She continues placing big bets on her mentally retarded tactics, this time claiming Anita Perry once worked for Merck.

Which she really hadn't. As a lobbyist in the nineties (a job she retired from, to avoid conflict-of-interest) she had worked for a firm that did some lobbying work for Merck on... osteoporosis screening.

Perry worked for MEM Hubble in the early Nineties, but left when her husband ran for lieutenant governor, Miller says, "so there wouldn't be any appearance of conflict." But to the Dems and to some of Miller's competitors in the business, that "conflict" had existed long before Rick Perry ran for lieutenant governor. "The scuttlebutt," explains one Democratic insider, "was that Miller had HMO clients and, hey, wasn't it interesting that Anita Perry worked for him." The assumption, of course, was that Perry was either lobbying for Miller's clients on the sly, or that the mere association of the lieutenant governor's wife with Miller's firm carried sufficient force to influence votes in the Legislature.

Miller vehemently denies both charges. "That's bullshit," he says. "I can tell you unequivocally that she did no lobbying for me. That would have been bad for me and bad for my business. It would have looked like I was trading on her." Miller insists that Perry's work was limited to health care consulting for such clients as Riverside General Hospital, an African-American hospital in Houston that took a PR beating in the early Nineties for allegedly mismanaging more than $1 million in state and federal funding. Another client, the pharmaceutical company Merck, enlisted Perry's expertise in launching a public education campaign for osteoporosis screenings, according to Miller. And finally, Miller says, Perry studied the health aspects of air pollution for another Miller Client, Tejas Testing, a company that had secured the state contract to perform tailpipe emissions testing throughout Texas. The program -- and Tejas -- died in 1995 at the hands of Houston Sen. John Whitmire, who mounted a relentless campaign to kill the mandatory-testing program.

So, Bachmann continues with the below-the-belt sorts of attacks.

Meanwhile, since she's engaging in such attacks:

Her husband's "Christian Reparative Counseling" service receives government money via Medicaid, $137,000 since 2005.

Conflict of interest? Well honestly I would have just chalked it up to people having connections to the state dole, which is all but unavoidable when the state is so large and so frequently intersects with economic and medical interests, but since Michele Bachmann thinks this is a big deal, let's have it on the conservative record: Her husband makes a good deal of his money from Medicaid, easily the most waste-and-abuse-prone spending program out of the big three entitlements.

Further, he took another $161,000 from the state of Minnesota.

Further, Michele Bachmann was less than forthright about these payments.

While Rep. Michele Bachmann has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.

The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request.

...

The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband's clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann's public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment.

Questions about the Bachmann family's receipt of government funds arose this week after a Los Angeles Times story reported that a family farm in which Michelle Bachmann is a partner had received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

When asked by anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the story's assertion that her husband's counseling clinic had also gotten federal and state funds, Bachmann replied that it was "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn't help our clinic."

At another point, she said, "My husband and I did not get the money," adding that it was "mental health training money that went to the employees."
Read more reporting by Michael Isikoff in 'The Isikoff Files'

But state records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota's Medicaid program every year for the past six years...

Another state official, Patrice Vick, communications manager for the Human Services Department, said she was puzzled by Michelle Bachmann's assertion on the broadcast that the funds under the state grant went to employees. While the grant was to train employees to help them treat chemical dependency, the money did not go directly to those being trained, she said. "It went to the clinic," Vick said.

Her husband is obviously a crony of hers, and he's receiving an awful lot of money from the federal and state government, and she doesn't seem to like to admit this fact, contriving stories of payments being "one-time" affairs and only going to her husband's employees.

Plus, the guy does pray-the-gay-away stuff. I don't have a problem with that in theory, even though I figure such programs are successful about 5% of the time, because I support anyone's right to not be gay if they so desire.

The liberals get to be big bullies on this point, insisting that someone who has gay tendencies must be gay, and it is some kind of forgoing of a Holy Destiny if they wind up not being so gay.

So, from my point of view-- if someone wants to not be gay, fine, let them try. But be aware that it is not "common" for heterosexuals to question their sexual orientation -- pretty much that "questioning" only happens among gays. And gays tend to be, ultimately, gay, and any claim to the contrary is simply false.

Marcus Bachmann, however, seems to think that "curiosity" towards homosexuality is a relatively common thing.

Question: Today The Wall Street Journal came out with an article, "What do you say when your teenager is gay?" What do you say to Christian parents who come up with this?
Bachmann: Well, I think you clearly say, what is the understanding of God's word on homosexuality. And I think that this is no mystery that a child or pre-adolescent, particularly adolescents, will question and wonder about sexuality. That's nothing new under the sun since the beginning of time. But I don't think we should take that as, because we wonder or we think or we question, does that take us down the road of homosexuality --

Question: Could you add the word experiment to that?

Bachmann: Well, certainly, there's that curiosity. But again, we, like, you know, it is as if we have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. And just because someone feels it or thinks it, doesn't mean that we're supposed to go down that road. That's what's called the sinful nature. And we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps.

Eh, maybe he needs to claim that in order to work his Not-Gay magic on patients. That is, maybe he has to overstate how common homosexual tendencies are in order to offer hope (of the false type) that many people have such tendencies but just decide to be straight.

Even if that's the case, it's quackery. Most people never, not even once, "question" their sexuality or experience "curiosity" or "confusion" on this issue.

This is what gay people do. Because they're gay.

And yet he's taking government money while he tells the world that lots of teenagers find themselves unsure about which sex they're attracted to.

There are a couple of ironies here: 1, that Bachmann's super-PAC is "Keep Conservatives United," which, as a coblogger noted, is a case of Ur doin it wrong.

And 2-- eh, one's enough.

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (513)
Post contains 1413 words, total size 9 kb.

I assume that during the day, when they pretend a little more to be a news network (but, FYI, they're not), they've mentioned it.

On the Full On Liberal Messaging Cocoon that is their nighttime lineup, though, not a peep. Not a single utterance, for three weeks.

When Jon Stewart attacked Crossfire as being all about conflict and controversy, he missed the main point of it, and why I had (long ago) watched it: It was the only place to hear the Right's point of view on an issue, and often it was the only place you would even hear of some issues -- because the monolithically liberal media had decided that these issues should not even be mentioned publicly.

Yes, the show featured shouting and uncouth behavior of the sort that Jon Stewart and David Brooks so fret about. But the only place the liberal media would even permit conservatives to speak was on that sort of an entertainment-of-confrontation program.

MSNBC is not qualitatively different than CNN and the networks, despite the latter's self-flattery that they are qualitatively different. MSNBC is simply CNN and the networks taken to their logical conclusion.

A difference in degree but not a difference in kind. If CNN and the networks could get away with not mentioning Solyndra, they would.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Gee, it's almost like a friend of the administration had a hand in drafting the law proposal vague noodling with stick figures and imaginary numbers.

The very rich pay a smaller effective tax rate than some wage-earning poorer folks primarily for two reasons:

1, the bulk of their income is derived from capital gains.

2, much of their income is derived from tax-free state and municipal bonds.

Let's look at both of those. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate for a couple of reasons, the most frequently-cited one being that capital investments lead very directly and efficiently to higher economic activity (more jobs, and ergo more tax revenue) and so we wish to encourage these.

The only way to prevent a Warren Buffett type from paying less in taxes on his capital gains is to jack up the capital gains tax rate (or impose an Alternate Minimum Tax on millionaires, which would have the exact same effect).

State and municipal bonds pay much lower rates of returns than other bonds. So why do people buy them? It's not that they're particularly safe -- many corporations have equivalent or better credit ratings, and in fact right now a great many municipalities, and a handful of states, may default.

They pay such low rates, and have eager buyers, because their rates of return, while low, are tax free, meaning the effective actual rate of return is higher. If you earn 3% from a municipal bond but it's tax free, that's the same as (I'm simplifying here; I don't do math) 6% from a corporate bond in which you're being taxed at 50%.

This is, of course, a boon to states and municipalities, who can borrow money and pay dirt-cheap rates of return for it.

Now, if Obama was serious about making sure "millionaires and billionaires" would pay at least, say, 30% in taxes on all income, he could impose some kind of millionaires ATM.

However, doing so would mean that municipal bonds were no longer attractive at such low rates (you'll wind up paying that Alternate Minimum Tax, defeating the whole purpose of holding low-rate but tax-free bonds in the first place) and the cost of investing in capital would go up as well.

What havoc this would play with the economy, who knows.

Fortunately, however, Obama is not, apparently, at all serious about a Buffett Rule. If he were, he might endeavor to make certain the so-named rule would actually hit Warren Buffett.

In fact, he's just calling a series of unrelated and non-Buffet-targeting tax hikes, previously proposed and previously rejected, a "Buffet Rule," and hoping you won't notice.

This is not an economic plan; it's an electioneering plan. This isn't about thousands of jobs, but instead only dozens: Barack Obama's and his staff's.

Thanks to spongeworthy.

Spelling Corrected... "Buffett," not "Buffet" as I kept writing.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

A survey finds that 30 percent of small businesses intend to drop employee health care plans and punt them into the exchanges. They'll pay a fine (actually a tax, but it's only a tax when Obama wants it to be), but the fine is smaller than than the cost of health insurance, so, you do the math.

The CBO had guestimated only 7% of businesses would do this. Whoops, sorry I completely destroyed the health care system in America.

Howard Dean pimps this as a good thing -- he likes the idea that almost all of us will be on government insurance, and also, as a matter of economics, he claims this will reduce costs for small businesses and therefore help them.

The latter may be true, but this is an odd case of Democrats taking benefits away from employees in order to make businesses more profitable and then applauding their own move.

The only way this makes sense as an liberal agenda item is if there is some secret plan to make the government the single payer for all health insurance. As if ObamaCare is some kind of Trojan Horse for Britain-style national health insurance.

But that's just silly. It's not like the chief architect of ObamaCare, Jacob Hacker, said ObamaCare was not even a Trojan Horse for single-payer, because it was too obviously evident to be considered a "Trojan Horse" at all.

If it's this obvious, you can't accuse them of a cunning deception a la Odysseus, can you? more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

I should never have posted that. I was annoyed -- annoyed by a poll -- and reacted in exactly the same way I criticize others for doing, by saying "I don't believe in polls."

It really was baiting and stupid of me to do that.

Apologies for such a weak, and emotion-spawned, post.

Now here's that link again, without so much baiting or whining: Palin gains on Obama, pulls within five.

It is, however, a fact that 5% of all polls yield results well outside the margin of error. Since this is the only poll to show Palin within 5 (or even within single digits), I don't believe the poll until someone else finds the same thing.

The Perry erosion I believe a little more -- it's been a not-terrific two weeks for him.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (158)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

I would think this was a photoshop, except it comes from MSNBC.

Posing for a group photo with the Open Government Partnership at the UN, Obama raises a hand to wave, obscuring the face of the guy next to him.

Thanks to Ronsonic.

Posted by: Ace at 09:15 AM | Comments (173)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Although I live here I don't follow local politics closely so I can't comment on this as much or in as much depth as I'd like. So I half-assed it!

NYT takes a look at JB's second round in destroying governing California.

Jerry Brown ran for governor on the argument that his age and experience was what California needed to rescue it ...

... he appears bewildered and stunned by how much Sacramento has changed since he first served.

Mr. Brown has told friends he was unprepared for the extent ... to which Republicans have not made sufficient efforts to accommodate him ... like putting on the ballot measures to extend taxes to avoid budget cuts.

Seriously? He thinks that in today's climate Repubs will accede to tax hikes? Note that the suriviving Repubs in the state legislature are the most conservative ones - the middle of the roaders got eaten up by Dems. (similar to the House in the 2010 bloodbath - only in the other direction)

... he has found that approaches that once worked - inviting Republicans to dinner rather than attacking them, offering measured concessions on issues like pension cutbacks and spending, trying to rally public support for what he described as balanced proposals - were no longer effective.

You Schmooze, You Lose. The Dems sure made that crap work with Arnie. They buttered him up like a Thanksgiving turkey. And feasted on him.

Balanced! I bet it's the same balance Obama offers - tax hikes now, spending cuts... later. Maybe.

Republicans strongly disputed Mr. Brown’s view that they have been intransigent ... Brown was unwilling to give on issues like pension cutbacks or spending caps because of allegiance to labor unions. They said he failed to appreciate how strongly they saw taxes as a threat to the economy.

"The governor needs to stop making excuses and get the job done ... I think he actually thought he could operate the same he did when he was governor last time: Strictly pick off votes. This is a different culture."

The Repub survivors have spine.

Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Legislature, state law requires a two-thirds vote on tax bills.

I dimly recall that was put in place by voter proposition.

"The Republicans are far less engaged and independent than they were 30 years ago," Mr. Brown said. "The Republicans then were very independent. Everything was not a party-line vote."

Back then, they rolled over. And that's how we got in this mess.

He (Brown) invoked the National Legion of Decency ... describing what he said was the decisive power exercised over Republicans by four forces: by anti-tax leaders here and in Washington, by a conservative radio talk show in Los Angeles, and a conservative Web site.

"Any two of those can stop any bill in the Legislature where Republicans are needed," Mr. Brown said. Republicans, he added, "basically work for them."

Wow! Talk Radio and a Blog. It's A New Effin' World!

Do you know what blog he's talking about? Lemme know, I'll update this. (ExPFCWintergreen says it's The Flash Report.)

_{^{Also, I tweet at @ComradeArthur}}

(posted from draft by DrewM.)

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:21 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

The Fed is expected to make some sort of announcement this morning, and the chatter is that it will be big. QE3? Something else? I’m still a skeptic about QE3, but it’s obvious that Bernanke is feeling a lot of political heat -- and not just from the Obama Administration, but from world markets. The consensus opinion is that the Fed will engage in “Operation Twist” -- rolling their huge backlog of short-term securities into longer (10-year) bonds and thereby driving down yields there. The thinking is that this will in turn prompt investors to put their money elsewhere in a restless search for better yields. However, I am skeptical about this because the evidence so far is that investors are in a very “risk off” mood, and lowering yields on longer bonds the way they have on shorter ones (all the way down to zero) will simply have bad long-term effects with few (or any) short-term gains. Monetary policy is played out; only fiscal policy can turn things around now, but nothing is likely to happen on that front until after the 2012 elections. Which may be why Bernanke is getting a tad panicky: a whole year of sideways drift in the thrall of a double-dip recession and possible financial collapse in Europe stokes his deflationary nightmares.

Thomas Sowell weighs in on the "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" thing.

The fundamental problem of Social Security is that the irresponsible way its finances are set up, and the changing demographics of the country, mean that there is simply not going to be enough money in its trust fund to pay todayÂ’s young people what they are legally entitled to when the time comes for them to retire.

The money is just not there, some of it having been spent for unrelated purposes. Making up a growing shortfall — as baby boomers stop paying into the system as they retire and start drawing money out of the system — would mean ever-increasing burdens on taxpayers that taxpayers are unlikely to put up with.

Paul Ryan on SS: Yeah, itÂ’s a Ponzi scheme. Maybe not criminal, but a Ponzi scheme nonetheless. (SS is the third rail of politics? Not any more.)

What comes after Europe? IÂ’ve already gone into that: The Humongous.

What comes next is the explosion of the European project. Given what European leaders have made of that project over the past 30-odd years, it's not an altogether bad thing. But it will come at a massive cost. The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Parties of the fringe will gain greater sway. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued. Countries will choose decay over reform. It's a long, likely parade of horribles.

ObamaÂ’s ignorance about basic economics is very much of a piece with the rest of his Presidency, alas. Like many powerful men through the ages, he has fallen prey to the idea that he can simply wave his hand and cause the tides of history to shift.

Economics: one of those academic fields in which repeated failure is no bar to great success.

Obama cares about jobs. Union jobs. Others? Not so much.

CaliforniaÂ’s public pension battles will be fought in city halls all over the state.

Merck is the next company to contemplate layoffs in the 10K range. They employ a lot of people in Philadelphia, so that's going to put a hell of a hurt on the local economy.

Granholm: “Let my personal failure and ineptitude act as a beacon to all those who wish to piss away taxpayer money and flout the wishes of the electorate!” Detroit is a fitting symbol for that clueless git.

Class warfare and the rule of law.

[T]hose earning less than $250,000 still have to someday find a willing buyer for the assets they wish to sell, and those assets are going to be a lot less attractive to most individuals, funds and other institutional investors — a.k.a. the market — if they’re taxed at 30-odd percent instead of 15 percent.

The Democrats are declaring war on everybody’s investments here, not just Joe Millionaire’s. Look for major institutional investors, private-equity types, and even venture capitalists — a.k.a. the financial lifeblood of a modern economy — to start seeking friendlier tax environments abroad. Nobody has to have an office on Wall Street any more.

Your stimulus dollars, hard at work on vital issues facing our nation.

End the tyranny of the Keynesians!

The British “tea party” movement seems to be gaining ground. Not a moment too soon.

The IMF, always masters at stating the obvious too late to do anyone any good, warn about a global slowdown in growth.

I don’t know why so many observers keep acting shocked that Obama refuses to move to the political center. He is a leftist ideologue in blood and bone, not a chummy moral lout like Clinton was. He will speak soothing platitudes to the public when he must, but his vanity is as great as his ineptitude. He will never admit that he is wrong, or that he must share power. He truly believes that his is the Imperial Presidency; he is outraged that he can be hindered by his political opponents. It is obvious that he does not consider the Legislative branch to be his co-equal in power, but rather a group of lackeys to be ordered about like house-servants. It offends him to be disagreed with -- so sure is he of his essential correctness, of his righteousness, that he conflates political disagreement with treachery. He will “compromise” only when forced to do so, and then only grudgingly.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:47 AM | Comments (333)
Post contains 980 words, total size 8 kb.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:31 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans.

Only Romney actually beats Obama, and only by a little, 46-44.

One poll. Every once in a while one is just plain wrong.

Posted by: Ace at 06:24 PM | Comments (410)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.