Where The Federal Money Goes - Then and Now

The Left loves to carry on about how defense spending is the reason why the Federal budget has such a huge deficit, but as you can see here that just isn't the case.

As a percent of the overall budget spending on defense - a core function of the federal government mind you - is at it's lowest level in over 50 years. The real issue is that medical and safety net spending has grown from a paltry 7% of the budget during the Kennedy Administration to nearly 36% today. And note that this is before ObamaCare spending starts kicking in.

Extrapolating a few years ahead you can see that the US government is on track to become a giant insurance company that happens to have a military and some government services as a sideline.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:37 PM | Comments (484)
Post contains 708 words, total size 9 kb.

Walker v. Barret, on the internet.

Robert Costa at NRO predicted (via this Hot Air post that Barrett would shift the debate from collective bargaining reforms to Walker's status as a rock star of the right. We'll see if that works.

And Bill Clinton will be campaigning for Barrett this weekend. Allah takes this to mean Democrats think they're close, or else, the thought goes, Clinton wouldn't risk his reputation on a likely failure.

I dunno. Seems like if you need a high-profile Democrat to risk some capital on a likely loss, you'd go to the guy whose elective career is over.

Star Khan Reince Priebus: "Lights Out For Obama" if Walker Prevails in Wisconsin: A lot of the marbles are riding on this one.

Posted by: Ace at 06:07 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

He still loses, 48-50. No change from the last internal "release".
His supporters try to push the other "findings" which show strong support for Barrett amongst those familiar with John Doe...but Barrett has been hammering and yammering on John Doe since...before the last poll. No change.

Public nonpartisan polling has continued to show Walker leading. The only polling impacting the perception of the race, convienently, are Barrett's and the Democratic push polls from DGA and Lake. Nate Silver, hardly a Walker enthusiast, clears the air on the left's bizarre attack on every public poll yet boast and defense of their clearly biased internals:

Dem poll shows WI-recall tied. Nonpartisan poll has Walker up 7. Relevant fact: partisan polls have a 6-point bias on average.
Yes, there's some residual chance that Barrett pulls off the upset. But don't see any reason to distrust the nonpartisan polling in WI.

Nonpartisan poll after poll after poll has given Walker at least a 5 point lead on the LV screen (his highest is +12 with We Ask America, which also had the largest sample size and smallest margin of error). Sure, Barrett's numbers could be right.
Walker could win it in a squeaker instead of the current mid-single digits. Or of course the unthinkable, but if Republicans turn their GOTV efforts up to 11 that shouldn't happen.

Final projection will be Sunday/Monday, depending on any more public polls released by the end of the weekend. Coverage for the recall results will begin one hour before the polls close in Wisconsin on Tuesday and will carry through until all results are in, sometime early Wednesday.

UPDATED TOTALS ON ABSENTEE BALLOTS (Mailed AND in-person early voting totals): 160,800.
Early in-person voting ends tomorrow, 5pm.
The alleged 30,000 a day for 13 days has failed to materialize, for what it's worth.

Total in 2010: 230,000
Total in 2008 (Democrats are aiming for high turnout): 633,000

RECAPS ON CITY BY CITY ABSENTEES
MADISON (thru Thu) 15,000 returned/in person
WAUKESHA (CITY) 3100 returned/in person
BROOKFIELD(CITY) 2550 returned/in person (3500 req so far)
MILWAUKEE (OLD NUMBERS)- 15000(through monday) returned/in person
GREEN BAY (CITY) 3700 issued 1000 more ordered (so far)

FINAL Debate link here.

Posted by: CAC at 03:13 PM | Comments (315)
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

What else could he do? After all, he is a parent with eight million children.

Eight million children incapable of deciding what they'll eat or drink.

So of course he must tell them what to eat and drink. With a Lesson called "The Law."

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

The New York Times thinks It's About Time (TM).

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

You know, we shouldn't call them "liberal" any longer. Liberal has a meaning.

They were once liberal. Now they are simply authoritarian socialists.

Posted by: Ace at 02:38 PM | Comments (351)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

I actually didn't disagree with her at the time, though I did worry that too much "vetting" could result -- possibly -- in a fractured party and a badly damaged candidate. As I supported vetting the hell out of Romney when I was on Team Perry, I couldn't really disagree that her assumed favorite, Newt Gingrich, should get his own "vetting" in.

But that reservation turns out to have been unnecessary. Romney does seem to be a stronger candidate for the "vetting."

Dick Morris observed last night, on O'Reilly, that Obama has already moved off its Bain attack to start going after Romney's record as governor.

Nothing wrong with the latter -- it's the former that's the problem. If Obama's moving off Bain, it means the issue has no traction.

Want to see what happens when an issue has traction? Check out Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Why didn't the Bain attacks go anywhere? I think it's pretty simple: Because Newt Gingrich raised the issue, vigorously (assist to Rick Perry), and the facts about Bain have already all come out. The limited "bad" (not really bad, but you could cast it that way) as well as the much more extensive good.

Stupid attack lines work best in a vacuum of ignorance. Could Lynching Fever have taken hold in the George Zimmerman case if all information about the incident were known from the start?

No. It took off because interested racial partisans and members of the Frankfurt School Left put out some very limited, selectively-chosen, and outright false information to the public. Given the vacuum of ignorance, "White man guns down black toddler holding Skittles and Iced tea" is enough to get the News Panic going.

"Hispanic man on neighborhood watch in area with lots of burglaries suspects unknown person may be on drugs or casing places, and is then beaten bloody by suspected burglar, and then shoots 6'+ man assaulting him" is a fuller presentation of the situation, and one that doesn't gain much News Panic traction.

Ignorance is the ally of deceit.

Now, we did have something of a News Panic with respect to Bain (one which I must confessed I joined in on). Ignorance was the ally of deceit, and deceits were spread, and I joined in in propagating them.

But Bain is no longer a blank slate upon which we can project our fears, as Barack Obama might say. The slate is full of information, most of it quite positive.

Romney was damaged some by the Bain attack, but he really can't be re-damaged from it. Whose minds would change upon hearing the full history of Bain, when the initial News Panic presented a much more ignorant and scary view?

Anyone susceptible to this already doesn't like Romney. There won't be any new converts, now that the attack is far weaker.

In fact, ignorance will tend to be dispelled along the way, and Romney can expect some amount of reversing of opinion on Big Bad Bain.

It gets better for Romney; it can not, it seems, get better for Obama.

For the Love of Vampire Capitalism, we have not just Cory Booker telling people Bain is a company with a good reputation, but now Obama Prototype/Dry-Run Devall Patrick praising the company. (He also confesses Massachusetts' unemployment number was "in the fours" under Romney -- he guesses 4.3%, which is very low. I think the figure is 4.7%, which is also quite low-- full employment.)

But Team Obama thought, Dick Morris believes, that Romney had a big target called "Bain" on his back, and all they needed to do was utter the word and it would be a story.

But it's not. They miscalculated. They seem to have forgotten a story can only be a Great Big Story when there are still mysteries and unanswered questions and obvious lies. Again, see Professor Pappoose about that.

When the story has already been substantially fleshed out, mostly in the target's favor, it's really not a big story anymore.

One area where Romney needs improvement is debating-- specifically, keeping his cool when attacked and jibed. Some of his worst moments came when he was challenged -- be became peevish (to use a kind word) and sort of just looked like a dick.

That's going to happen more, and Obama is of course plotting things he can say to provoke this reaction.

And while Romney is good, generally, in debate, he's not great. Smooth, competent-sounding, factual, reasonable-sounding, but not really engaged in the moment and able to quickly react to an opponent's statement and turn it on him (like Gingrich can).

Now, that's a skill Romney is simply not going to pick up -- there is a limit to the extent skills you don't have can be gained -- but he absolutely must get used to dickheads challenging him and saying dickhead things to him in public fora. I cannot stress enough this is going to happen, and it's a real weakness.

Further, it's a weakness he never really got too much practice in covering in the debates, because he did get a lot of free passes in those -- the "Romney Rivals" were always far more intent on challenging the other Romney Rivals than Romney himself.

If I were him, I'd contact three men-- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry -- and have the three of them gang-up on him and be the douchiest douches they can manage, to get Romney prepared for Obama.

And of course the three members of Obama's Palace Guard that will serve as immoderators.

As these three guys managed to raise Romney's hackles in the past, he should recruit them to de-hackle himself.

I know they often use campaign staffers as sparring partners, but this is a mistake. An employee can only challenge his boss so much, even if he's supposed to be challenging him. There's a natural reluctance there. (Rick Perry practiced with staffers and look how that turned out.)

Romney should reach out to his most vigorous harassers and ask them to perform that duty a few more times, until he doesn't have to fake being amused by Bain and Illegal Immigrant Gardner attacks any longer, but actually is amused by them, and doesn't have to fake the Reagan There You Go Again eye roll, but actually feels it.

I'd divide it like this:

Santorum: economic stuff/wealth stuff/blue-collar stuff/hypocrisy and flip flops on social issues

Gingrich: Bain/subtance-based social issue attacks from the left (Gingrich can argue anything so he's best for this)/hypocrisy/cheap debate tactics

Perry: Hypocrisy and cheap attacks like Seamus, "Horse Ballet," Illegal immigrant hypocrisy, racism against Hispanics, and an unclear view of foreign policy, general unreadiness to lead the armed forces

Something tells me that Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich might even enjoy providing this service. I think they might be rather good at telling Romney what kind of an asshole they think he is.

Posted by: Ace at 01:43 PM | Comments (258)
Post contains 1176 words, total size 7 kb.

Last Update: Scumbaggery wins. It often does. Until it doesn't.

Unresolved: Will Edwards now start dating the alternate juror he flirted with?

Gif thanks to "Rex Harrison's Hat."

Update II: I was going to leave this as the top thread until the verdict was read, but now it seems like it will be a long time before that happens.

I'm going back to blogging, and will bump this if/when a verdict is read.

...

Update: Well, rumors of a verdict were greatly overstated.

There are six counts against Edwards, and they're hung on five. They have a verdict on one (or possibly "at least one").

It looks like that Allen charge will be read after all, and the jury will have to go back to chambers and argue this out.

Though I assume the Democrats on the jury will stay firm.

They have a verdict on count 3 -- illegal contributions from Bunny Mellon in excess of $2300 (the cap). But we don't know what that verdict is.

Seems he obviously did that, no?

...

It had previously been speculated (FoxNews tells me) that this would result in a hung jury, and that an Allen Charge -- an admonition by the judge to do their duty and reach a verdict, given all the expense of the case -- would need to be read.

But they have a verdict, or, rather, several verdicts, I guess, as there are multiple charges against Edwards, involving illegal diversion of campaign money for improper purposes and conspiracy to do same.

What the Jury Asked To See: A handwritten note from Bunny Mellon stating she wanted to handle her, um, donations without government knowledge, and a check written with the notation "To save America."

Reason: I think it's the defense's argument that these moneys were just personal gifts, not campaign donations.

The check noted "To save America" indicates the moneys had a political purpose, and thus were campaign contributions, which should have been reported.

However, don't read too much into that. In the OJ case, the jurors asked to hear the testimony of the limo driver who waited for like an hour for OJ (while he was cleaning up after committing murder). This was damning evidence -- demonstrating a lack of alibi, and whereabouts unknown during/shortly after the murders.

But the jury only asked to hear that again so they could invent arguments for themselves as to why it proved nothing.

Posted by: Ace at 12:53 PM | Comments (393)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Another jobs figure is being released. Analysts guess it will be in the 133,000 to 150,000 jobs gained range, which, um, one dummy calls some kind of major improvement over last month's 115,000.

These numbers are below the replacement rate, folks. More people enter the work force (or used to, anyway) in a month than this.

There may be some expectations-gaming here, as Ed highlights one analyst saying... brace for something horrid, like 54,000.

And it gets worse.

“Nonfarm payroll has been decelerating since the beginning of 2012,” William told CNBC.com. “The probability of an acceleration of that down move is high over the next two quarters.”

The data lost positive momentum after failing to hold above the 2011 high of 251,000, and has also remained beneath a multiyear ceiling of around 340,000. During January 2012 “the loss of upside momentum triggered a DeMark exhaustion signal,” he said.

An exhaustion signal usually indicates a reversal in the trend. The DeMark Indicators are a collection of sophisticated market-timing tools created by Tom DeMark over the course of nearly 40 years in the financial industry.

“The key level that everyone in the market should be focusing on [for nonfarm payrolls] is 54,000,” William added. “I think that over the multimonth period the probability favors that we test this area and maybe move into negative territory if it is confirmed.”

The funny thing is that the media is currently saying that analysts expect 133,000 or 150,000 jobs. But if the numbers fall short of that, they'll suddenly start talking about "exceeding the 54,000 jobs predicted some."

The next two months are really Obama's last gasp. If this guy is anywhere near right, and we're entering a very very low period (after the previous period merely being very low), the election is all but over.

If it goes negative -- forget it. Forget it. Forget it.

It's done.

@rdbrewer4 linked this Barrone piece in the sidebar, asking, straight-up, if the Obama campaign guys are "kidding themselves" if they think their small-ball, client-service, silly-negative-hit campaign is going to win it for them, given that the economy is in the crapper and has been all of Obama's term.

This is what I never understood about all this "Obama is the favorite" chatter. I do not rule out the chance that Obama could win. People have won elections under bad economic conditions (FDR was reelected three times, while presiding over a depression many feel he extended and deepened).

But it's astonishing to me that anyone could imagine that someone could be favored under such circumstances -- or, even more preposterously, that Obama had the election virtually locked-up.

What could this possibly be based upon? The strong emotional bond the liberal media and DC have with Obama? Do they really imagine that the millions of lightly-partisan, results-oriented, apolitical voters out there love Obama just for being Obama, as they do?

Wouldn't it be more likely that such voters are more interested in actual facts on the ground, tangible improvements in their lives, than partisan "triumphs" like same-sex marriage and all the myriad Historical Firsts Obama lays claim to?

Do they really believe people give a shit about this?

Let me put it another way: Does the political class and media class really believe the public is more interested in the personal advancement of Barack Obama than their own advancement, as they do?

Because I don't believe that. I don't believe you need to hate Obama to agree with the proposition: I care greatly, greatly more about my own fortunes under Obama's governance than I do about Obama's personal political victories. In fact, I rather care nothing about that last one at all, except to the extent it's reflected in the former.

Meanwhile, first quarter GDP, initially estimated at a weak-pulsed 2.2%, has been revised down (shocker!) to a bleeding-out 1.9%.

The Dow Jones Economic Sentiment indicator just fell the most since 2008, and the Dow itself dropped 161 points yesterday, on concerns about Europe and the deteriorating economy.

We are now five short months before the election. The economy has been in depression (yes, depression) since Obama took office. He can make no credible case he's managed to improve it -- a Democratic pollster, Sidney Greenberg (if I recall his name correctly) says that focus-groups react hostilely to claims that the economy is recovering and doing well.

There are no signals it will improve, and now there are growing signals it will deteriorate still further.

Who exactly thought Obama would be favored, or even a near-lock, to win this election, and can the people who thought so now turn in their Prognostication Licenses now?

Rasmussen: Romney Leads Obama in Independents By Double-Digits. The overall lead is margin of error -- 46-44.

The lead with independents is 47 to 35, though.

To some extent I don't even care about polls. Polls, after all, are shaped by facts on the ground. People make choices based upon facts on the ground, which are then reflected in polls.

If you know the facts on the ground, you know the polls -- or you know, rather, what the polls will ultimately show.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (220)
Post contains 888 words, total size 6 kb.

One chant I don't hear here, but which I read was chanted, was "Five more months! Five more months!"

The primary catcalls seem to be "Where are the jobs?" and "So-Lyyyyn-dra, So-Lyyyn-dra!"

I've asked @buzzfeedben and @buzzfeedandrew to craft a consistent style guide on when it's "heckling" or "protesting" (good words) and when it's "disrupting" or "shouting down." Don't be hard on them, though, because @buzzfeedandrew actually noted the point.

I think we're going to see a lot of this, from both sides. Hold the media's feet to the fire on its terminology -- "disrupt" suggests a crime (or a near-crime; sounds like disorderly person, sounds like assailing someone's right to speak) whereas "heckling" is something everyone can enjoy at a hapless buffoon's expense.

And "protesting" is of course positive.

As the campaign season goes on, we'll see the left's disruptions consistently described as "protests" and the right's counter-disruptions described as they were in the Town Hall protests -- thuggish, possibly racist attacks on America itself.

Don't let them do it. Insist they craft a style guidance on the terminology and stick to it, consistently, and I don't mean "consistently positive when the left is disruptive, and consistently negative when the right acts up."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

In the beginning of this debate, conservatives argued the laws of marriage must be uniform across states on fundamental issues.

Nonsense, the left said. Each state (or, more accurately, each state's courts, in the main) should be free to experiment. So what if we have a crazy-quilt of differing laws? That's what federalism is all about.

Conservatives argued back that if gay marriage were permitted, courts would quickly force it upon unwilling states, with the argument that marriage benefits must travel state lines.

Nonsense, the left said. A phantasmal worry, bordering on a lie. DOMA insures that this will not happen.

Well, now the First Circuit says DOMA is unconstitutional.

Turns out that crazy-quilt patchwork the left said would work isn't going to be permitted to work. They now join the former conservative position that marriage laws must be uniform on this issue... except they insist the law must be uniformly pro-gay-marriage.

I've been arguing this for a while: If you really want a constitutional amendment, do not outlaw gay marriage. It won't pass. We've already seen the polls.

If you want an amendment, amend the constitution to say that as marriage has existed as between a man and a woman since the beginning of the Republic, no court can claim that the federal constitution or any state constitution mandates it.

Which is obvious.

This will stop the madness of courts continually writing their own law on this issue.

If it passes in a state, it passes in a state. Such is democracy, and such is federalism.

But courts have no right to claim that the authors of the Constitution, and the states which passed it into law, considered same-sex marriage a right. Obviously they did not, and it's high time the courts stopped claiming otherwise.

The Constitution is authorized to be changed by one process-- the amendment process.

There is no provision in the Constitution to add to the Bill of Rights based on the current political whims of five judges.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Double Post! Darnit, Laura beat me.

Anyway, let the double post stand.

Solyndra is racist, or something. It's a racist dog-whistle which subtly reminds racist voters of the age-old prejudice that minorities get get enough of cylinder-shaped thin-film solar panels.

Will no one call the GOP out for playing upon racist tropes like this?

"Then there's the president's policy to become a venture capitalist," Romney said Wednesday night at a campaign stop in Silicon Valley, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "That's a tough job. We've got a few venture capitalists in the audience tonight, I know. He's decided he can do it better than you guys can."

...

"Have you seen the Solyndra corporation headquarters? You probably have,” Romney asked. “That’s what happens when government puts in hundreds of millions of dollars into an enterprise. And by the way, the president doesn’t understand when you invest like that in one solar energy company, it makes it harder for solar technology generally because the scores of other entrepreneurs in the solar field suddenly lost their opportunity to get capital. Who wants to put money into a solar company when the government puts half a billion into one of its choice? So instead of encouraging solar energy, he discouraged it.”

"The president doesn't understand"? How dare you.

All that's missing from these quotes is a noose.

Comment From Bizarro: Me approve. Me plan to subsidize California plant building Giant Robots made of Kryptonite. We cannot lose Giant Kryptonite Robot race to China.

Me plan to give billionaire crony Lex Luthor $500 million to invest. If we no give Lex Luthor money, where he get money to invest?

If Giant Kryptonite Robots are success, Lex Luthor makes moneys.

If Giant Kryptonite Robots fail, we pick up cost.

This American way.

Who you trust, if you no trust Lex Luthor?

No thank you for your support,

Bizarro

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.