Huh. This new era of bipartisanship and cooperation is starting to look pretty one-sided, isn't it?

President Barack Obama rolled into the Capitol with a clear message for Republicans Tuesday afternoon: HeÂ’s happy to talk, but heÂ’s not compromising on tax cuts.

Obama was ready for the House Republicans to pounce, telling them: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part [tax cuts],” according to two sources in the room.

One conservative House Republican who attended the hour-long closed door session was asked if Obama was winning any votes: "Nope. He said he won't compromise on more tax cuts. All form - not substance."

House Republicans pelted Obama for more than 30 minutes with questions about deficits, taxes and spending, according to sources inside the private meeting. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), won applause from his GOP colleagues when he asked the president whether he would promise that the stimulus would not be an excuse to raise taxes or increase spending. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), asked Obama for common ground on taxes in the $825 billion package – and was rejected.

The deficit.

No, really. The same guy who wants to spend billions of dollars on useless crap like this, but takes an uncompromising stand when it comes to actually letting taxpayers keep more of what they earn.

Total cost of "stimulus" package per American family? $10,520.

This video from our friends up north does a good job illustrating what Obama's economic plans will mean for your pocketbook: more...

Posted by: Slublog at 10:36 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 291 words, total size 3 kb.

Boehner has instructed the House Republican caucus to oppose the crap sandwich.

Allah agrees this is the right policy move, but questions if it's the right political move. After all, the economy probably (hopefully) will recover, without government intervention, by the 2010 midterms; and yet the media and Democrats will claim it's all due to the stimulus. Won't that be disastrous for the GOP?

I don't think so. The GOP is will offer the argument that they were, in fact, pro-stimulus, but they wanted to temporarily cut payroll taxes and so forth. This "stimulus" is, as Mike Pence says (and I said a while ago), nothing but a "wish-list of long-standing liberal spending priorities." Most members of the public like public spending when it's spent on them specifically; but they don't like such sending when it's spent on others. This Crap Sandwich obviously is being spent mostly on "others." Even if the economy recovers in 2010, I think the Democrats will have a difficult time claiming it was only due to their efforts, or that only their particular Crap Sandwich would have worked, or that their Crap Sandwich was best and no modifications were necessary.

Even if it's not all that difficult for them to claim that -- it wasn't terribly hard for Clinton to claim vindication on his budget/spending deal of the early nineties -- at some point Republicans do have to put some small amount of faith in 1) their ideas and 2) their ability to articulate them to the public. Simply abandoning principles in favor of me-tooism won't win elections, either.

Does "Stimulus" of Any Sort Even Work? Interesting piece (well, interesting for an economics piece) from a feller at the U. of Chicago School of Business.

Via a prof at the U. of Chicago's economics department [name withheld to protect the guilty], who calls it "brilliant." Frankly I got lost halfway through and need to read it again, but maybe you can follow it.

Great Post-Partisan Uniter Announces Unwillingness to Compromise: Read my lips: No New Tax Cuts.

Ten Things I Hate About Your Stimulus Plan: Solid reasons here.

Hardly have to go past Number One:

A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig "analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut." In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.

But let's look at Number Four, too:

4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.

Gee, if only there were some way to magically put money in people's hands immediately, without even the delay of identifying a payee and writing and sending a check.

But that's just dreaming. Why, to do that, we'd have to imagine that the government was taking huge amounts of people's wealth and could immediately inject a trillion dollars into the economy by merely taking less of it. With the stroke of a pen.

Obviously, that's "magical thinking." No such scenario exists in America today.

Just Considering... Think about what a hardcore ideologue Obama must be.

Usually Democrats oppose tax cuts on two grounds: 1) they just don't like them and 2) tax cuts mean, sometimes but not always, less revenue which means less government spending, and they are big in favor of more government spending.

Obviously reason 1 is an ideological response, and a kneejerk one at that.

Reason 2 is also ideological, but at least there is some reason given to oppose tax cuts. If you prioritize government spending above everything, then of course you prioritize it higher than tax cuts.

What is interesting in the current situation is that Obama does not have to choose between cutting taxes and increasing spending. Because we are told we are on the verge of a deflationary crisis, and need to get as much money into the economy as possible, deficits be damned, Obama is in a situation that no other Democrat has been in since FDR: He can pretty much do anything he likes, and blow up the deficit as much he dares, with public support.

That means that he could easily both spend a fair amount and also offer a lot of tax cuts to really stimulate the economy. Cut the payroll taxes temporarily: Stimulate consumption.. Cut the capital gains tax rates, even temporarily: Stimulate investment.

Any tax cuts he proposes do not have to come at the expense of new spending. We're already, apparently, on a pathway to historic, budget-busting spending no matter what we do. He could just ease off on some of this enormous spending to offer some useful tax cuts to immediately inject a huge quantity of money directly into the economy.

But he won't do it. He opposes real tax cuts (as opposed to the fake welfare "tax cuts" he claims are tax cuts, which is really just cutting checks for people who don't pay taxes and calling it a "tax credit") simply because he ideologically, reflexively does not like tax cuts.

Whoah, Missed a Major Point: Tax cuts are always popular. Always.

Obama ran on them (but won't deliver). Clinton ran on them (but won't deliver).

So Obama is giving up a chance to not only put real action behind his post-partisan posturing and to genuinely stimulate an ailing economy, but to also give his popularity numbers a big boost.

He's turning all that down.

Because he's precisely the rigid soft-Marxist ideologue we always thought.

Get Me Rewrite: The CBO put out a report that only a tiny fraction of the infrastructure spending would be spent before next fall -- just 7%. And not terribly much more over the following year.

Obviously this isn't what the Congress wanted to hear.

So, shocker of shockers, the Democrat controlled CBO has quickly put out a new report, and claims now that 65$ of the total spending of the "stimulus" will be out the door by 2010, and a significantly higher fraction of the infrastructure, too.

Wow. I'm so glad the Democrats don't politicize the agencies they control.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 1108 words, total size 7 kb.

Everything is AWESOME!

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said that US intelligence estimates that Tehran halted work on its nuclear program is doubtful and that Iranian officials are eagerly working on developing nukes and other types of weapons.

"During 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb," said Mark Fitzpatrick, who serves as a senior fellow at the think tank.

Tehran's continued development of long-range ballistic missiles - able to reach targets in Israel and other parts of the Middle East - are proof the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons, according to Fitzpatrick, who made the announcement today in London at the IISS's annual meeting of global military powers.

But have no fear...diplomacy is near!

In his first television interview from the White House last night, notably to the Arab network Al Arabiya, Obama made a similar appeal to Iran.

"I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran to express very clearly where our differences are,” the president said, “but where there are potential avenues for progress. …And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Also yesterday at the U.N., U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice made some waves by saying, "We look forward to engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran."

Interestingly, from that same article Hillary sounds slightly less excited about all of this than Obama and Rice.

"There is a clear opportunity for the Iranians as the President expressed in his interview to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community," Clinton said. "Whether or not that hand becomes less clenched is really up to them. But as we look at the opportunities available to us, we're going to have a very broad survey of what we think we can do."

She added that whether the U.S. hand is extended is "really up to them [the Iranian leadership]."

Maybe it's just residual Hillary! mania but it seems she thinks the next move is Iran's where Obama and Rice seem to be saying the US will be making the first move.

Meanwhile...The spokesman for the Iranian government would like to take this moment of hope to remind you they haven't changed their mind about the Holocaust being nothing more than a "big lie".

Posted by: DrewM at 09:56 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Hey, what's done is done. There's no use in crying over spilt milk, it's water over the dam and all of that. So why bother trying to do anything about it? Clearly there's no need to wreck what's left of our economy on a fools errand, right?

Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."

NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."

Of course this all nonsense but hey, it's fun to throw it back in their Gaia worshiping faces.

Related: God still hates Al Gore.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:54 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

And not a moment too soon.

President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol this afternoon to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he's voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn't any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

In a nod to the president, Boehner did point out that this is the third time that Obama has met with Republican leaders, compared with the zero meetings they've held with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a now-familiar refrain from Republicans in the House. But Obama’s diplomacy clearly isn’t buying any votes yet.

Now things might change after Obama visits Capitol Hill today, he does have amazing powers of persuasion you know, just ask him. Still it's definitely good policy and hopefully good politics to oppose this monstrous collection of so-called 'economic stimulus'.

One other good bit of news on the so-called 'stimulus' package*, Obama told House Democrats to drop Nancy's family planning money.

A couple of hundred million saved and Nancy gets a kick in the balls? Maybe this Obama guy isn't all bad after all.

*Being out of power means we get to use so-called and 'scare quotes' whenever we want!

Posted by: DrewM at 07:34 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

The trial phase of the election contest got off to a rocky start yesterday afternoon when it was discovered that Coleman's attorneys had never been in a courtroom in their lives:

The trial on Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount stalled on its first day Monday when the judges said photocopies of 5,000 excluded absentee ballots couldn't be used as evidence because Republican Norm Coleman's campaign workers had marked on them.

The marks the campaign workers made included, in some cases, numbering or redaction of private information. After a Coleman witness admitted to the markings, Franken's attorneys objected to using them as evidence because they had been altered.

The three-judge panel hearing the case agreed and told Coleman's attorneys they would have to subpoena the original ballot envelopes instead. That could add days or more to a trial already expected to last weeks at a minimum.

"We were not prepared to go forward with any other part of the case - probably until next Tuesday," [Coleman's attorney Joe] Friedberg said.

That elicited little sympathy from the three-judge panel. "... you better have some backup witnesses," Judge Denise Reilly said.

Outside the courtroom yesterday evening, attorney Friedberg was heard to remark, "So, those guys in the robes, they were the judges, right?"

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:42 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:34 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

(And anything else you feel like yacking about.)

Wow. Things are tough all over, but when things get to this point, can the total collapse of Western civilization be far behind?

”Newspaper culture critics are an endangered species. What does this mean for Seattle artists?”

“Sheila Farr chooses her words carefully when she describes the day her job disappeared. She makes a practice of being careful with language, and this is a story she wants to get right. "Here is how it was put to me," she says, scrupulously recreating her conversation with Seattle Times higher-ups. "They were eliminating my position as art critic. The position would be gone." A fine-boned woman with a meticulous manner, fifty-seven-year-old Farr was the paper's staff art critic for eight years, and a dominant voice in the city's visual arts scene for over twenty. She is a very good art critic and she knows it. So the news she'd likely be the last staff art critic in the Times's 112-year history was a surprise.”

”As the meltdown continues, certain values become clear: the most basic of these is that breaking news is more important than anything else. This breaking-news panic is a product of Blogosphere Fear - terror that the blogs will get the story before the newspaper gets it.”

So the next time you pass by a former columnist on a street corner, holding a sign saying “will critique for food,” be sure to drop an abstract allegrorical invisible coin into their cup. They’ll appreciate the whimsical Bauhaus-inspired Dadaist/Postmodern/Deconstructionist ironic construct of the gesture, with its attendant underlying, subtle, anti-bourgeois-nationalist yet proto-nativist meaning.

Oops: Forgot to tack on the disclaimer/permission slip/overnight tipline. It's below the fold.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:38 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

The Laser Avenger.

During tests last month at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., Laser Avenger achieved its principal test objectives by using its advanced targeting system to acquire and track three small UAVs flying against a complex background of mountains and desert. The laser system also shot down one of the UAVs from an operationally relevant range.

These tests mark the first time a combat vehicle has used a laser to shoot down a UAV.

My principle test objectives involved 6 ejaculations and a cigarette.

Mission accomplished!

Of course, the present administration will treat this as just another ridiculous waste of the taxpayers money, which would be better spent on digital television coupons and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:56 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Special bonus: The Republicans who voted for him did so, they say, because this guy was as non-lunatic-left as we could hope for.

But now he's damaged, and kind of owes Obama and the liberal senators for his job.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 02:46 PM | Comments (152)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.