Hmmm. I wonder.

Just weeks before the country is due to go to the polls, the Chancellor warned the well off that they must pay their “fair share”.

Such is the scale of public debt, which Mr Darling forecast would rise to £1.4 trillion in the next five years, he was unable to announce substantial tax breaks or giveaways aimed at attracting voters.

Instead, he was forced to reveal a series of measures that would raise money.

Forced. What else could he do, he's forced into this.

After warning the "well off" what was in store for them, he then announced a laundry list of tax increases that oddly seem to affect, well, everybody. It appears the Brits have moved past soaking the rich and onto taxing the middle class. I'm so looking forward to the American version of this English sitcom.

ALSO see happy bond stories here earlier from DrewM, and this one courtesy of the man-lesbian Andy, the other man-lesbian (they're overrun with them) over at the Hostages.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:20 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Taking him out to the woodshed for a whoopin'.

Yesterday, I got an email from a prominent conservative academic; it was, I think, a touch harsh on the object of its attention. Here’s what it said: “Frum's pathetic, desperate whining reeks of self-loathing. At least that shows good judgment: I loathe him, too.”

The Frum in question is David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, and the “whining” that so goaded my correspondent was a blog by David, written on the day the House voted on health care, in which he described the bill’s passage as a defeat for the Republicans akin to Waterloo. He called the bill the Republicans’ “most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.” The GOP’s tactics—“No negotiations, no compromise, nothing”—led, he wrote, to a “disaster” for conservatives: “We went for all the marbles, we ended with none.”
Passionate "extremism" is part of any political debate, and the more of it the better. I especially don't want lectures about excessive rhetoric from the man who wrote “An End to Evil.”

I’ve known professionally for almost a decade, and with whom my social interaction has always been very genial. He is a good and energetic man, and has, in the years since he left service at the White House, dedicated himself to being what I call a “polite-company conservative” (or PCC), much like David Brooks and Sam Tanenhaus at the New York Times (where the precocious Ross Douthat is shaping up to be a baby version of the species). A PCC is a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway—who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. The PCC, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically—though there is an element of that—as aesthetically.

He goes on to rubbish Frum's entire (non) argument. Frum's central point, to the extent he has one, is that the GOP should have gone into compromise/dealmaking mode in order to... well, secure a compromise and make a deal.

Would this have worked -- even given a very loose standard of what "working" means when you're talking about surrender? Given that this is Frum's big claim, one would like to see a bit of evidence presented it would have worked. Instead, Frum just shrugs off his central assumption as if it's a nit beneath picking.

I cannot escape the conclusion that David’s piece was, in broad terms, simplistic. His argument that Republicans and Democrats were not that far apart just goes to show how naïve he is on this question. Health care, for anybody who has been paying attention, is becoming a referendum on bigger issues like the size of government, and personal freedom. The public option, the individual mandate, all the bill’s taxes, the end of Medicare advantage, none of these were “little” questions to negotiate over and move on. (I also marveled at the audacity of the little fillip—“Could a deal have been reached? Who knows?”—with which David tosses off the most pertinent question.)

I have a somewhat different take on Frum. I notice that Frum is not actually terribly policy-oriented or policy-informed. He is not a wonk. Or, if it is, he seems to hide it well enough on his blog. I don't see a lot of deep policy analysis on his site.

Frum, of course, is constantly castigating conservatives like Limbaugh for supposedly-simplistic thinking, sloganeering, etc. Not doing their homework. Not pouring over the policy details and arriving at a good policy position, but instead preferring easier, gut-level attitudinal posturing.

The thing is -- That's all that Frum does, too. He may criticize Limbaugh for simplifying arguments into easy-to-repeat gut-level impulses and attitudes, rather than going into great detail about policy, but that's all Frum does, too. Except instead of copping one attitude -- "Don't negotiate; stay firm; remain true to principles" -- he cops the opposite attitude -- "Always negotiate; stay flexible; compromise on principles."

But because his attitude is viewed more favorably by the liberal retardentsia whose approval he so craves, he deems that his attitude is the more sophisticated and intellectualized one.

Actually, all he's doing is being the Anti-Limbaugh. If Rush is given to sometimes simplifying affairs into narratives of Pure Conservatives and Corrupt Progressives, Frum's only stock in trade is simplifying affairs into narratives of Corrupt Conservatives and Pure Moderate-Liberals.

Incidentally, I have no problem with simplifying things for political purposes. I'm not knocking Rush. And note I said he "sometimes" does this, not that he always does this. What I'm trying to do is not knock Rush, but note that Frum, who fancies himself an elevated, intellectual policy guru, in fact hasn't the sophistication or patience or learning for actual policy analysis and instead resorts to the exact tropes he is forever shrilling over. Everything with Frum is pure emotional Politics of Resentment stuff -- the stuff he's supposedly so chagrined to see so much of -- it's just that he resents a different power-group.

In Frum's astonishingly stupid -- and talk-radio-level raw-meat bloody -- Waterloo column, Frum prances and minces in his typical self-congratulatory way, telling us all how we should have adopted the attitude of "compromise." But as for actual policy, he has nothing whatsoever to say. He does not tell us which policies we could have gainfully compromised on, and which we could have bent to our own ends; such thinking and analysis is simply beyond him. Instead his entire argument consists of "We should have compromised" -- on what? "Who knows?," as David Frum says about the chances for success in compromising -- and calling Rush Limbaugh stupid and simplistic for the 6000th time.

How is this any different from the caricature of Limbaugh he whines about daily? Replace his caricatured idea of Rush -- someone who, in his telling, only says "Be tougher" and "Shout louder" and "Be more extreme" -- with Frum's formulation of "Be weaker" and "Mumble more soothingly" and "Be more moderate."

How the fuck can someone claim one of those is a more sophisticated argument than the other? Neither is sophisticated at all, and of them -- Frum's -- has the added detriment of being effeminate to boot.

I have less of a problem with self-professed "rodeo clowns" like Glenn Beck than I do with David Frum, who constantly asserts he is possessed of a more thoughtful, more intellectually mature ideology, but whose actual output consists of nothing but fagged-up derivatives of Morning Zoo shock jockery.

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (399)
Post contains 1136 words, total size 7 kb.

Senate: Morning, House!

House: Morning, big bro! I'm hungry!

Senate: What would you like to eat?

House: Fruity Pebbles.

Senate: Tough. You get Fruit Loops instead.

House: But I want Pebbles!

Senate: You'll get Loops.

House: Pebbles!

Senate: Loops!

House: Pebbles!!11!!11!

Senate: Loops!!11!!1!

(Zoom in to clock....hands spinning wildly to indicate the passage of time as the argument continues)

House: Fine, give me your Fruit Loops.

Senate: Just kidding. All we have is Grape Nuts. Enjoy!

Posted by: Jack M. at 12:44 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

The question mark is there because I don't know if this is a real billboard of they just photoshopped the Bush one.

If it's not real, it should be within days. Too good not to make real.

Thanks to StoryBalloon.

Posted by: Ace at 11:59 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

At least a colleague of mine reported that he thought he heard them saying that.

Why isn't this report, which I just made up, getting as much attention as the other claims that were also made up?

Did you catch that last part? As Jack Cashill at the American Thinker points out, there’s some sleight of hand going on here. Lewis himself isn’t quoted as saying he heard it. The “n-word” claim is attributed to an unnamed colleague. Who? Apparently it doesn’t matter who.

Somehow this is turned into the headline, “Tea party protesters use racial epithet against Georgia’s John Lewis.” Not “Georgia’s John Lewis claims” or “Colleague of Georgia’s John Lewis alleges.” No, they make a direct statement of fact that is, based on the story itself, tenuous at best. Some guy who was with Lewis claims he heard somebody yell something. So hey, it must have happened the way he said it did, right? Why even try to verify it? Everybody knows those Tea Party guys are racists.

Funny how all the videos of the event contain no evidence of such a slur.

But, you know-- who are you going to believe, an unnamed colleague of a hyperpartisan race-hustling Marxist or your own lying ears?

It's amazing, isn't it, that whenever Democrats find themselves behind in the polls, as was the case in Sarah Palin's three weeks of game-changing popularity, there's always some helpful conservative to suddenly yell out the N-word within earshot of a liberal (but not, alas, within the range of recording equipment).

Oh: I am stealing this joke from Andrew Breitbart, who had a series of funny Tweets in which he asked why Anthony Weiner was standing on Henry Waxman's shoulders shouting racial epithets into his house, etc.

It's a good joke.

And Oh: That Tea Party guy didn't spit in anyone's face. The charge has changed to state that the man "allowed saliva to hit my face" -- i.e., he was yelling and saliva sprayed out as it tends to do.

This has been trumped up, of course, into your typical racist bashing of White People.

UPDATE- Jack M.: Dear Media...I am totally willing to bear witness to Ace's claim that he thinks he was called a wog. After all, Ace has never lied to me about being called a wog in the past, and I was present at a CPAC after party in which Ace was, in fact, called a wog. So it probably brought back unpleasant memories for him of past civil rights violations.

Which means, I'm one more witness to Ace's claim than you have for the Tea Party "claim"...right? Call me! Especially if your name rhymes with Dora O'Nonnell.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

The current cover, J. tells me:

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, this is too adorable. It's not so much a lullaby as mad Transylvanian howling, but it gets the job done.

Thanks to rdbrewer.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

The actual quote. He's claiming he was misquoted, in fairness, but I kinda don't believe him.

In the wake of the passage of health care reform, nearly the entire slate of Republican senatorial candidates seems ready to run on a repeal of the bill. But now, the lawmaker overseeing their election strategy is softening the message. Rather than promising to scrap the bill in its entirety, the GOP will pledge to just get rid of the more controversial partsÂ…

“There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things,” the Texas Republican said. “Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.”

What the GOP will work to repeal, Cornyn explained, are provisions that result in “tax increases on middle class families,” language that forced “an increase in the premium costs for people who have insurance now” and the “cuts to Medicare” included in the legislation…

To defend parts of Cornyn's statement (before I get into attacking it): The GOP position -- a consensus position, frequently repeated -- has been that the party favors reform of some kind, particularly in the places Cornyn mentions, but that we oppose Obama's manner of implementing this reform. We can hardly drop that claim now and say "No, we want things just the way they are."

That is not nearly a majority position, and I doubt it's even close to a majority position in the caucus.

Paul Ryan suggested, for example, that those with pre-existing conditions could be covered in some sort of "well-funded" state-level high risk pool. Now, he didn't say how such pools would become "well-funded" (or, to be accurate, I never heard or read him stating how they'd become well-funded), but there is really only one possibility I can think of: A surtax on all insurance policies to be paid into the pool to subsidize high-risk cases and make their premiums ballpark affordable. So even Paul Ryan doesn't seem to be claiming that there can never be a subsidy for such people, and the idea of a subsidy implies a subsidisor.

Stuff like this can't easily be walked back, even if we'd like to walk it back. It's not good politics to claim now, basically, "Oh, we were just lying about favoring some legislative solution to handle such cases for purposes of political positioning." The GOP's agenda for repeal will have to include some alternative plan, smaller in ambition and cost and infringement of freedom, but if we're to believe the polls at all (and we certainly have been citing them an awful lot lately), the public does not want the status quo; they only want the status quo when that is contrasted with Obama's plan of "reform." Versus a hypothetical plan which makes some key reforms without being so tax-hiking and freedom-retarding and job-killing, they prefer that over the status quo.

Now, as to why Cornyn must retract and heavily modify his statement, here's Allah:

“Without perhaps realizing it,” writes Ramesh Ponnuru, “Cornyn has come out for tinkering at the edges of Obamacare.” Indeed. I shudder to think what the tea party reaction will be to third-party candidacies now, but the political consequences here are less alarming than the policy consequences. Does Cornyn … not understand that the preexisting conditions exemption will also drive up premiums? If insurers can’t refuse to cover high-risk clients, that risk will need to be spread.

What Obama and the Democrats are counting on is complacency and acceptance of the new regime. This has been their goal throughout the process, and it has been their assumption that the American public will accept whatever socialistic agenda is pushed upon them. That the public may yell about a policy, but when push comes to shove, they are apathetic and sheep-like and will meekly accept the new status quo because it's too difficult to overturn it.

And, in fact, to a large extent, they're right about that. It will take serious agitation and serious advocacy to keep the public on our side and get them to reject their impulse to just take it and just go with the flow and just not rock the boat. Statements like Cornyn's are basically preemptive surrenders to this impulse, and signal to the public that the time for opposing ObamaCare is over, and now it's just time to do a little fixin'.

Not only is that bad for America, but that will lead to electoral disaster: There will be blood as Tea Party candidates rise up to denounce both parties, deeming the GOP's cowardly acceptance of the unacceptable to be unacceptable. And even guys like me, who constantly urge unity in this fight, will have to admit that the GOP's simply not worth voting for, and there is little difference between the parties, and that if we're going to lose anyway on policy and freedom and capitalism we might as well lose with a party willing to stand up and argue for our beliefs.

ObamaCare must be repealed. We can talk about starting the process over at that point, and which reforms we'd like to see, but the goal must be repeal first.

Health care has been a wedge issue for the Democrats, splitting progressives from moderates. If the GOP does not unite behind the cause of repeal and keep the majority (or at least a near-majority) of the public in the repeal-and-start-over camp, it will quickly become an even worse wedge issue for us, as moderates and the less-ideological follow the lead of surrenderists like Cornyn and the conservatives refuse to follow along. It will split the coalition in nearly half.

That can't be permitted. America can't take that.

Cornyn may be thinking it's politically more workable to try to cadge the conservatives into his meek attitude of groveling acceptance, and then, having convinced them to lie back and enjoy it, to try to recruit moderates who find they just want to move on.

It's not. His thinking is flawed; conservatives will never accept that. So his only politically-sound move is to try to keep the moderates on board with repeal. And it should, in fact, be easier to keep someone believing their previously-believed position than convincing conservatives to accept what they have never before accepted and can never accept.

And if we fail? Well, then we fail. But we're sure the hell not going to agree to surrender without a fight first.

More to Come If We Accept This: As I've said a hundred times, Obama's strategy was based upon the idea that it's easier to beg forgiveness than secure permission. That if you want to do something the public doesn't want, it's far easier to just stick them in the eye and do whatever you want and then get them to accept the fait accompli than it is to secure consent beforehand.

We can't permit Obama's strategy to be vindicated. Because he's not going to stop with health care -- he's got more "reforms" in store for his Socialistic States of America.

It used to be said that amnesty was too unpopular for even the Democrats to touch. But we have learned that the unpopularity of a bill no longer represents any bar to them. They have become unmoored from any need to answer to the people until 2010, and they believe they will game the system to insure their victory in 2010 and beyond.

However, amnesty could be opposed even in this Congress if (and again, that’s a big “if” with Lindsey Graham in the Senate) they can get forty-one votes in the Senate against it. At this point, there is at least a chance that all of the Republicans (and perhaps even Joe Lieberman?) might hang tough on that because they now they finally see the seriousness of the situation and the threat to them and all they stand for.

You might say well, what about reconciliation or the nuclear option for the Democrats to use in passing amnesty even if forty-one Republicans are against it? The nuclear option (changing the rules so that sixty votes are not needed for cloture) is only possible at the start of a Congressional session (look for it to happen, by the way, if the Republicans don’t gain control of the next Senate—and perhaps even if they do). So it could not be used until the Congress that begins after the 2010 election. As far as reconciliation goes—every bill can’t be passed through that route. It was available for HCR only because the Senate had already approved a version of the bill prior to Scott Brown’s victory—the House had to pass that version before reconciliation was allowed.

Naturally, since the Democrats are now officially a rogue party, they might start throwing away even those basic rules that remain in Congress.

"Rogue party" -- that is the perfect term. And we must stop the rogue party and not permit them to profit from their criminality.

Fudge: GOP insiders have crafted what they think is good fudge -- they will seek "full repeal" but do so "piece by piece."

There’s “nothing partial” about our repeal push, the senior Senate GOP aide told me, adding: “But it will be articulated piece by piece so our position won’t be misconstrued as walking away from the goals of reform.”

This strategy, the aide continued, “captures the significant angst of the Republican base by calling for repeal, while insulating Republicans from Democrat attacks by offering an opportunity to showcase alternatives.”

Case in point: Preexisting conditions. If Republicans pledge full repeal, they risk being painted as favoring the insurance industryÂ’s right to discriminate along these lines.

Solution: “Republicans will work to repeal the mandates forced on individuals and small businesses and replace it with market based solutions and high risk pools so that nobody will be denied coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions,” the aide says.

The strategy seems born of recognition that Republicans have a potential problem on their hands: If the public decides it likes individual provisions of the bill, as polls have suggested they will, how does the GOP satisfy the baseÂ’s demand for full repeal without looking bent on taking those provisions away from people?

I don't have much of a problem with that formulation -- as I said, reform along capitalist, market-based lines should be a goal, and must be goal -- but I fear it's a "Check is in the mail" dodge.

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (196)
Post contains 1761 words, total size 11 kb.

Remember the Democrats crowing about how kids would no longer be subject to pre-existing conditions exclusions anymore? Yeah, about that.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

It's almost as if this piece of crap was thrown together in a slipshod way. It's only 1/6 of the economy and people's lives on the line, so no need to sweat the details.

But don't worry, the administration says this isn't actually a problem and that they'll be fixing this by issuing regulations.

Laws are hard. You have to get people to agree and you have to be able to write precisely. So much better to administer things by executive fiat. I mean, what could go wrong with that?

Added: Now it can be told! With the bill safely passed, WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus says, you know, I'm not really sure this scheme is going to work. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:35 AM | Comments (318)
Post contains 722 words, total size 4 kb.

Interesting ploy they're offering. They'll reduce your principal amount by up to 30% over 5 years is you'll just please keep paying on time.

Of course there's going to be a modest balance sheet hit from doing this, but it won't be as bad a hit as pulling the trigger on a foreclosure what would move your "asset" into the "liability" column and trigger adding hefty reserves.

Will this (up to) 30% be enough to turn people away from strategic defaults? I don't know. If someone could line up alternate accommodations that were still significantly cheaper than continued paying, probably not.

It seems in the "game of chicken" between borrowers and lenders, BofA just flinched. Obviously they don't see any significant rebound rebound in housing anytime soon, or they'd not be making such offers.

It will be interesting to see how many people they get to bite. A haircut is always better than a trip to Madame Guillotine I suppose.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:20 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.