How original!!!

As much as I normally disagree with Tom and his shrill, metronomic calls for "Green" investment, I was hanging in with him till he got to that point about how the Chosen One could turn it all around - to wit (paraphrased):

"I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength"

So, Tom would be in favor of adding the revenue from cap-n-trade (or a carbon tax) to the general fund to basically encourage more spending? Wow, what an original idea...NOT. Until the revenue from any such tax is refunded to the people or earmarked specifically for deficit reduction, you can pound sand. And, I hope every fiscal conservative out there sees it for the naked revenue grab that it is and votes it down.

in reference to:

"I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength"
- Op-Ed Columnist - Failure Is Not an Option on an Energy Bill - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sounds like the perfect outcome...

Given the abomination that was Obamacare, and the pending disaster that is the Financial Reform bill, sounds to me like Lindsey and Harry's feud might be the best possible thing that could happen.

I'm probably not alone in thinking that if recent bills are the examples of what we could expect on "Cap-n-spend" or "Immigration/Amnesty", we'll all be better off if they are stillborn in the senate.

in reference to: Editorial - A Dangerous Squabble in the Senate - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Might be the end for McCain

And he deserves it. After the disastrous pandering to the right in the 2008 presidential election - capped by his tapping the moron Sarah Palin as his running mate - he's abandoning all principle to keep his senate career alive.

Now, I'm the first to agree that we need some type of comprehensive immigration reform policy. And, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that it must include some path to citizenship - preferably after several thousand dollars in fines are paid. But - and this drives me 'effin nuts about the Times - let's not make any mistakes here: These people ARE CRIMINALS. By entering our country illegally, they have BROKEN THE LAW. If you don't like the law, change it, but don't hid behind euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants", these people are criminals pure and simple, and deserve to be treated as such.

in reference to: Editorial - Come Back, John McCain - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A bit of a misrepresentation?

So, the U.S.'s implicit military backup didn't exist as some type of deterrent to invading Israel? How many billions of dollars of aid will Israel receive this year from the U.S.? How many has it received throughout the years? How much cut-rate weaponry, of an extremely advanced nature, have we provided Israel with over the years to allow them to maintain a strategic superiority throughout the region?

Israel may not have "needed" the U.S. to intervene militarily, but let's not for one single minute believe that they haven't exploited the U.S. relationship to their strategic betterment.

in reference to: The View From Jerusalem: Israel is Anxious about the Obama Administration - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Wrong...

I'm pretty sure the facts of the case as represented are wrong - no surprise considering the source. My understanding is that the Christian group did NOT require members to sign a statement of faith, only that members who wanted to run for office in the club do so. That's not discrimination to me.

If I'm wrong and the Times is correct, then I submit an advance mea culpa, and agree that the Christian Legal Society at Hastings should be denied school funding.

Now, I despise the "Evangelical" movement. I believe they're responsible for co-opting and perverting the conservative agenda for 20+ years now, but in this case, they are absolutely in the right and I'll defend 'em as such.

in reference to: Editorial - A Case of Discrimination on Campus - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How 'bout Fannie and Freddie...

I think Republicans should get behind this bill with two caveats:

• They should require that the same proposed regulations apply to Fannie and Freddie, including spinning them off to full privatization
• They should abolish the consumer-protection aspect of the bill. It's unnecessary.

Let's see what convictions the Dems have when one of their favorite Liberal programs (Fan/Fred) is up for the same emasculation they want for the banks.in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Fire Next Time - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

'Bout time somebody said it...

We're basically paying people not to go back to work. Contrast this article with the silly shit from the NY Times op-ed page this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/opinion/13tue1.html)

Liberals (like the Times) want to exempt unemployment extensions from their own "Pay-go" rules, which require any new spending to be offset by either cuts or increased revenues (taxes). They claim that the unemployment benefits extension should fall under the category of emergency spending.

So, my questions are:

• At what point do we stop? We've already increased from 26 weeks to something like 79 weeks. When is the emergency over? If I'm unemployed, why would I go back to work - the government seems dead set on paying me to stay home - the rational mind (econ 101) would seem to think this is a great deal.
• And, if we're gonna support this ongoing underclass with my tax dollars, why don't we ask for something in return? Have these recipients of my "compassion" cleaning up the trash that lines the roads in my town. Have 'em stationed at malls to clean windshields or wash cars. For God's sake have 'em contribute a little bit to the people who are footing the bill for them to sit on their fat asses and continue to not work...

in reference to: Incentives Not to Work - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Who are we protecting?

I would dearly love to hear the Progressives' definition of "Predatory Lending". I mean really, what is it? Is it possible to pass a law that restricts credit for consumers who are too "unsophisticated" to understand the lending agreement? Who protects these - let's call them Darwin candidates - from themselves? Whose job is that? Oh that's right; it's team Obama to the rescue!

Could be this the natural circle of personal responsibility closing up again and the market policing itself, albeit in a quite destructive fashion? I read my mortgage agreement; understood what I was signing, and more importantly, understood that if I didn't make those monthly payments I would lose my home. How much simpler does it get?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Bank Failures - Why Georgia? - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Health care cost control?

Paul, I thought you (and every other Liberal) said that Obamacare was awesome with respect to cost control. And yet, down about paragraph 12, you seem to imply that healthcare costs are still a problem.

If so, what did this trillion dollar boondoggle that just passed buy us? I'm just askin...

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Learning From Greece - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Good article

I actually have no problem with Cap-n-trade or an overt Carbon tax with one caveat:

None of the proceeds must go to government. All must be refunded proportionately (non-progressively) to taxpayers. So, the people who pay 95% of taxes would receive 95% of the redistributed revenues.

What do you think the chances are that this will happen? If the goal is to preserve the planet, clearly the policies are about limiting "bad" behavior, not increasing revenue. More like a fine right? If so, government doesn't need the money; the end that justifies the means is that climate catastrophe is averted, correct? If Krugman's arguments are to be believed then, we should have no problem returning the "fines" the taxpayers, should we?

Right. When's the last time you saw the Government give up a chance to take more of your money? And, believe me, you will end up paying more as the "cost" of carbon gets redistributed up and down the wholesale distribution chain. Why should we then, receive refunds for the increased costs? If Krugman and his colleagues are right, over time the fines received will decline to zero as we tax the bad behavior out of existence. And, through the miracle of the "free market" green energy sources will emerge to take their place, thus sayeth the chosen one. So imagine this utopian existence: in 20 years, the cost to heat your home via coal-fired electricity will rise to $1000.00 per month. But, that'll be OK, because using solar and wind, you'll be able to heat your home for only $900.00 per month! That's green energy making a difference folks.

in reference to: Magazine Preview - Climate Change - Building a Green Economy - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

"No" won't work...

Until the patients themselves are paying for a good portion of their treatment, rather than today's incredibly screwed up system where somebody else (insurer) pays, there's absolutely no incentive for people to consume less care.

It's analogous to your car insurance covering a brand new paint job if you get a small scratch in a parking lot, only if your company paid for this "gold-plated" car insurance. Other than the small inconvenience of having to wait for the car to be painted, why wouldn't you have it done? You wouldn't be paying for it, your insurance would. And, your insurance would be provided by your employer.

Sound familiar? As is, you pay directly for your car insurance, and set a deductible that you think you can live with. Damage that falls under the dollar amount of the deductible you either fix out of your own pocket, or live with. Car insurance is really there to cover catastrophes like major accidents. It doesn't cover routine maintenance like oil changes, wiper blades, etc. - it's there in case you have a true emergency.

Healthcare on the other hand, covers everything you can think of. Why shouldn't you be able to pay for a physical, or treatment for strep? You need health insurance if you get cancer, or have a major injury.

The entire system is skewed by third-party payers, and until we address this, we'll never bring down costs.

in reference to: Economic Scene - To Cut Health Costs, U.S. Needs to Learn to Say No - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)