Seems Congressman Joe Sestak is telling supporters he's in.

Here is the text from a handwritten note to supporters:

"I am writing you as especially dear supporters to let you know I intend to run for the U.S. Senate...my candidacy's credibility will have much to do with my fundraising success by the 30 June FEC filing deadline at the end of this quarter. Would you help me bring the change for the future we Pennsylvanians need[?]"

Infantino confirms that the note is genuine and that "Joe Sestak has written a number of similar notes."

Can't wait til his website is up and running so I can donate.

Specter meanwhile is hanging out in LA with Obama hitting up his new Democratic friends for money.

Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter points out in the comments that Pat Toomey welcomes Sestak to the campaign. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:56 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Funny thing about houses and shit like that -- they make them in states other than Maryland...states with lower taxes. Some of the "rich" apparently have voted with their feet and left the workers paradise otherwise known as Maryland.

MISSION. ACCOMPLISHED.

In the on deck circle, we have NY, MA who will undoubtedly be taking some vicious swings at the "rich" too.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:08 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

She is racist, for the same reason white racists are racist; they wish to ascribe to themselves moral and intellectual and spiritual gifts that only they possess, due solely to their race and their blood.

But, of course, everyone except white people are allowed to subscribe to this "excellence lies in the blut und landes" philosophy, so she'll get a pass.

Gingrich today joined the chorus of conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who called Sotomayor a "reverse racist."

The accusations are aimed at comments Sotomayor made during a 2001 lecture at the University of California-Berkeley. Referring to former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's saying that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

On Wednesday afternoon, Gingrich wrote on Twitter: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism."

"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," Gingrich wrote.

It's pathetic when a no-account White Racist claims some less than apparent superiority based only on his blood and skin. It's even worse when a potential Supreme Court justice does so.

It's not just that Supreme Court justices shouldn't be racist.

It's that she cannot apparently conceive of any better qualification or recommendation for herself than the mundane accident of her sex and ethnicity.

Scandal! If this WSJ headline is to be believed, I'd say Sotomayor has a cronyism issue far worse than Abe Fotas did.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:30 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Huh?

Readers are pointing out this John Nolte review-of-the-review at Big Hollywood.

The reviewer sneers that this is all passe and old-hat, despite the fact that, um, I am aware of only one other show in the history of television to routinely target liberals for parody.

It's old-hat after a single other series did it? Really? For some strange reason I think the NYT reviewer might have somewhat less appreciation for the jokes than most people would. She seems to be the sort of person who will allow that one single joke about liberals is funny -- like "Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: "That's not funny!" -- and that joke, having now been told, exhausts the creative potential of the genre.

Since that joke obviously can't be topped, there's no use even trying. Time to try out a less-explored area of comedy with still-robust potential, like... say, how about making fun of conservatives? That's a fresh new idea that ought to finally be given a chance.

As MoveOn.org always tells us: It's time to move on.

Oddly though, after instructing us how dated this is (and objecting to the lunacy that anyone would doubt Global Warming now, today, in this period of ten-year global cooling), she admits...

The voice of the patriarch, Gerald Goode, an administrator at a community college where even students qualify for tenure, is provided by Mr. Judge, who could not have improved on his tone of narcoleptic earnestness if he had apprenticed for “All Things Considered.” He is exceptionally funny in the role (as he was playing Hank in “King of the Hill”), and a lot of the writing is too.

By the way, I made a joke about "moving on," liberals' go-to mantra whenever an issue comes up they'd prefer not to discuss. I wrote that before I read the end of the actual article:

But the show feels aggressively off-kilter with the current mood, as if it had been incubated in the early to mid-’90s, when it was possible to find global-warming skeptics among even the reasonable and informed. Who really thinks of wind power — an allusion to which is a running visual gag in the show — as mindless, left-wing nonsense anymore?

Mr. Judge, who remains obsessed with the absurdities of political correctness, still has his head very much in the Clinton years, and it is possible to watch “The Goode Family” feeling so thoroughly transported back to another time that you wonder where all the Monica Lewinsky jokes went. Sometimes you’ve just got to grab your cup of free-trade coffee and move on.

Huh. How on earth did I foresee that. I must be psychic or somethin'.

Hmm. 1, it apparently pisses off the New York Times, but 2, is yet funny enough that she is forced to concede this.

Well, okay. I've got nothing to do tonight anyhow.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh that Joe!

When Biden's teleprompter failed, he poked fun at Obama, who's known for relying on teleprompters for his speeches.

"What am I going to tell the president? Tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?" Biden joked.

I'm thinking right about now Obama is wishing he had selected anyone (including well known mental defective Sarah Palin) other than Scranton Joe. On the other hand, I think ol' Joe, God love him, is the best thing about this administration.

Meanwhile, late night comedy writers are still pretty damn sure there's nothing amusing about Obama.

(via Marc Ambinder)

Posted by: DrewM at 09:26 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Ten percent inflation over ten years will help Obama out of the mess he's made for us without curing it; the dollar's value will be cut in half, and everything will cost twice as much.

Second article here.

A government debt burden of that [100 per cent] level, if sustained, would in Standard & Poor's view be incompatible with a triple A rating," as the risk rating agency stated last week.

I believe the risk posed by this debt is systemic and could do more damage to the economy than the recent financial crisis. To understand the size of the risk, take a look at the numbers that Standard and Poor's considers. The deficit in 2019 is expected by the CBO to be $1,200bn (€859bn, £754bn). Income tax revenues are expected to be about $2,000bn that year, so a permanent 60 per cent across-the-board tax increase would be required to balance the budget. Clearly this will not and should not happen. So how else can debt service payments be brought down as a share of GDP?

Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth - probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession.

The fact that the Federal Reserve is now buying longer-term Treasuries in an effort to keep Treasury yields low adds credibility to this scary story, because it suggests that the debt will be monetised. That the Fed may have a difficult task reducing its own ballooning balance sheet to prevent inflation increases the risks considerably. And 100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 100 per cent depreciation of the dollar. Americans would have to pay $2.80 for a euro; the Japanese could buy a dollar for Y50; and gold would be $2,000 per ounce. This is not a forecast, because policy can change; rather it is an indication of how much systemic risk the government is now creating.

On top of that: I don't believe one can simply decide to inflate by 100%. Money is worth precisely what people think it's worth -- and if they are shocked by a sudden devaluing of their cash, they might decide it's worth less than the targeted half-value the government has decided upon. After all, the government can always decide to devalue it still further, right? And the government isn't candid about these plans.

And the fun continues:

The Oxford-educated Mr Fisher, an outspoken free-marketer and believer in the Schumpeterian process of "creative destruction", has been running a fervent campaign to alert Americans to the "very big hole" in unfunded pension and health-care liabilities built up by a careless political class over the years.

"We at the Dallas Fed believe the total is over $99 trillion," he said in February.
"This situation is of your own creation. When you berate your representatives or senators or presidents for the mess we are in, you are really berating yourself. You elect them," he said.

His warning comes amid growing fears that America could lose its AAA sovereign rating.

I think the AAA rating is gone -- its passing is as foreordained as a boring eight-guitar jam at the end of a Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame Ceremony -- and we're looking at worst possibilities than that.

Is the recession maybe drawing to a close?

A survey of 45 top economists concludes that the recession will probably end by the second half of this year. But the poll from the National Association of Business Economics also suggests the economy will stay soft and the labor market won't improve until next year.

Those surveyed believe the U.S. economy is showing signs of stabilizing.

Chris Varvares, the association's president, says the survey contains good news. "We do expect economic growth to turn positive," he says, "and the pace of jobs losses is expected to narrow sharply over the remainder of this year, with job gains returning in early 2010."

But Varvares says the rebound won't be as strong as it normally is after a deep recession.

The survey suggests the economy will grow by a weak 1.2 percent during the second half of the year and that unemployment will continue to climb to 9.8 percent by the end of the year.

My answer: No, it's not over. The economy is driven partly by psychology. In the current situation, people have gotten over their initial "oh my God we're going to lose everything" panic, and they are now into their "This feels about the right length for a recession; things should be getting better now" phase.

Psychology usually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Economies improve partly because people expect them to.

But.

People expect the economy to improve because in the past it historically has after a year or so. The problem is that, in this case, the government has been doing what it historically hasn't previously done before -- it's pursuing decidedly anti-growth and anti-recovery policies.

The economy will most likely improve a bit, largely due to psychology. But people will expect a positive feedback -- they'll expect greater improvements, thus affirming their initial notion that the economy was due to mend.

But those expected additional improvements will not come, because Obama and the Democrats have been pursuing policies well-nigh expressly designed to sabotage the chance of such improvements.

And thus, people's nascent hopes having been dashed, they'll fall into a fresh funk of pessimism and futility, and a new recession will begin.

That's sort of what happened during the Great Depression, several times. The economy would improve a bit for a time, then there would be a new crash and new spike in unemployment. Japan, I'm imagining, saw this happen a lot during its Lost Decade. That light was frequently at the end of the tunnel, and yet... the end of the tunnel kept moving further and further away. As happens during nightmares.

I believe Dick Morris is right on this point: Obama's policies are doomed to fail, whether we "hope" he fails or not. The question really isn't whether Republicans will claw their way back to power; they will.

But that's almost a trivial concern. The problem is what sort of an economy we will wind up inheriting from Obama. And bear in mind Obama has been considerate enough to use up all of the typical bullets fired into a recession, handing an empty gun to his successors.

It also doesn't really matter whether we put forward moderate or conservative candidate, at least in terms of getting them elected. When the next shoe drops -- whether it's before the 2010 midterms or after -- Republicans are going to pick up a lot of seats. Because the election will not be about us at all; it will be a referendum on Obama and Liberalnomics.

That being the case, we might as well start pushing more conservative candidates.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1246 words, total size 8 kb.

Damn these problems Obama inherited from Bush.

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

"These are staggering numbers," Lynch says.

Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

"It's one of the drivers of the ongoing expansion of the federal budget deficit," says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.7 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009.

The other deficit driver is government spending, which, the AIER's report says, is the main culprit for the federal budget deficit.

The White House thinks that tax revenue will increase in 2011, thanks in part to the stimulus package, says the report from AIER, an independent economic research institute. But it warns, "Even if that does happen, the administration also projects that government spending will be so much higher each year that large deficits will continue, and the national debt held by the public will double over the next 10 years."

As Obama's policies will not improve the economy, but retard it, we're actually looking at a long-term depression in economic activity and tax revenues, plus all of the spending on top of that.

Plus, nationalization of health care. Which, um, will save us money. Or something.

There's an old joke people tell when they make big, luxury purchase. They know they probably shouldn't have bought it, but they wanted it, and they claim, jokingly, they came out ahead on the deal because the luxury purchase was on sale. "Gotta spend to save!" the joke goes.

Obama apparently doesn't realize this is, in fact, a self-effacing joke. He believes it's sound economic doctrine.

Thanks to Stacy.

Heh:

Obama cuts taxes!

Posted by: New York Times Headline Dept.

Posted by: Ace at 08:23 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

In China.

The pusher was arrested. Asked why he'd done this, he said he was sick and tired of "selfish behavior."

He also said he was a fan of Maltin Liggs. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:49 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

it won't happen. Obama promised that no one making under $250,000 would pay an additional dime in tax (and some conservatives, striving for accuracy, say he probably meant income taxes; the quote itself, however, is more expansive and does not limit itself to income taxes).

So this is obviously untrue.

Those crazy tea-partiers who said Obama was going to raise their taxes. What lunatics.

Once Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

It's odd, isn't it, that the media refuses to note the obvious -- Obama's wild spending has jeopardized our finances -- except obliquely, as here, in an article debating how to fix the problem.

But note they do not highlight the problem itself, nor suggest possibilities that do not involve raising taxes. Such as, I don't know, simply stopping spending so damn much and putting Obama's even bigger coming spending programs on hold.

They will only admit the problem, in other words, in service of advancing their other political priorities -- raising taxes being high on the list.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 07:42 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

I just can't buy this -- if true, it's politically suicidal, even with the media on his side covering for him.

And it's not that I don't think that Obama is capable of this -- I just think that he'd only do this if the political advantage to be gained was commensurate with the exposure and downside. I don't see that here.

Still, as Allah says: Hmmmm.

Here's a dilemma for conservatives. The MSM will not investigate any of these claims, ever. So what is a conservative to do? If a conservatives admit that this line of inquiry seems unlikely to turn up malfeasance, the MSM uses such statements as pretexts to not bother to even check, and uses such statements against conservatives who are agitating for additional investigation -- "Even conservatives think this is unlikely, so you guys are obviously crazy..."

Of course I want this looked into, of course. It's my guess it's a non-story, not my expert opinion.

But the MSM is so ridiculously biased that they make honesty a dangerous and politically counterproductive business.

The only way to even get the MSM to do their jobs and take a look is to pressure them by claiming Worst Scandal Eveh, even if we don't all necessarily buy that. But we have to claim that in order to spur any sort of media interest whatsoever. (That interest, of course, coming in the form of stories like Conservatives Now So Crazy They Think Obama Is Closing Chrysler Dealerships for Political Advantage, which isn't exactly the headline we seek, but that's the best we can hope for from the MSM.)

Hmmmm... One "protected" dealership is co-owned by a former Clinton official and Black Entertainment Television bigwig.

Oh, and their local competition was eliminated, through having their franchises terminated.

Hmmmm...

Another Possibility: A commenter suggests that this may have come out not by specifically targeting "enemies" but by specifically sparing allies.

Same result, of course -- because Republican donors aren't getting the Special Mercy of the Emperor, the closed dealerships will skew Republican. And still every bit as corrupt. But it's more understandable how the corruption unfolds via that path -- it's more like the typical sort of corruption.

Frankly, I don't see the need to close these dealerships at all. Chrysler itself makes money by selling the most cars possible. Now, if there are too many local dealerships for the dealerships to be profitable... well, so what? That's the dealerships' problem -- Chrysler still has an interest in selling the most cars possible, even if its dealers are in cutthroat competition with one another.

So I do wonder how this big plan got off the ground at all. It sounds like a case of special pleading from dealers, who wanted their competition eliminated, having nothing much to do with Chrysler's viability.

Every optician (just for an example) would dearly love the government to limit the number of opticians operating in his area... so long as he is one of the ones permitted to practice his trade. The whole point of the government forcing people to obtain licenses is to limit competition. The in-group pushes for these measures; the outsiders resist it, as they are of course the ones specifically targeted for extinction by these laws.

I have no idea when, exactly, it became the government's business to limit competition among car dealers. But no one should be surprised if the process turns out to be corrupt -- because the whole purpose was corrupt from the beginning.

Whether this particular charge is true or not (and I'm actually now thinking maybe it is), this sort of thing is going to happen more and more in Obama's AmeriKKKa, because he's pushing government power -- and therefore corrupt government favor and corrupt government punishment -- into every nook and cranny of American economic activity.

The more opportunities for abuse = the more abuse.

On top of that, he's an easily distracted buffoon who doesn't seem at any particular risk of developing a nervous disorder due to working too hard. So his vigilance over the tremendous new opportunities for corruption will be almost nonexistent.

Posted by: Ace at 06:31 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 696 words, total size 5 kb.