media about a WSJ poll recently published.

Procliams Drdemocrat: 75% of Americans want public option!

Well, flip me like a burger at McDonalds & close the debate! It’s freakin’ overwhelming support for the happy-botox-smiley public option insurance!

But wait, what’s this I find:

There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.

Oh, well, uhhh… is there a difference between “want” and “said public plan is extremely or quite important?” Yeah, but what about the NOT BOLDED part afterward saying that “WHEN [THEY WERE] TOLD THE ARGUMENTS” 47% supported and 42% opposed.

I guess it’s not really 75% – how ’bout that. Of course nearly everyone would love free health insurance! But, what’s telling is that when people understand the consequences, they are A LOT less likely to “want” Universal Death Care. Maybe someone should tell ABCNews?

Frank Rich Unmasked

Gushy-mushy ultra-liberal Frank Rich breaks out his waving finger in The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers, warning us all that the right is out for blood, violence & MAYHEM!!!

In his painfully strained analysis, Rich asserts that two recent violent incidents, Dr. George Tiller’s murder and the Holocaust museum murder are indications of a surge in right wing violence. Of course, he ignores the Army recruiters’ murder by a Muslim extremist – that just doesn’t factor in, you see. Like most leftists, Rich wastes no time in preposterously blaming the high-profile personalities of the center-right for inciting the violence through “rhetoric” against…. OBAMA!?! Writes Rich, “What is this fury about? … the new president.”

Yep. Mind-numbing, isn’t it? Sadly, this is how the left reasons:

Criticizing Obama = Responsibility for Killing George Tiller & Inciting racist violence against Jews

Yes, to the left, strong criticism of Obama invariably leads to increased right-wing violence. They think the DHS report on right wing extremism has been vindicated. It hasn’t – not at all.

What’s even worse, Rich’s strongest proof for his wacky assertion is…. Fox News’ Shepherd Smith??

Yes, the same Shepherd Smith who has been leaning slightly to the left as of late. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of Shep, but you can’t help but notice he gets emotional every now and then – that’s what makes him so entertaining and simultaneously prone to liberal outbursts.

Here is Frank Rich’s Big Proof that all hell is breaking loose on the right:

What’s up with the “feeding each other” and “more & more it seems like people are taking the extra step and getting the gun out?” Yeah, because Dr. Tiller’s murderer & Von Brunn both emailed Shep before they went out and did their heinous deeds… oh, wait – that never happened! Fact is people who email you are busy… emailing you and watching your TV show – NOT “getting the gun out.”

There is no evidence of a connection to the recent violence in the last two weeks and Obama becoming president. Rich’s piece is partly a lame attempt to paint the right as extremist and violent.

In concluding, Rich puts on his Doomsayer hat:

This kind of rhetoric, with its pseudo-Scriptural call to action, is toxic. It is getting louder each day of the Obama presidency. No one, not even Fox News viewers, can say they weren’t warned. [Background Thunder]

The true purpose behind Rich’s column is to attempt to lessen the legitimate criticism of Obama, which is obviously proving to be effective. The true danger is that conservatives will listen to Rich, Shep, & others on the left who want them to tone down the rhetoric.

So, keep it up conservatives! Don’t let up in your criticism of Obama & the Democrats’ schizophrenic spending & blatant attempts to inject more socialism into the already bloated and corrupt government. Don’t hesitate to voice your real concerns!

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]

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.

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

The NERVE!

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

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.

I wish progressives wouldn’t be so defensive about this. The idea of an “activist judge” is something that was cooked up by white supremacists in the 1950s and 60s who didn’t like judges bossing people around and telling them they had to let black people vote and go to school. To me, frankly, it’s a bit shocking that modern-day conservatives are still so eager to associate themselves with the legacy of the racist backlash of a couple of generations ago.

Schlesinger’s article profiled all nine Supreme Court justices on the Court at that time and explained the alliances and divisions among them. The article characterized Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutlege as the “Judicial Activists” and Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton as the “Champions of Self Restraint.” Justice Reed and Chief Justice Vinson comprised a middle group.

By 1947, none of the justices openly questioned the constitutionality of the New Deal. Instead, the Court split over the interpretation of legislation and “the proper function of the judiciary in a democracy.” 

Share/Save

Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts. It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3′s protections exist even though no one is classified as aprisoner of war. The article text for Article 3 of the Second Geneva Convention differs from the other three Conventions in that it adds “shipwrecked” to the “wounded and sick.” Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Notice that this isn’t just a ban on “torture” however legally parsed. But a ban on all inhuman treatment, including outrages on personal dignity.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy. But how much poorer? Not much, say careful researchers, like those at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So why don’t they think the economy can cope with limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Under cap-and-trade, emission rights would just be another scarce resource, no different in economic terms from the supply of arable land.

It is the failure of [politically induced] capitalism that accounts for the suffering of millions and explains our bitter decline. Yet President Obama asks for more. The controversial cap and trade scheme for limiting CO2 emissions is perhaps the most striking example. A cap and trade system would introduce a new market fabricated by government to regulate the entire economy of mundane markets. Cap and trade is based on the political invention of scarcity. But the problem of determining the ideal supply of emission permits is much like the Federal Reserve’s problem of determining the ideal quantity of government money. In both cases, bureaucrats must appeal to dubious mathematical models and pronounce on questions that remain the subject of raging scientific controversy. When the Fed produced the wrong answers, it helped inflate the housing bubble, which led to the ruin of our economy. Do we trust the government climate bureaucrats to do better?

Each element of a political market invites political wrangling. Obama’s budget assumes the government will rake in over $600 billion from auctioning the initial round of emissions permits. But carbon-heavy businesses, already suffering from the recession, are lobbying hard to be given permits for free. Industries that fear they will be hurt by the increased cost of emissions will push for an oversupply of permits, to keep permit prices low. Companies that reckon a high emissions cost will give them an advantage over their competitors will favor a low cap that keeps permit prices high. But the higher the price, the more those harmed by them will clamor for exemptions and rebates, and many will get them. The reality of cap and trade will be a typical political market: an expensive ramshackle compromise of competing forces.

This short-run economic boost isn’t the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly. So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.