The Real Romney?

It's anybody's guess what Mitt Romney really stands for, other than fulfilling some sense of destiny (or outdoing his dad's legacy) in reaching the Oval Office. Such naked ambition should be a concern to any voter.

Here is another reminder of the pandering phoniness from a man who will in all likelihood be on the 2012 GOP ticket. Why Limbaugh and his ilk endorsed this fake says a lot about the Talking Cons credibility -- or lack thereof!

On shortcuts and corrosion

Speaking about torture, President Obama said this during his April 29 press conference:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

Is not abortion just such a "short-cut" which "corrodes the character of a country"? It would be refreshing to find more "pro-choice" adherents acknowledge the moral violations of a procedure that in many cases, causes pain to an unborn baby before its life is extinguished.

Abortion is every bit as egregious as torture, if not worse, because it constitutes a brutal action against innocent life pitting a mother against a child for the sake of convenience.

Romney rakes it in, doesn't dole it out - POLITICO.com

READ: omney rakes it in, doesn't dole it out - POLITICO.com

Mitt Romney’s political action committee has raised $571,000 this year, according to a report filed this week with the Federal Election Commission. ...

This year, it’s spent $10,000 on travel, $74,000 on staff salaries and benefits and $118,000 on consulting, including $20,000 for “strategy consulting” to Beth Myers, who ran his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, and $10,000 to Peter Flaherty, who was a key advisor to the campaign.

Those payments dwarf the $16,000 it contributed to candidates.

Why am I not surprised. I've heard some refer to Obama as narcisstic, but Mitt Romney is certainly no angel of selflessness.

Romney 2012: Not an auspicious start in wooing conservatives—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

Romney 2012: Not an auspicious start in wooing conservatives—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

This article is great -- here's a sampler...

A source who attended the event passed on to me his thoughts about the conference, which appears not to have gone well for Romney. Recall that during last year’s G.O.P. nomination battle, Romney had a hard time convincing the conservative base that he was the real thing.

Things got interesting following Gov. Romney’s rehearsed, vacuous speech, filled with standard Republican feel-good talking points with few specifics. One participant said that “Mitt’s speech featured his typical empty platitudes and consultant-driven talking points.”

Let's remember too all the talking heads who backed Romney in 2008 -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. What little credibility these pundits had left is being flushed away with their egomaniacal tirades of late.

Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter

READ: Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter

I felt Obama's first press conference was excruciatingly dull and uninspiring; far worse than all the scorn heaped on Gov. Jindal's performance last week.

Using a TelePrompter is fine, but to use it for everything? That suggests a lack of confidence in one's self and one's policies, it seems to me...

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union. ...
“He uses them to death,” a television crewmember who also covered the White House under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said of the teleprompter. “The problem is, he never looks at you. He’s looking left, right, left, right — not at the camera. It’s almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”

The audacity of borrowing

READ: The audacity of borrowing:

"So what is scaring the bond traders? ... The upshot is that the United States has serious long-term fiscal challenges, between the downturn, an aging population, and major entitlement programs. None of the options for getting out of the mess looked particularly palatable. And that was before the president spoke of an extra trillion dollars for health care.

Despite claims of a new realism, the administration's budget is loaded with optimism. It assumes the economy will have a quicker and more vigorous recovery than most private forecasters predict. It assumes that individuals won't change their behavior much to avoid new, higher tax rates. It assumes that sacred cows such as mortgage interest deductibility and agricultural subsidies are ready to be made into hamburgers. And even with all this optimism, the administration predicts red ink as far as the eye can see."

I would support tax increases beginning in FY2011, but NOT to pay for new spending -- we must first begin paying on what we're already "entitled" to in terms of Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's only going to get worse in the decades to come, so this is not to time to go blowing money creating new entitlements. Pay for our existing obligations (and not with smoke and mirrors); then come back and talk to me about universal health care.

Blagojevich gets six-figure book deal

READ: Blagojevich gets six-figure book deal

It's unlikely he will be convicted before October, so this pathetic rodent manages to score an advance windfall from Phoenix Books. Because his actions occurred while in office, the former Gov-vermin is also exempt from civil lawsuits. Meanwhile, Illinois is still forced to contend with Senator Burris, whose own reputation is sinking fast.

This is so completely FUBAR...

Cramer on Hardball

Cramer states here what I've been screaming about for weeks at home. Not enough stimulus dollars directed to infrastructure (and jobs), and 4% mortgage for everyone -- not just the defaulting bums who are considered "n'er-do-wells."

Link:

Stimulus-lessness

The other day I heard a commentator talk about the "Keynesian" approach of this stimulus package. By this school of thought, government should spend more money, even running up deficits, in order to stave off economic recessions. The flip-side, which never seems to apply unfortunately, is that government backs off on spending growth during times of economic abundance to operate under a balanced budget and/or pay down debt.

I am a self-described "deficit hawk" but I do agree that our present circumstances teeter on the edge of financial depression. This is a time for government to act, and there are a few items in this Act that could help. Unfortunately, the best job-creation components -- building highways, clean energy, and telecom infrastructure -- are relatively underfunded at $150 billion compared to spending on Medicaid and bailouts of state governments. Even the "tax relief" seems paltry -- an extra $13/week per earner doesn't go very far, and why do Social Security recipients need an extra $250. Are the elderly inclined to spend that rebate and stimulate the economy?

So, the best job-creating components of this Act don't go very far, spending on entitlements increases (which only stimulates growth in government) and tax cuts to working-class families are meager at best. The Act seems philosophically incoherent, essentially throwing a lot of money in all directions, and I fear it will make almost no difference in helping the economy bottom out.

Tax Fairness and Class Warfare

It's been quite awhile since I posted last. A 1,500 move across country will do that... To kick off 2009, this posting may stir the pot a bit, but I hoped to present a slightly different perspective to Christian conservatives who are still stuck on Rush (as in Limbaugh). It's a posting I also made in a graduate course on Tax and Budget Policy at Regent University:

There's a lot of hyperbole tossed about regarding federal income taxes from both ends of our political spectrum. Liberals often complain that the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 favored the rich, in terms of dollar amounts. What is often understated or ignored is that the so-called "rich" pay the largest share of federal income taxes. To use some really basic math, Taxpayer A paying $10,000 a year in income taxes would get $500 under a 5% tax cut. Taxpayer B paying only $2,000 a year in income taxes would get only $100 with a similar tax cut. Taxpayer A's getting more money back -- true -- but she is also still paying a lot more to the IRS.

The hyperbole also exists on the Right. The notion that the rich in this country are "punished" for their success is simply absurd, especially if one looks at wage increases over the years (see image at right). Rush Limbaugh is outraged that "The top 1% [of wage earners] is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!" Well, who is in the bottom 50 percent? It's individuals or families earning less than $29,019 in 2003. It's hard to imagine this group is able to do much more than pay rent and put food on the table, after income tax and regressive payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) are withheld. According to a recent NY Times article, a researcher for the conservative American Enterprise Institute "estimates that a family of four earning $50,000 pays exactly the same share of its income (30 percent) on taxes as one earning $150,000." Would Limbaugh feel better if these lower-income families started paying a larger share of income taxes? I wouldn't. I'd rather see incomes for families in lower- and middle-class brackets improve rather than stagnate. I'd rather see more families be enabled to and choose to have a parent stay home with their children instead of both having to work to afford a modest house payment or religious schooling.

So it seems class warfare is waged by both sides. I don't think it serves our civic discourse any benefit to speak out of envy (from the bottom looking up), or out of pride and self-righteousness (from the top down). Custodial workers, store clerks and fast food workers are just as important as the bank presidents, hedge fund managers, and frankly, one could argue that many who are paid far less produce more real goods and services than well-paid CEOs and Wall Street managers.

I like an income tax structure that is progressive, which enables people to improve their status, and as their status improves, that individual or family can contribute more to the functioning of governments which serve all of us in ways direct and indirect. If we can think more in terms of "us" and in terms of helping our neighbors and our neighborhoods, we will improve our discourse, our sense of gratefulness for what God has provided us, and maybe even our attitudes toward rendering Caesar's due.

Who's Losing the U.S. Car Business?

READ: Who's Losing the U.S. Car Business?

...the UAW refused to make concessions. Instead, it insisted it would only renegotiate its current contract when it ends in 2011. That was the sticking point that killed the deal.

You have to ask this question: If the Detroit carmakers are in dire straits, going broke in two weeks, right now in late 2008, how can the UAW wait until 2011 to make its concessions? The financial problem is today, not two years from today. The threat of liquidation, with perhaps a few million autoworker, supplier, and car-dealer jobs lost, is today's threat, not a 2011 threat. So what's the UAW waiting for?

That's easy. Gettelfinger is waiting for President Obama and a Senate with 58 Democrats. He also was playing a game of bluff with President George W. Bush. He knew Bush had $15 billion of TARP money ready to go, meaning the TARP was Gettelfinger's trump card. The tough-minded union leader never believed the White House would let GM sink and possibly force millions of job losses in the middle of a recession.

What we're really bailing out is the pathetic UAW. Thanks a lot, jerks, and thanks President Bush for giving them a "get out of bankruptcy" card. It's sad how even now, in the waning days of his administration, Bush is bucking reality and good sense to salvage a withered legacy.

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says - CNN.com

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says - CNN.com

What Recession?

NRF Survey Finds Black Friday Gets Holiday Season Off to Energetic Start:

"According to the National Retail Federation's 2008 Black Friday Weekend survey, conducted by BIGresearch, more than 172 million shoppers visited stores and websites over Black Friday weekend, up from 147 million shoppers last year. Shoppers spent an average of $372.57 this weekend*, up 7.2 percent over last year's $347.55."

Recession? What recession? Heck, a lack of money didn't stop some greedy vermin from trampling a Wal-Mart employee to death in order to blow their dough on a plasma TV.

Americans may be fat and lazy, but they're not completely broke. I suppose Rush Limbaugh will celebrate this annual orgy of excess on his radio show Monday as some triumph for capitalism, however pyrrhic. I don't long for suffering or deprivation, but would welcome news of Americans living within their means on a personal level and at a governmental level. That's conservatism...

conservative, adj.:marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate>

Maybe if we all managed our finances in a conservative fashion, we'd have the resources by which to act as "liberals" by giving financially to the work of churches and charities to help our fellow man. And as a bonus, the present credit-and-foreclosure crunch might never have happened.

Huckabee weighs in on GOP's future

Huckabee weighs in on GOP future:

"Huckabee said Republicans have lost their reputation as people who believe in curtailing spending and attempting to balance the budget and have a new label: the 'budget busters,' who spend more than they can pay back while priding themselves on not raising taxes.

'But it's not that they do it by curbing spending, they just kick the can down the road and put the burden on our grandchildren,' he said, adding that he considers it 'morally wrong' to indebt future generations."

Amen. Republican borrow-and-spend policies are intellectually dishonest and 'morally wrong'. We are saddling our children and grandchildren with higher taxes and fewer benefits by irresponsibly spending more than our present means.

Same-Sex Marriage Topic on Dr. Phil Show

READ: Same-Sex Marriage Topic on Dr. Phil Show - U.S. - CBN News:

"'Isn't it possible to be equal but different?,' asked Dr. Phil McGraw, the show's host.

'Of course not. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, the notion that separate is now somehow equal? That's anathema to what America has always stood for,' Newsome explained.

'It's not discrimination to treat different things differently, Gallagher responded."

It's amazing to hear this absolutist (and ludicrous) claim by Newsome. Under his logic, the very notion of separate men's and women's restrooms would be inherently unequal and discriminatory...