Taxes

So it's April 15th.  You know what that means...

Well, nothing, actually.  But it does offer an excuse to relive some old posts.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air asks: Where’s the 5-minute tax form?

Ah, yes.  Obama and tax simplification.

How about an old be-careful-what-you-wish-for post: You May Want Tax Simplification, But Are You Sure You Want Obama's Tax Simplification?

And if you're having trouble because the tax code is so complex, please avail yourself of The 1040DEM

Obama's Plan to Reduce the Deficit in Parable Form

Via Instapundit, we have this gem from Obama:

"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."

Let's go . . . to the back of the envelope!

Let's say you drive 200 miles per week.

Let's say that you currently get 8 mpg and are paying $3.70/gal.

200 / 8 = 25 gallons used per week * $3.70 = $92.50/week in gas.

Let's say your current car is worth $4,000 in trade-in and you own it free and clear.

Let's say the car Obama has in mind for you gets 25 mpg.

200 / 25 = 8 gallons used per week * $3.70 = $29.60/week in gas.

That's a savings of almost $62/week in gas!!! Or $250/month!!! You've hit the motherlode. Thanks Obama!

But wait. Now let's say that car costs $20,000 and after your trade-in you finance $16,000 at 6% interest for 4 years.

Your new car payment is $375/month.

Thanks to Obama, you now have monthly expenses $125 more than before he touched your life.

But the feeling you get driving around in a new, Obama-approved car means the thing pays for itself. In Obama-bucks.

Hey, I just had an idea. Let's put this Obama guy in charge of the federal budget! With this kind of brilliant grasp of economics that federal deficit will be gone in no time -- he said laughingly (in order to keep himself from crying).

Do be sure and read that Instapundit post -- the AP decided to scrub the article of this quote, but Glenn's got the screen shot and the video.

The Obama Doctrine

FROM INSTAPUNDIT: Byron York gives us this:

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

It's not a war, it's "kinetic military action". Now we know why he plays so much golf. Obama is training himself to become Kinesiologist-in-Chief.

Committees Have to be Attended By Men With Legal Pads

I first put this up as a comment on Just One Minute.  Then Clarice put it up on the Tatler at Pajamas Media.  Might as well put here too.  Modeled after Col. Nathan R. Jessup from A Few Good Men, of course.  First a little context to set it up.

John Boehner's letter to Obama over on The Corner:

A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy.
...
it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.
...
The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives. It is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional leaders, as was the custom of your predecessors, before your decision as Commander-in-Chief to deploy into combat the men and women of our Armed Forces.

And off we go!

COL. NATHAN H. OBAMA:  Son, we live in a world that has committees, and those committees have to be attended by men with legal pads. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Speaker Boehner? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for your precious Constitution, and you curse turning over military authority in the name of multilateralism. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That sidestepping the Constitution, while tragic, probably saved a lot of effort on my part and will hopefully help me avoid blame should it all go wrong. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, means beautifully detailed PowerPoint presentations. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me delegating my staff to be on those committees, you need me assigning underlings to that committee. We use words like “grave concern that order be restored” and “sustainable international consensus”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent discussing something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very white papers that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide them. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a three ring binder over there on the conference table, pick a seat, and please put your cell phone on mute. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Foreign Policy in a Ditch

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                                               March 22, 2011

Remarks by the President at a DNC Fundraiser

12:50 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Have a seat.

So, Democrats, it is wonderful to be here, wonderful to be among so many good friends. We live in a dangerous world. You all know this. We all are aware of what's going on. You know what I'm talking about. Protests, revolutions, dictators on the precipice. All dangerous stuff. We don’t want any part of that -- I don't want any part of that if it involves doing anything other than giving a speech.

I mean, think about it, we’re the folks who were behind the steering wheel and drove the car into the ditch. Anything to get out of being in front driving this thing. (Applause.)

But look, we had to look like we were doing something. And so we asked France to get in there and put its boots on -- it's galoshes -- and they pushed and they shoved. And NATO was sweating and we were were standing, watching them and sipping on a Slurpee. (Laughter.)

And we were pointing at them saying, "how come you’re not pushing harder, how come you’re not pushing faster?" And then when the Arab League finally got the car up out of the ditch -- and it’s got a few dings and a few dents, it’s got some mud on it, they’re going to have to do some work on it -- they point to everybody and say, "look what these guys did to their car own." After we got them to get it out of the ditch!

Well, I’m telling ya, no way we’re asking for the keys back! I don’t want them to give us the keys back. We don’t know how to drive! (Laughter.)

“We’ll come along for the ride,” we said, “but we’re definitely sitting in the back.” (Applause.)

I mean, I want everyone to think about it here. When you want to go nowhere in your car, what do you do?

AUDIENCE: N!

THE PRESIDENT: That's right, you put it in N. Neutral. You know what starts with N? That’s right. NATO. They’re going to idle in neutral, just like we want. They’ll bicker and whine and dither. This baby’s staying in neutral. (Applause.)

America, we are not going backwards. We’re not going forwards. Do we want to go back? Or do we want to go forward? I say we want to do neither. (Applause.)

Thank you Democrats. I love you! (Applause.)

END

12:54 P.M. EDT

Obama (2002) vs Obama (2011)

Obama in 2002 made a now famous speech about the Iraq War.  That speech is updated for today in light of his decision to engage Libya, in the same cynical manner in which his 2002 speech was made.

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

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-Obama rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to Obama in all circumstances.

Closing Guantanamo Bay is one of the most acrimonious foreign policy debates today. And yet, it is only through the crucible of having President Obama being actually responsible for the war on terror, facing the threats of multitudes who would kill us, that some Americans could begin to understand that keeping it open helps keep us safe.

I don’t oppose all Obama policies.

After Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan in November of 2009, after hearing from friends and warriors in the battle there, I supported the mission to finish the job in that country, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevail in that mission should it be necessary.

I don’t oppose all military engagements. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of Americans who can work in a bi-partisan fashion when the interests of America are put above party or ideology.

But what I am opposed to is a dumb Obama decision. What I am opposed to is a politically motivated Obama decision. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Susan Rice and Samantha Power and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own political agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Hillary Clinton to distract us from the unprecedented federal deficit, the continuing high unemployment – to distract us from government scandals and a Congress that can’t pass a federal budget.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb Obama decision. A rash Obama decision. An Obama decision based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Muammar Kaddafi. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied international demands, thwarted international sanctions, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Libyan people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Kaddafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Libyan economy is in shambles, that the Libyan military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful military effort against Libya will require US involvement of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that bombing Libya without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all military efforts. I’m opposed to dumb military efforts.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Obama? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Obama? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Obama? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply put faith in windmills and solar panels and rainbows and unicorns, but explores and exploits our own resources without intervention from an abusive federal government that only empowers the Middle East through its policies.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join.

The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

In Him You Will Find Rest

Obama is the hardest working man in government (at rhetorically sounding like he's the hardest working man in government).  Or at least he was.

Last year a number of folks noticed the oft repeated, if not always adhered to, refrain that he "will not rest" or that he was "not going to rest" until something or other had been accomplished.

Obama used one or the other of those phrases 35 times in public comments in 2009 and 2010. That's 15 times in 2009 and 20 times in 2010.

In 2009, Obama went an average of 22.8 days between using one of those phrases.

In 2010, that average shrank to 14.2 days between telling us how much he was not going to rest.

Between his last 2010 utterance of one of those phrases and his first of 2011 -- which occured on January 7th -- 91 days elapsed.

91 days is 14 days longer than the next longest period between uses -- which occured after ObamaCare passed. It is 26 days longer than what was the third longest drought -- which occured after he plugged the damn hole.

But that one is now the fourth longest span between uses because since January 7, Obama has not again spoken either of those phrases. So his current streak stands at 69 days, 8 days shy of overtaking the period after the BP spill was contained for second place.

What does all of this mean? It means that Obama worked really hard at telling us he was not going to rest in 2009, even he did so even more restlessly in 2010.  It seems he's slowing down now.

It's hard work trying to convince people that you are not going to rest.  Everyone expressing dismay regarding (or mocking him for) his NCAA brackets and vacations and golf and basketball and parties is just not willing to acknowledge how hard he's worked at convincing everyone that doing those things does not constitute rest.




All the quotes after the jump.

You Can't Even Vote "Present" If You Don't Show Up

Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner:

In the Illinois legislature state Sen. Barack Obama voted "present" 129 times. Today he seems to be voting present on two major issues, Libya and the budget. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon told reporters Thursday that the United States and other nations have "taken a range of steps . . . to squeeze Gadhafi, isolate him, really turn him into a pariah."

But the steps the United States has taken may well have bolstered Gadhafi's determination to crush the rebellion against his regime.
...
Aid, not arms; a meeting, but (unlike France and Portugal) no official recognition. The president seems to be voting "present" once again.

"Voting present" is certainly intended as a slight, and it is useful as a reference to Obama's efforts to minimize his political risk in the Illinois Senate by avoiding tough votes.

But at this point I think even "present" is much too generous to Obama in the case of Libya.

From the Washington Post:

Mr. Obama, who skipped a meeting of his top aides on Libya Wednesday, may hope...

Egads. It's hard to call someone "present" when he's not even showing up anymore.

But at least the WaPo reminds us Obama's got the audacity of hope. What else can anyone possibly expect of him at this point?

A Little More Conversation and a Lot Less Action

The old saw in D.C. is that if you want to look like you’re doing something on a particular issue -- without actually having to do anything – then form a commission to study it.

It’s what Obama did with his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Only problem was, they came back with a number of proposals that Obama would sooner give up golf than actually implement.

Well, I hope he’s learned his lesson. Because usually he knows better.

That is, if you’re Obama and you want to do even less than form a commission, you say you want to or are going to have a conversation about an issue.

Press Conference by the President, February 9, 2009

So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress.
…
And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that tax cut, or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project.
…
If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.
…
I think that it's important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the way on this. And, you know, I've mentioned this in conversations with the Russian President, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way

ROUNDTABLE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT WITH REGIONAL REPORTERS, June 9, 2009

What I wanted to do was simply to start a conversation, not just between me and the Muslim world, but within the Muslim world and within America and the West about how do we finally start being honest about some of these problems.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER CABINET MEETING, September 10, 2009

I do think that, as I said last night, we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name-calling, without the assumption of the worst in other people's motives.

News Conference by the President, February 9, 2010

The meeting did go well, and I appreciate them making the trek. We had a good and frank conversation and it's one that I hope we can continue on a more regular basis.
…
I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

Remarks by the President on Education Reform at the National Urban League Centennial Conference, July 29, 2010

If we can have that conversation in our own lives, if we can take an opportunity to learn from our imperfections and our mistakes, to grow as individuals and as a country, and if we engage in the hard work of translating words into deeds -- because words are easy and deeds are hard -- then I’m confident that we can move forward together and make this country a little more perfect than it was before.
…
There have been criticisms from some folks in the civil rights community about particular elements of Race to the Top. So I want to address some of those today. I told you we’re going to have an honest conversation.

Remarks by the President at CNBC Town Hall Discussion on Jobs, September 20, 2010

What we have to do is make sure that we take in -- the amount of money that we’re taking in and the amount of money that we’re going out matches up. And all of us have to have a conversation.

Remarks by the President at DCCC/DSCC General Reception, September 22, 2010

And as I said before, we increased AIDS funding. Now if you want to have a conversation later about how we can increase it even more, it’s a conversation I’m happy to have.

Remarks by the President in a Youth Town Hall, October 14, 2010

And so I think there’s also a values component to this that all of us have to be in a serious conversation about. Because ultimately peer pressure can lead people to bully, but peer pressure can also say bullying is not acceptable.
…
That’s something I think we’ve got to avoid. We’ve got to be able to have a conversation and recognize we’re all Americans; we all want the best for this country.

NPR Interview, December 10, 2010

I think that Bowles-Simpson did a good job of sparking a conversation about how we need to move forward to deal with our medium- and long-term deficits.
…
And that conversation is going to be one that can't just happen in Washington; it's going to happen all across the country. And I'm looking forward to leading that conversation.
…
Well, I think we're going to have to have a conversation over the next year. And if you think about the last time we reformed our tax system back in 1986 — it didn't happen right away, by the way. It required a lot of conversations among a lot of different parties.
…
But it's a very complicated conversation.
…
So what I believe is, is that we've got to start that conversation next year.

NYT, December 22, 2010

He said he would “continue to wrestle with” the issue [of gay marriage] and added, “We are all going to have a conversation about it.”

New Conference by the President, Dec 22, 2010

And as I said, this is going to be an issue that is not unique to the military -- this is an issue that extends to all of our society, and I think we’re all going to have to have a conversation about it.
…
And so I think Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate, the White House -- all of us have to be in a conversation with the private sector about what’s going to ensure that we can export and sell our products instead of just buying exports from someplace else.
…
And how do we get all these profits that companies have been making since the economy recovered into productive investment and hiring? That's a conversation that I had with the 20 CEOs who came here, and that's a conversation I expect to continue in the months ahead.
…
And so this is going to be a debate that we’re going to be having over the next couple of years because I guarantee you, as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, we’re going to have to have a conversation about how do we start balancing our budget, or at least getting to a point that's sustainable when it comes to our deficit and our debt.
…
And that’s going to be I think part of the conversation that we’ve got to have over the next couple years.
…
And I am happy to engage with the Republicans about -- if they’ve got ideas about more on border security, I’m happy to have that conversation.

Press Conference by the President, February 15, 2011

The notion that it has been shelved I think is incorrect. It still provides a framework for a conversation.
…
I’ve had this conversation for that last two years about every single issue that we worked on, whether it was health care or "don't ask, don't tell," on Egypt, right? We’ve had this monumental change over the last three weeks -- well, why did it take three weeks?
…
What's also true is, for example, is, is that the chairman of the House Republican budgeteers didn’t sign on. He’s got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done, so he’s got concerns. So I’m going to have to have a conversation with him, what would he like to see happen.
…
I’m going to have to have a conversation with those Democrats who didn’t vote for it.
…
This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over.
…
So I’m looking forward to having a conversation.
…
My hope is that what's different this time is, is we have an adult conversation where everybody says here’s what's important and here’s how we’re going to pay for it.
…
Now, in terms of what I’m doing with the Republicans, I’m having conversations with them and Democratic leadership. I did before this budget was released and I will do so afterwards.
…
But ultimately, what we need is a reasonable, responsible, and initially, probably, somewhat quiet and toned-down conversation about, all right, where can we compromise and get something done.
…
So there’s a framework there -- that speaks, by the way, again, to the point I made with you, Chuck, about the commission. I think the commission changed the conversation. I think they gave us a basic framework, and within that framework we’re going to have to have some tough conversations and the devil is going to be in the details.

News Conference by the President, March 11, 2011

But the bottom line is this. We’ve been having this conversation for nearly four decades now.
…
And what we've done is we've organized in NATO a series of conversations about a wide range of options that we can take
…
And we have been in very close contact with all members of Congress -- both parties. I’ve had conversations with Mr. McConnell, I’ve had conversations with Mr. Boehner, I’ve had conversations with Nancy Pelosi, and I’ve had conversations with Harry Reid about how they should approach this budget problem.
…
And I mentioned that I had this conversation with Warren Buffett a couple weeks ago when I was giving him the Medal of Freedom
…
And that’s why I think it’s going to be important for us to have a conversation after we get the short-term budget done about how do we really tackle the problem in a comprehensive way.

He Really Can Be That Stupid

Paul Krugman:

...there are still moments when I find myself saying, “They can’t really be that stupid,” or maybe, “They can’t really think the rest of us are that stupid.”

Tell me about it. Well why don't you lay it out for us -- what stupid stuff are people saying that you want to rebut?

...you have to realize...the nation is not, in fact, “broke.”

Well then you better sit down for this, Paul, because by your calculation this is some seriously stupid stupidity.

C-Span Interviewer: "At what point do we run out of money?"

Interviewee:"Well, we're out of money now."

So Paul, do you think he said it because he's stupid? Or because he thinks you're stupid? Tough question!

Or is it?

Of course, Republicans aren’t the only cynics. As the national debate over fiscal policy descends ever deeper into penny-pinching, future-killing absurdity, one voice is curiously muted — that of President Obama.

Wait. What?

Obama? cynical? Say it isn't so!

In the end, though, it's not so much what he says, but what he does that I'm concerned about. Because Obama says we are broke and yet spends (our!) money like he thinks the stuff just grows on trees. Like kudzu.

Talk about stupid.

Update March 14: E.J. Dionne stands athwart Obama yelling "Krugman!"

What If You Ran Your Household Like the U.S. Government

What if we took the current numbers being bandied about in terms of the 2011 federal budget, budget deficit and the spending cuts that Democrats are currently proposing and turned them into the equivalent of a household earning the median income in the US?

Sounds like fun.

I will use very round, very imprecise numbers. Because I can.

$2.1 trillion as the projected incoming revenue.

$3.7 trillion as the amount of the proposed 2011 budget.

$1.6 trillion as the projected budget deficit.

$10.5 billion as the proposed Democratic spending cuts.

You can check here (pdf) for President Obama's actual budget proposal, which shows our numbers to be close enough for, well, government work.

OK, ready?

Median household income in the US in 2009 (pdf): $49,777

$49,777 is 0.00000237033333333333% of $2.1 trillion.

And off we go.

Your annual income is $49,777.00

Your budget proposal calls for you to spend $87,702.33

That is, you are spending $37,925.33 more than you make.

The Democrats are proposing that you cut your spending by $248.89

And that means spending will be reduced to the much more manageable figure of merely $36,479.43 more than you earn.

And thus we see just how seriously serious the Democrats are about seriously reducing the serious deficit.

Now what if we broke the numbers down into the equivalent of a semi-monthly paycheck?

Let’s call it a Household Continuing Resolution (HCR-1).

Your gross pay would be $2,074.04

Your budget proposal would call for you to spend $3,654.26

Your would be spending $1,580.22 more than you make.

The Democrats are proposing that you cut your spending by $10.37

And by doing so your spending would precariously plummet to the unbelievably low level of a mere $1,569.85 above what you earn per paycheck.

Let’s throw up a couple of charts to illustrate the numbers above.

First, let's show the annual income and the cuts necessary to keep pace with the Democrats:

And next the semi-monthly income:

Oh, and if you are having trouble seeing the proposed spending cuts on the chart, don't worry, you are not alone. Let's blow the image up 300%:

It's the yellow strip at the bottom. No, seriously, it's there.

You know what Dick Durbin thinks of this level of spending cuts?

“I think we’ve pushed this to the limit”

Wait. What?

The limit of fiscal irresponsibility? The limit of the American public's credulity? The limit of the American taxpayer's patience? The limit of chutzpah? There are so many ways in which he could be correct, none of which he intended, of course.

Seriously.

All's Fair Game In Hate And War

From the Not-Quite-Oscar-Update file.

Fair Game, the story of American heroine (well, she used to be like heroine to anti-Bush lefties) Valerie Plame (of covertiness fame) was shut out -- as in not even mentioned, let alone nominated, and in no way even close to winning -- at the Oscars.

Oh, the humanity.

Well.

According to boxofficemojo.com, Fair Game had a $22M production budget. It has grossed $21,489,117 worldwide.

It apparently was frog marched out of theater release on Feb 17, a half a million short of production costs. A net loser, if you will.

But for our purposes here, let's zero in on domestic gross, which stands at $9,540,691. To put that into perspective, the story of Mr. and Mrs. Plame has grossed less money than the 1995 movie of the same name, starring Hollywood movie luminaries Cindy Crawford and Billy Baldwin, which pulled in $11,534,477.

But to be fair to Sean Penn and Naomi Watts and director Doug Liman (of Bourne series fame), the 1995 version of Fair Game ("Max Kirkpatrick is a cop who protects Kate McQuean, a civil law attorney, from a renegade KGB team out to terminate her") didn't win any Oscars either.

But the best news of all?

Fair Game will be released on Blu-Ray & DVD March 29, 2011

Reserve your copy today! Be the first (and only?) one on your block with a copy!

Getting High On Gas

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential Republican presidential contender, accused the Obama administration Wednesday of favoring a run-up in gas prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Barbour's right, of course -- even if the WH doesn't want to cop to it.

Obama administration officials rejected the charge, saying they view rising gasoline prices as bad for average Americans and the economic recovery.

Oh, they rejected it did they? Of course they did.

Barbour cited 2008 comments from Steven Chu, now Obama's energy secretary, that a gradual increase in gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas-guzzlers and finding homes closer to where they work.

Wait. What?

Barbour cited who? Chu? Why Chu?

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Chu made his comments before Obama assumed the presidency and has since renounced the notion that high gas prices would benefit the country.

That's fair. Entirely fair. Chu is a meh target for Barbour's charge.

Especially in place of citing The Man himself.

Like here:

CNBC’s John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?

Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly

And here:

But to encourage a transition toward alternatives, Obama favors legislation that would make fossil fuel more expensive. Doesn't that mean more pain to come under an Obama presidency? "There is no doubt that in the short term, adapting to this new energy economy is going to carry some costs."

Barbour was right in leveling the charge. And Obama's actions since taking office speak much more loudly than any words Obama or his press secretary may use in an attempt to convince us otherwise.

UPDATE: I see that Greg Pollowitz has this too over at NRO's Planet Gore. As well, he has a previous post that points to this Heritage Foundation piece from Conn Carroll that helps support that last sentence of mine.

Expanding Paul Krugman's Imagination

Remember this quote from Paul Krugman after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting?

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized

Via Instapundit, we now have a Democratic member of Congress urging his constituents with what can only be described as toxic rhetoric:

A Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts is raising the stakes in the nation’s fight over the future of public employee unions, saying emails aren’t enough to show support and that it is time to “get a little bloody.”

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.

Given that Capuano will most certainly not be ostracized, will Krugman expand his imagination now?

Most certainly not, of course. There is no room for reality to creep into Krugman's imagination when it interferes with the narrative.

The Fetish of Complexity

Via Belmont Club, here is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

It goes without saying – but I will say it anyway – that this is a critical time for America’s global leadership. We have spent two years renewing our alliances, forging new partnerships, and elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense as pillars of American foreign policy and national security. Now, as we look to the next two years, it is time to build on that progress and deliver results – results that are expected from ourselves and certainly from the Congress and the American public.

We’re going to be looking to see how we can advance America’s interests and values on security, on climate change, on boosting exports and rebalancing the global economy on all of our core priorities. But I will hasten to say we face a very difficult budget climate and we face an increasingly complex, no easy answers if there ever were any, diplomatic and development environment.

OK, here we go.

"...and we face an increasingly complex, no easy answers if there ever were any, diplomatic and development environment."
--stuff Hillary said

"The fetish of complexity, the trick of making hard decisions harder to make- the art, finally, of rationalizing the non- decision, have made a ruin of American foreign policy.”
--stuff Ronald said

Reagan said that some 40 years ago.

The more things change, the more they . . . resemble Ecclesiastes 1:9.

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Let's Not Make A False Pretense

In the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, Paul Krugman singled out Michelle Bachmann for "eliminationist rhetoric":

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

Krugman has been taken to task by a number of folks for being the lying (yes, lying) hack that he is. Bachmann was clearly referring to arming her constituents with facts in order for them to be dangerous to those who would lie to them.

But were one to take Krugman seriously -- not as seriously as he takes himself to be sure, for that may well be humanly impossible -- what would one make of this from ABC News:

In an e-mail obtained by ABC News, a top staffer for the key Senate Appropriations subcommittee called for a meeting of lobbyists and interest groups that would be affected by expected cuts to the Labor and Heath and Human Services budget. The Jan. 24 meeting was attended by approximately 400 people, sources told ABC, and served as a "call to arms" for those determined to fight Republican budget cuts.

"One thing everyone should be able to agree on now is that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that a higher [Labor, Health & Human Services] allocation improves the chances for every stakeholder group to receive more funding," the committee staffer for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, wrote in an e-mail inviting people to the meeting.

Well.

There seems to be little difference between "armed and dangerous" and "call to arms" on the eliminationist rhetoric scale (as defined by Krugman, if one were to take him seriously).

But I see no reason to issue a call for Krugman to denounce this particular eliminationist rhetoric since Harkin's staffer himself is not "a member of Congress", and the eliminationist rhetoric (as definied by Krugman, if one were to take him seriously) was aimed not at constituents but fatcat lobbyists -- and because, quite honestly, I can't take Krugman seriously.

But mostly because I can't take Krugman seriously.

Let’s not make a false pretense of Krugman's mental balance.

Comparing Obama With Past Presidents

Time Magazine has put a photoshopped image of Obama and Ronald Reagan palling around on the cover of its latest issue.

Not a particularly original device, appropriating the image and memory of a past popular president in hopes of building up Obama's image.

A look back on some past cases...

Obama and Washington:

Obama and FDR:

Obama and JFK:

Obama and Lincoln:

But for my money, Michael Ramirez gets much closer to the real Obama -- and which past presidents he can most realistically be compared with.

Obama and Nixon:

Obama and Carter:

Of course, as Glenn Reynolds has told us, Obama as Jimmy Carter is at this point a "best case scenario".

UPDATE: Hat Tip Clarice, here is Big Fur Hat/Irony Curtain at iOwntheWorld with the flip side to that Time Obama-Reagan cover:

Reagan putting a "Rotten Marxist" sign on Obama's back .... Brilliant!

Obama's State of the Union Speech

Obama gave the State of the Union speech last night.

Here's the word cloud:

Thanks Sarah Palin!

In fact, because of Palin -- and only because of Palin's WTF phrasing -- people might actually remember something about this speech in the years to come.

MEMORIES: Sarah Palin's use of WTF triggered the memory of an old post from almost three years ago. I was very confused at the time, but now it makes sense: North Carolina does not want you to "Win The Future".

Cohen-izing the Message

Via Hot Air, here is part of Congressman Steve Cohen’s reaction/defense/apology for his “I so did not call Republicans Nazis” use of the term Nazis to describe Republicans:

“While I regret that anything I said has created an opportunity to distract from the debate about health care for 32 million Americans, I want to be clear that I never called Republicans Nazis. Instead, the reference I made was to the greatest propaganda master of all time. Propaganda, which is called “messaging” today, can be true or false. In this case, the message is false."

Wait. What?

“Propaganda, which is called ‘messaging’ today”

That's quite an admission for a Democrat.

How many times have we heard that virtually every problem Democrats face politically boils down to a problem with “messaging”?

Let's turn Cohen's statement around, shall we?

"Messaging today, which is really nothing more than propaganda"

Cohen's admisssion certainly puts this piece from The Hill in a new light, doesn’t it? (h/t Instapundit)

In fact, let’s go ahead and Cohen-ize it:

House Dems vow to improve messaging propaganda

CAMBRIDGE, Md. — House Democrats kicked off their annual retreat here with a vow to improve the flawed messaging propaganda that contributed to the loss of their majority last fall.

The down-sized Democratic Caucus is meeting for three days at the glitzy Hyatt Regency resort on the shores of the Chesapeake, with the goal of figuring out what went wrong in 2010 and how the party can position itself on policy and politics for the next two years.

President Obama and Vice President Biden will be in Cambridge on Friday to address Democratic lawmakers, who will also hear from economists, message propaganda gurus and current and former colleagues. More than a half dozen panels will be devoted or related to messaging propaganda, underscoring the importance of boosting the party’s communications with the public.
...
“I said Madam Speaker, the problem with Democrats is we never give the public the chance to savor our victories,” [Rep. Xavier] Becerra [D.-Calif.] said, as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the assistant leader, nodded in agreement. “What we didn’t do was take the time to do tap-dances about what we had just done, but we did the work of the people.”

“Too bad we didn’t message propagandize it better,” he added.

Troubling Jobs Report

Bill Jacobson:

Dig just a bit deeper, and you will see that 0.2% of that drop (or half the total drop) was from a decrease in the "participation rate" from 64.5 to 64.3 of the population. So half of the good news reflects that people have dropped out of the work force and have given up looking for work.

Business Insider:

This morning's unemployment report was a mixed bag. Yes, the unemployment rate went down. But, actually, that's because people are choosing to drop out of the work force altogether.

Geoff at Ace of Spades:

December's unemployment rate was released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. U-3 unemployment dropped from 9.8% last month to 9.4% this month. The U-6 number dropped from 17% to 16.7%. Only 103,000 jobs were added, however, which indicates that the drop in unemployment was more due to people leaving the labor force than getting jobs.

Ed Morrissey:

The nation’s unemployment rate dropped four-tenths of a point to 9.4% in December but the number of jobs added fell short of expectations. ... Also, the civilian labor force participation rate did drop to 64.3%, which indicates that people are still leaving the work force rather than rejoining it.

People are dropping out of the work force? Leaving the labor force? Giving up looking for work?

That's unpossible. Michelle Obama flatly told us:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Troubling.

Attention all discouraged workers: Obama requires that you not be. Get back to work.