Plus Ca Change ...

"These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. But, great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively as a nation we are not bound by that same limitation."(*)

Whatever you say, old man.

You call it "tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals". I call it "change we can believe in".

The Big O Visits Iowa - No, Ottawa

Hopey One Kenobi made the long trek from D.C. to Canada's seat of power today but his visit didn't go quite as planned.

President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper just started their joint news conference, the first such dual podium event for the new president.

The newness is showing - the president began his remarks with, "It's a great pleasure to be here in Iowa - Ottawa."

Obama says "it's great to be" pretty much anywhere he goes. Iowa was a key battleground state, but also the Jan. 4, 2008 caucus was his first win during the Democratic primary election. It swung his way in November, and a Downtown Des Moines rally on Halloween was one of his last campaign stops before winning the presidency.

Flubbing the name of a location has happened to many politicians, and has happened to the president before.*

Via Gateway Pundit:

"Maybe he thought he was in one of the northern 57 states?"

Combine this flub with his previous shout out to the "President of Canada" and I'm starting to think he doesn't care about us quite as much as our apparent obsession with him merits.

And, at the end of the day, we'll still adore him. There's something very romantic about unrequited love.

Does that answer your question, Jarrett?

Maybe America Could Have Afforded Her Ideas After All ...

Remember when Hillary Clinton let it slip during the Democratic primaries that America couldn't afford all of her ideas?

Little did we know that Clinton may have been a pretty cheap date in comparison.

David Frum:

President Obama and the Democrats have responded [to the economic crisis] by steering the US radically to the left. Since World War II, the federal government has most years spent less than one dollar in five of national income. Once the stimulus gets underway, the federal government will spend more than one dollar in four. The cost of everything the Democrats want to do comes closer to one dollar in three.

We’re facing more regulation of everything from high finance to the ordinary workplace. The Democrats are expanding Medicaid to crowd out private insurance. The federal government wants a huge new role in redirecting private investment in transportation and energy in the name of “green jobs.”

In 1996, Bill Clinton asserted, "We will meet these challenges, but not through big government. The era of big government is over."

Would President Billary have been as intent on sinking so many hundreds of billions of dollars into the black hole that is the porkulus package?

I, for one, think that the damage would have been marginally smaller.

Oh, Bill. If only you had been right about the era of big government being over.

The Foot-In-The-Door Philosophy: How Democrats Are Smuggling Socialized Medicine Into America

The following is a timely reminder for Barack Obama's stimulus crowd from Ronald Reagan circa 1960.



Hauntingly relevant, no?

Titanic Deck Chairs:

If Democrats learned anything from the HillaryCare defeat, it was the danger of admitting to their wish to federalize the health market. Since returning to power, they've pursued a new strategy: to stealthily and incrementally expand government control. "What no one is paying attention to in the [stimulus]," says Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, "is that Democrats are making a big grab at the health-care sector."

The stimulus bill extends Medicare benefits to millions of people who lost work, extends COBRA benefits for years and picks up 65% of those premiums, and attacks the private market in electronic medical records. After passing SCHIP (greatly expanded from the bill Bush vetoed) they are also targeting Medicare for even more expansion.

H/t Maggie's Farm

"We Are All Socialists Now"

Gulp. This is going to be a long four years.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.(*)

In other words, Americans want big government without big government. They want to have their cake and to eat it too.

Please wake up, friends to the south. You're being slipped the roofie of socialism and it's going to give you one hell of a hangover. Take it from a country that knows about expensive social programs and the damage that welfarism can do.

H/t Darcey

Obama: I Don't Understand This Economics Business But I'm Pretty Sure This Is Bush's Fault

US President Barack Obama descended from his well-heated White House today to give the misguided North American masses a shot of wisdom about the economy.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

But don't get him wrong: he loves the American constitution. Just not those nasty parts about property rights and the limited role of the state in the individual's life.

Of course, he's right about tax cuts alone doing little to correct the fundamentals of the economy. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts and it is well-covered ground that the Bush administration had a rather difficult time rolling back the spending.

But that isn't the gist of Obama's opinion editorial. Rather, he's looking to throw out the baby with the bath water. He is rejecting capitalism because conservative socialism didn't work. Bush did not govern like a capitalist; he governed like a big government "compassionate conservative" type. Accordingly, the flaws in the Bush method are not the flaws of capitalism. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. The only tonic to the current financial crisis is a return to capitalism.

The Obama plan will replace flawed economics with even more profoundly flawed economics. Boy, the next four years ought to be a hoot.

H/t Kathryn Jean Lopez

Out: Axis of Evil, In: Axis of Who-Are-We-To-Judge

Hypothetic scenario:

You're the leader of the freest and most powerful country on Earth. On the other side of the globe, an ideologically medieval terrorist state gradually leaks its evil into the surrounding geographic region, corroding liberty and morality in every country that it infiltrates. Before long, this state of affairs culminates in a horrifying attack on your own soil.

Here are your options:


(a) Invade two of the terrorist state's neighbours (also run by evil people but not the root of the problem)

(b) Shrug your shoulders and acknowledge that your country had it coming

(c) Extend your hand in friendship to your completely unrepentant enemies (after all, we're hardly perfect ourselves so who are we to judge?)


If you chose option (c), you might just be a perennially confused Democratic president with no common sense and a wholly relativistic moral compass.

And the Iranian government's response to President Obama's kind offer to begins talks with Iran?

"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency."(*)

Shocking.

Goodbye 'axis of evil'.

Hello 'axis of who-are-we-to-judge'.

H/t Mark Steyn

Message To The GOP: No More McCain, No More Huck, A Lot More Reagan Please

John McCain is a war hero. Unfortunately, that about exhausts the characteristics that I can identify in his personality which made him a "great" pick for the party's leadership. If we're being honest, he was a profoundly mediocre candidate. He made a strategically interesting veep choice (and, for the record, I highly doubt a different choice would have produced a significantly different result) but his campaign was otherwise strategically ineffective. He focused on branding himself as The Maverick rather than exploiting the ample opportunity that the economic crisis presented him with from a policy standpoint. Most importantly, he failed to court the Americans that can be counted on to win you elections: the capitalists.

The Reagan Coalition is not dead; it's just dormant. There have been some important changes to the demographics - particularly the electoral play that social conservatism on the issues of abortion and gay marriage get - but not very many. A successful Republican Party will court the voters that have been active since Barry Goldwater's glorious (albeit ill-fated) campaign in 1964. The consequences of failing to do so are clear in last night's results.

I'm skeptical, however, about the chances of the GOP succeeding in saving their party in the short term. The McCains of the party (and, according to an unfortunate interview I saw yesterday, the Pawlentys) would tack to the center on economics and foreign policy and take the pragmatist approach. On the other hand, the Huckabees of the party would drag them further along the path towards an entirely religion-dominated platform. Neither of these models reflect the Reagan Coalition as it survives today. If the Republican Party wants to rebuild itself, if it truly has an interest in winning elections again, then it will drop the evangelical 'tude, tone it back on the social issues, and remember that Republicans used to be Capitalists, and that most Americans still are.

Four years of President Obama ought to be enough to remind the United States of the consequences of allowing the culture of entitlement to have free reign. While the moochers suckle on the teat of an expanding government, entrepreneurs and businessmen and women will fail because Obama is so eager to "spread the wealth".

This election was a wake-up call for the Republicans. Free markets, free people. This is what America wants. Why not give it back to them?