Archive for Conservatism

Liz Warren and the Tea Party Smoke-um Peace Pipe?

I was just thinking this myself. I bet a lot of us have:

[Politico:] The tea party’s opposition to the rider puts it in rare agreement with progressives, who also are criticizing the provision but for different reasons. Democratic Party committees would also benefit from the measure, but they do not have the same level of intra-party strife as the Republicans.

“So help me God, I have no way to refute the basic point that the Democrats are making about the CRomnibus fight right now,” RedState’s Leon Wolf wrote. “In fact, I might even go so far as to say they are right.”

“Here we have a bill that will kick the funding question almost a full year down the road, increases government spending, funds a wildly unpopular and probably unconstitutional executive amnesty, and continues the very practices voters sent Republicans to Washington to oppose,” he added. “In this context, what possible good faith reason can the Republicans have for threatening to gum up the whole works over doing a favor to Wall Street?”

That compelling argument caught the eye of no less a figure than Warren herself who approvingly cited this passage on the floor of the Senate on Thursday.

“These conservative activists are right,” the Bay State Senator said after quoting Wolf at length. “If you believe in smaller government, how can you support a provision that would expand a government insurance program and put taxpayers on the hook for the riskiest private activities?”

On Friday, Warren will join with conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an effort to get another 39 of their fellow senators to kill the “Cromnibus.” The fact that the two populist wings of both parties are beginning to look more and more alike is not lost on their opponents. “Elizabeth Warren clearly now a Democratic Ted Cruz,” an unnamed GOP House member said according to CNBC’s John Harwood.

Let me be clear: I have no use for that fake Indian, none whatsoever. And much of what she’s doing is grandstanding for 2016.

I’ve read one account praising her stand, another critical of it. Both agree that the hill she vows to die on is a rather small mound. Which fits the grandstanding theory.

I’ve let this post stew for about an hour to think it over. Ultimately, I still can’t agree with Betty Buckskin. We’re not “bailing out” big banks, but letting them resume derivatives and other hedging instruments they’ve long employed—as much to lessen risk as to take on more. If it’s a repeat of 2008 we fear, it was more government’s social engineering (government-backed, government-mandated mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them) that melted down the system than capitalist avarice (so-called predatory lending).

There’s way too much spending and way too little spine in the “Cromnibus” for my liking, so I’ll stand in opposition next to Miss 0/32nds Cherokee. But I’ll be checking my back for her tomahawk.

Comments

We Can Quantify The Loss Of Personal Freedom Under Obama

Do you remember all those people who claimed that George W. Bush was taking away our personal freedoms? All those fiery dinner parties? Where are those folks now?

Americans’ assessments of their personal freedom have significantly declined under President Obama, according to a new study from the Legatum Institute in London, and the United States now ranks below 20 other countries on this measure.

The research shows that citizens of countries including France, Uruguay, and Costa Rica now feel that they enjoy more personal freedom than Americans.

As the Washington Examiner reported this morning, representatives of the Legatum Institute are in the U.S. this week to promote the sixth edition of their Prosperity Index. The index aims to measure aspects of prosperity that typical gross domestic product measurements don’t include, such as entrepreneurship and opportunity, education, and social capital.

The freedom scores are based on polling data from 2013 indicating citizens’ satisfaction with their nation’s handling of civil liberties, freedom of choice, tolerance of ethnic minorities, and tolerance of immigrants. Polling data were provided by Gallup World Poll Service. The index is notable for the way it measures how free people feel, unlike other freedom indices that measure freedom by comparing government policies.

“This is not a good report for Obama,” Legatum Institute spokeswoman Cristina Odone told the Washington Examiner.

In the 2010 report (which relied on data gathered in 2009), the U.S. was ranked ninth in personal freedom, but that ranking has since fallen to 21st, with several countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom passing the U.S.

The nation’s overall personal freedom score has declined by 17 percent since 2009, with a 22 percent drop in combined civil liberty and free choice contributing to that decline.

Of the eight categories in the index, personal freedom was America’s second lowest performance relative to other countries. The U.S. had its lowest ranking when it came to safety and security (a broad measure of how threatened citizens feel in instances such as walking late at night, or expressing their opinions) — ranking 31st out of 142 countries.

More at the link.

– Aggie

Comments

Are Social Scientists Biased Against Conservatives?

Duh.

We haven’t given out one of our coveted ‘Ya Think?™ awards in quite some time, so congratulations Professor Jonathan Haidt, you deserve it!!

On January 27, 2011, from a stage in the middle of the San Antonio Convention Center, Jonathan Haidt addressed the participants of the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The topic was an ambitious one: a vision for social psychology in the year 2020. Haidt began by reviewing the field that he is best known for, moral psychology. Then he threw a curveball. He would, he told the gathering of about a thousand social-psychology professors, students, and post-docs, like some audience participation. By a show of hands, how would those present describe their political orientation? First came the liberals: a “sea of hands,” comprising about eighty per cent of the room, Haidt later recalled. Next, the centrists or moderates. Twenty hands. Next, the libertarians. Twelve hands. And last, the conservatives. Three hands.

Social psychology, Haidt went on, had an obvious problem: a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity. It discouraged conservative students from joining the field, and it discouraged conservative members from pursuing certain lines of argument. It also introduced bias into research questions, methodology, and, ultimately, publications. The topics that social psychologists chose to study and how they chose to study them, he argued, suffered from homogeneity. The effect was limited, Haidt was quick to point out, to areas that concerned political ideology and politicized notions, like race, gender, stereotyping, and power and inequality. “It’s not like the whole field is undercut, but when it comes to research on controversial topics, the effect is most pronounced,” he later told me. (Haidt has now put his remarks in more formal terms, complete with data, in a paper forthcoming this winter in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.)

The entire article is depressingly familiar, but go to the link to hear about how liberal academics punish conservative thought. Want tenure? Heh, heh, heh. I consider this trend to be an absolute disaster for our country, and we have been way too slow in recognizing it or attempting to correct it. Oh, well. I’m a big believer in You Reap What You Sow. And we have sown incompetence and willful ignorance.

– Aggie

Comments

Badgered

Gov. Scott Walker’s successful restoration of sanity and balance in Wisconsin was noteworthy in its own right. But the ruckus that it kicked up among the liberal fascists in the public-sector unions and their supporters was equally remarkable. The blowback reached even our distant shores, via long-winded, tendentious comments from comsymps on the scene.

But we still don’t know the half of it:

Conservative targets of a Democrat-launched John Doe investigation have described the secret probe as a witch hunt.

That might not be a big enough descriptor, based on records released Friday by a federal appeals court as part of a massive document dump.

Attorneys for conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth point to subpoenas requested by John Doe prosecutors that sought records from “at least eight phone companies” believed to serve the targets of the investigation. O’Keefe and the club have filed a civil rights lawsuit against John Doe prosecutors, alleging they violated conservatives’ First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

“In fact, Defendants’ submissions confirm and expand upon the scope and intensity of retaliation previously demonstrated,” O’Keefe’s attorney wrote in documents ordered unsealed by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The documents raise serious concerns about the tactics of Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs and others involved in the investigation targeting dozens of conservatives.

Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the dragnet two years ago, and, according to court documents, with the help of the state Government Accountability Board, the probe was expanded to five counties. The John Doe proceeding compelled scores of witnesses to testify, and a gag order compelled them to keep their mouths shut or face jail time. Sources have described predawn “paramilitary-style” raids in which their possessions were rifled through and seized by law enforcement officers.

Using government agencies to target and intimidate conservatives: where have we heard that before?


On a clear day, you can see Milwaukee.

I have a dream (as someone once said): that this whole steaming edifice of leftist bullcrap collapsed like a dung hut in an earthquake zone. The whole Obama decade, from his DNC speech to his illegitimate elections(s), gone, discredited, flushed away. It won’t happen, America will suffer (in the short term) if it does, but it will be stronger for it in the end. A dream, as I say.

Comments (7)

Cantor Autopsy

Lots of stories about Eric Cantor, almost all of which I haven’t bothered to read. But some of which seem to be further off the mark than others.

Should Democrats be “giddy” over victories by a movement they declared dead and buried? The Tea Party is misnamed: it is a movement of similar-minded people that espouses a few common core beliefs (small government, low taxes, etc.), but nowhere near as many beliefs ascribed to them (racism, militantism, etc.). There are some Tea Party aligned organizations, but nothing as centrally organized as a party.

Whatever RINO horns the Tea Party may claim in no way redounds to the benefit of Democrats. The Virginia 7th will still have a Republican representative, likely one more hostile to compromise with Democrats than Cantor. I hesitate to draw too many conclusions from Cantor’s loss, but the little I’ve gleaned is that it was just as much Brat’s win. It took some nerve to run to the right of a seven-term congressman in a leadership position in a party primary, but to do so with no money, no national support, against prevailing polls—and win, convincingly—says something about the candidate. A caller to Rush today from that district cemented the point. She had been a long-time supporter of Cantor, but found his attitude to a qualified challenger off-putting. She recruited as many friends as she could to consider going for Brat over Cantor. In a congressional district, that sort of word of mouth can have an effect, especially if the incumbent and his supporters are taking the race for granted. As Cantor surely was.

I said before that Cantor was defeated over local issues, like potholes and bus schedules. But that’s not exactly right. Certainly, Cantor had “gone Hollywood” (Beltway, in his case): he acted as a party leader, not as a direct representative of the people who had to get his contract renewed every two years. But the concerns of his constituents were just as serious the rest of ours: immigration, federal lawlessness, etc. I also noted before that his share of the vote drifted ever lower in reelection after reelection. He doubtless would have beaten a Democrat opponent in the general election in a heavily Republican district, but he was vulnerable in the primary. Obviously.

My prediction of a repeat of 2010 in 2014 predates Cantor’s loss, and it’s only been bolstered by it. There may be a case where a Tea Party-esque candidate will prove too far to the right to win in the general election. But I think the opposite will be the rule. The Tea Party will bring out the voters.

Comments

Have a Koch and a Smile

Harry Reid it and weep:

The United Negro College Fund announced a $25 million grant Friday from Koch Industries Inc. and the Charles Koch Foundation — a large donation from the conservative powerhouse Koch name that Democrats have sought to vilify heading into the 2014 midterm elections.

The UNCF, known for its iconic motto, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” supports historically black colleges and universities and provides scholarships.

From the donation, $18.5 million will go toward nearly 3,000 merit-based scholarships to African-American students, and $6.5 million will go toward general support for historically black colleges and universities and the UNCF.

African-Americans are a key constituency within the Democratic Party. But Michael Lomax, president and CEO of UNCF, said that since the organization’s inception in 1944, it has reached out to people of all backgrounds for support without an “ideological lens” because it is in everyone’s interest. The organization has awarded $100 million in scholarships to more than 12,000 students at 900 schools this year alone, but he said the need is so great that the organization turns away nine out of every 10 applicants, or about 100,000 students annually.

He said that in today’s politically charged climate, he’s prepared to take criticism from those of different political leanings than the Kochs.

“Criticism is a small price for helping young people get the chance to realize their dream of a college education, and if I’ve got to bear the brunt of someone else’s criticism to ensure that we have the resources to help those students, then I can handle it, and I can take the heat,” Lomax said.

Lomax said he and Charles Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, based in Wichita, Kansas, had lunch together and were able to find that we “shared a profound belief in the importance of education.”

“We talked about students. We talked about the kinds of support they need. We talked about the shared belief that there are a lot of talented young people there whose lives will be transformed if they get a chance to complete a college degree,” Lomax said.

In a statement, Koch said that “increasing well-being by helping people improve their lives has long been our focus” and that the partnership will provide promising students with new educational opportunities.

“We have tremendous respect for UNCF and we are hopeful this investment will further its effectiveness in helping students pursue their dreams,” Koch said.

In case you were wondering:

Reid’s office did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Let me provide a comment for Reid: sometimes, a mind is perfectly okay to waste (as he himself demonstrates every day) if the evil Kochs are paying for it.

Comments (1)

OMG, Did You Hear What Sarah Palin Said?

I only wish I’d said it (and I probably will):

“Well, if I were in charge,” she continued, as the audience erupted in applause at the prospect, “they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

And then:

Elsewhere in her speech, she called the idea of gun-free zones as ‘stupid on steroids’ and dismissed the idea of gun stores being linked to crime.

‘Gun stores are an accomplice to crime – and that fork made me fat,’ she said.

Even:

‘Look, if you control oil, you control an economy,’ she said. ‘If you control money, you control commerce. But if you control arms, you control the people and that is what they’re trying.’

Oh boy, she’s going to catch it for that! What will she say next?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Crazy b-word, she just might!

Comments

Conservatism is a Winning Strategy—Except in Elections

That seemed to be the message from this extended call to Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

RUSH: Here’s Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. It’s great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Awesome. I appreciate it, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: First of all, I just want to let you know that I truly appreciate your perspective and all the ideas you share every time. I’m gonna do my best to try to articulate the point I was making to the screener. With regard to the Koch brothers article and just the message there that they’re trying to communicate, I just think the Republican Party is struggling to connect with the average person.

RUSH: Now, wait. Before you continue, I just want to make sure that we identify them. This is Charles Koch. The Koch brothers are Charles and David. There are two other Koch brothers that are not part of “the Koch brothers” as the Democrats use them.

CALLER: Sure.

I highlighted the caller’s point, and will trim the excess verbiage to try to keep it short. His inarticulateness and Rush’s deafness made for some tough listening.

CALLER: […] I think when it comes to trying to persuade people about who they want to vote for and who they want running the country, to go out there and tell them that they need to distance themselves from the government, most people are afraid of that, in the masses at least. I mean, you’ve gotta understand, these people follow the advice of these progressives for the last 40, 50 years —

RUSH: No, I agree with you. I think it’s a scary thing for a lot of people to think of the government not being involved in their lives, particularly single women.

Okay, well, let’s take this down to the basic level. Do you have any kids?

CALLER: Not yet.

RUSH: Not yet. How old are you?

CALLER: Thirty-three.

RUSH: Thirty-three. Well, let’s pretend for a moment that you have a son who is 12 or 13, maybe 15, just on the verge of getting a driver’s license and a car. Let’s also, as part of our hypothetical, let’s stipulate that you and your wife have spoiled your son. Your son is way too dependent on you, and you are worried that he hasn’t learned and isn’t interested in learning how to take care of himself.

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: What would you do?

CALLER: Well —

RUSH: The reason I ask is because you just said we can’t confront these people with the idea that they’ve got to take control of their own lives.

Again, cutting:

RUSH: Well, now, wait a second. See, this is where I kind of have a differing opinion from yours. Why is it that people today are immune from lessons in life? Why are people today somehow, “We can’t talk about taking care of yourself with this group. We can’t talk about providing for yourself. We can’t talk about making your life your own.” Why? What is it about this group that that so scares them? My point is, you would not raise your children that way.

If you were running for office, let’s forget that you’ve got a kid that’s gone off the rails and he’s dependent. You’re running for office, you want to reach these people. Okay, you’ve said we can’t make ‘em feel alone. We can’t humiliate ‘em. We can’t tell ‘em we’re gonna take things away from ‘em but we still want ‘em to vote for us. So what would you do? What would be your pitch?

CALLER: I don’t think there needs to be as strong of a pitch like you’re assuming to get people to vote for the person that they’re confident in. I don’t think Obama had a super strong pitch when he first won. He was just somewhat of a likable person. And even though these ideas that you share on a daily basis are pretty much the gospel to get yourself to a level in society that —

RUSH: I disagree with you. I think Obama did have a pitch, and it was he was gonna take care of you, and he was gonna fix everything that was wrong. And he personally was gonna guarantee you that things are gonna be okay. And he personally was gonna guarantee that the country be loved again. And he personally was gonna do all these wonderful things.

And, finally, Rush concluded:

RUSH: I can tell you that this radio audience is filled with converts, people that used to be dependent liberal Democrats who now listen to this program. You think that might not be possible because of the way they’re being approached because I make them afraid or feel vulnerable or whatever. But nobody that I know of anywhere is demanding that people be left alone.

That is not what “self-reliance” and “individuality” mean. It doesn’t mean alone. It doesn’t mean with no help. It doesn’t mean with no assistance. What it means is, “Be yourself, find out what you love, find out what you really want to do, and go do it. And don’t depend on people who don’t have your best interests at heart,” i.e., Democrats and the government.

If we’ve gotten to the point where we are literally destroying people’s futures by creating this dependency and then we can’t wean them off of it because that’s gonna make them vulnerable, then it’s not just that we’re gonna go to the grave never winning an election; we’re gonna go to the grave with the country never recovering. That, for me, isn’t an option. Tough love. You may think that’s too direct and so forth.

But I’m telling you, the question I asked you about how you would take care of somebody in your immediate orb that you feared was ruining their life is relevant here. If you love people, if you love the country, if you believe that everybody in the country contributes to making it great — if you love everybody and you want the best for them and if you know how they can achieve the best for them — you can’t be afraid to tell them.

As Rush said at CPAC five years ago:

I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: we love people. When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

It’s up for debate if this is a winning message. But it’s the only message conservatives have. Liberals own the other side, the argument that you need government to complete you (which is appealing to some, repugnant to others). Where conservatives can win is if they persuade people that realizing their potential not only benefits them, it benefits that country. With ever greater numbers leaving the job market and going on aid, the liberal siren song sounds sweeter and sweeter. Until the ship capsizes (like Guam) from too many people rushing to one side to listen.

But as appealing as the conservative message is to me on its own, sometimes you win elections by pointing out the shortcomings on the other side.

ObamaCare.

Comments

State of the Bunion

Actually, I have a higher opinion of President Obama: he’s a pain in the ass, not the foot.

People for the American Way, founded in 1981 by television producer Norman Lear, makes no secret that it is an advocate of a “wide variety of liberal causes.” The nonprofit’s 501 tax-exempt status has never been challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

It’s a different story for Friends of Abe, a right-leaning Hollywood group whose membership includes actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer. The nonprofit’s application for tax-exempt status has been “under review” by President Obama’s IRS for two years.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the federal tax authorities presented Friends of Abe (as in Abraham Lincoln) with a 10-point demand for detailed information about its meetings with various conservative political figures.

That follows a previous IRS demand that Friends of Abe give its enforcers enhanced access to its security-protected website, enabling the feds to identify the group’s members.

The agency’s demands on the Hollywood nonprofit raise renewed suspicion that the IRS continues to target conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they apply for tax-exempt status; continues to hold right-leaning groups like Friends of Abe to a different standard than unabashed liberal groups like People for the American Way.

The IRS hasn’t been been punished in the least for its disenfranchisement of American citizens, delivering the 2012 election to Obama. They couldn’t have been more intimidating if they had worn black fatigues and berets and carried truncheons.

Oh sorry, that was 2008:

James Taranto addressed this story yesterday:

FOA members have good reason to fear being identified to the IRS. Last year the agency was revealed to have leaked confidential donor information about the National Organization for Marriage to the Human Rights Campaign, an antagonist in the debate over same-sex marriage. HRC promptly posted the purloined information online. LifeSiteNews.com reported in October that congressional investigators had identified the leaker, “but in an ironic twist, the Internal Revenue Service is forbidden from disclosing whether the employee has been prosecuted, fired, or even reprimanded.”

The IRS’s intrusive tactics thus have a chilling effect on people who wish to exercise their First Amendment right of free association without attracting public attention–or, more precisely, the attention of vicious ideological antagonists. Even calling attention to those tactics can compound the problem, as illustrated by FOA’s need to reassure its members in the wake of the Times story. The gradual accretion of power by a vast administrative state, combined with an administration intolerant of dissent, has produced a clear and present danger to basic American freedoms.

Remember one of the demands by the IRS on one of the Tea Part groups?

“Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.”

I’m pretty sure that violates some part of the Constitution—maybe the part about not coveting your neighbor’s donkey—but I know for a fact it’s one of the most poorly constructed sentences ever written in what I take to be English.

Obama has seen what he’s gotten away with so far, and just keeps going. The executive branch will now ignore the legislative, leaving only the judicial branch as a check or balance. How you feeling about our chances?

Me neither.

Comments

Everything is Spinning Out of Control! Except in Wisconsin

OMG! Chris Christie in the soup! Bob McDonnell under indictment! Dinesh D’Souza primed for arraignment! Either the Republican Party is going to the dogs, or Eric Holder has lost his mind.

Is there no sanity in modern politics?

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is scheduled to go on trial Monday in federal court here, the highest-profile defendant to face a jury on criminal charges for alleged corruption in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Nagin, 57 years old, rose to national prominence as levee failures flooded roughly 80% of the city when Katrina made landfall in August 2005. And while his trial focuses on a narrow series of business deals and city contracts, its backdrop is the massive rebuilding effort spurred by billions of federal dollars and the drive by New Orleanians to build a city free of the corruption and mismanaged government that festered for decades.

Where does George Bush go to get his reputation back? Something was rotten in Chocolate City.

Meanwhile, across the country…

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has completely changed the “state of the state” and Wisconsinites are reaping the benefits.

In 2011, Wisconsin had a whopping deficit of $3.6 billion dollars. But a cooperate tax cut and collective bargaining reforms invigorated the state economy. Now, the state is boasting a $911 million surplus, credited to “good stewardship of the taxpayers’ money.”

And what will Walker do? Buy his wife a $19,000 dress? Increase his paycheck? Go on vacation?

Nope. He’s proposing $800 million in tax cuts.

“What do you do with a surplus? Give it back to the people who earned it. It’s your money,” Walker said.

Hey, isn’t it time to indict another Republican? Get the lead out, Eric the Red, they’re not going to indict themselves.

Comments

Dammit!

Untitled

Rush says he lives “rent-free” in Obama’s head.

Then why don’t we warrant a broom closet or a corner of the boiler room?!

RUSH: Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like I continue to live rent free in the head of the president, Barack Obama. It seems that the New Yorker has just posted more from their 18-page Obama interview. I don’t know if the whole thing has been on the Internet. I didn’t read the whole thing. It may have been up there all the time. But here is what the president said, the New Yorker interview with David Remnick that they have just posted.

“Another way of putting it, I guess, is that the issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think. And as long as there’s that gap between perceptions of me within the average Republican primary voter and the reality, it’s hard for folks like John Boehner to move too far in my direction.”

So it’s me again, and Fox News. We are the reason Obama can’t advance his agenda, because Boehner is afraid to move too close to Obama because I have made you — along with Fox News has made you — think Obama is something that he isn’t. And it’s such a shame. I have so distorted who the real Obama is in your mind, that it is paralyzing our government. It is paralyzing the Speaker of the House, who really, really, really, really wants to go in there and really, really work with Obama, but he just can’t. It’s hard for people like Boehner to move too far in my direction because of the misperception of me, Obama says, created by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

Rush and Fox, Fox and Rush—what have we been for the past eight years?!?!?! We’ve called him doofus, fascist, Omoeba, and any number of other names! We’ve opposed just about everything he’s said or done.

Where’s our space in his jug-eared head?

Naturally, Obama doesn’t want to portray the opposition is principled. He himself is rational, centrist, practical. It’s the foamy-mouthed radicals on the right who just spew hate. (You don’t know the half of it, General Secretary!)

Comments (1)

OMG, America is So Sexist, Racist, Etc., Even the American Dream is Sexist, Racist, Etc!

Turns out the secret to wealth and success is love, marriage, and hard work.

The bastards! (Okay, you can skip love.)

Rich America is working America: Wealthy households contain on average more than four times as many full-time workers as do poor households, and, surprisingly, inherited wealth constitutes a smaller share of their assets than it does for middle-class and poor households. They live modestly relative to their means and for the most part do not work on Wall Street or as corporate executives. The caricature of the rich American as a child of privilege who inherited a fortune and spends his days shuttling between mansions in a private jet is largely a product of the imagination of such would-be class warriors as Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich, neither of whom lives in Section 8 housing, or even downwind of it.

For the hated “1 percent,” inherited wealth accounts for about 15 percent of holdings. Contrary to the story the Left likes to tell about economic inequality in the United States, those numbers have gone down over recent decades — by almost half for the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, inherited money makes up 43 percent of the wealth of the lowest income group and 31 percent for the second-lowest. In case our would-be class warriors are having trouble running the numbers here, that means that inherited money on net reduces wealth inequality in the United States (measured as a ratio) rather than exacerbating it; eliminating inherited wealth would have approximately twice as much of a negative effect on modest households as on wealthy ones.

So, go ahead! Hammer them, Lieawatha!

There is a reason that money earned from work accounts for a relatively large share of the holdings of rich Americans: They work more — a lot more.

There is, to be sure, such a thing as the working poor, but the most salient characteristic of poor households is the lack of full-time workers in them. For the bottom income group, there is an average of 0.42 earners per household, with 68.2 percent of householders not working at all, as opposed to 1.97 earners per household and only 13.3 percent not working for the highest income group. The answer to poverty turns out to be “get a job,” after all.

Not surprisingly, 78.4 percent of those highest-income families were married couples, as opposed to 17 percent for the lowest-income group. What this all means in brief is that the highest-income families are composed almost exclusively of two-earner households, the overwhelming majority of them married couples. Those who are inclined to see public policy mainly through green eyeshades may sniff at the social conservatives and their quaint worries about marriage, but there is a very strong connection between how we conduct our family lives and our economic outcomes.

This is not an invitation to moral crowing about the virtues of the rich — okay, maybe it is. The country would in fact be far better off if more people lived the way the top 20 percent do: married, working their butts off, saving and investing their money, and living within their means. (In his research for The Millionaire Next Door, Thomas J. Stanley found that the most popular make of automobile among the wealthy was not Ferrari or Mercedes but Ford, and that the most common Ford model owned by a millionaire was the F-150 pickup truck.)

You know what’s funnier than the secret of wealth turning out to be Leave it to Beaver (with Mrs. Cleaver running a successful catering business, employing Eddie Haskell as a delivery driver)? It’s no secret!

This guy crunched the numbers, but who doesn’t know this intuitively? Two incomes, stable homes, kids learning the value of education—it sounds like the Obamas. And they’re stinking rich! (Relax, it’s just an expression.)

If class warriors like Fauxcahantas really wanted to help the middle class, she’d… she’d do nothing. Most government programs for the poor have led to more poverty. The successful household model—two working parents—has only gotten further out of reach for the poorer among us. God help us if Liberals get their talons into the rest of us. We’ll be skinning each other’s dogs and cats for food. Or living in Detroit.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »