Justice Ginsburg Stays Chrysler Sale
— Gabriel Malor

There was a bunch more activity on this over the weekend, which I neglected to post about. (A good roundup of information is here.) The short version is that the Second Circuit approved the sale. It was to go through after 4pm today...but several petitioners, including the Indiana pension plans, appealed to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.

Justice Ginsburg is the justice who gets the stay motions from the Second Circuit. Just minutes before the 4pm deadline, she issued a temporary stay.

What happens now? She decides whether to grant the stay until the full Court gets a chance to look at the petition.

Keep in mind that this is only temporary and this is the very last appeal. It would take the votes of five justices to actually stop the deal from going through. I'm not holding my breath that the Court is ready to stand up to the blatant power grab of the Obama Administration.

The hold-up could be as simple as one justice writing to dissent from the denial of stay. On the other hand, it could be the justices wanted more time to examine the issues. We won't know until the Court bestirs itself and that could be any time.

The only true deadline of interest is June 15. That's when Fiat has the option of backing out.

Thanks to Mike S. for the tip.

From that SCOTUSblog link above, I'll tell you what Ginsburg may find more pursuasive than the Indiana pensions:

A third application to delay the Chrysler sale has been filed at the Supreme Court, on behalf of a woman who is suing Chrysler for damages, claiming that her husband died from lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos while working on auto brakes. Her lawsuit in state court in California will be scuttled if the sale occurs, she argued.

It has the hallmarks of a Ginsburg grant: (1) woman; (2) in distress; (3) man (or The Man) to blame.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:32 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Palin: If He's So Smart and I'm So Dumb, How Come I'm So Right and He's So Wrong?
Update: Rasmssen Now Shows GOP Ahead by Six on the Economy
— Ace

On Hannity tonight, Palin tells America I told you so.

PALIN: America is digging a deeper hole and how are we paying for this government largesse. We’re borrowing. We’re borrowing from China and we consider that now we own sixty percent of GENERAL MOTORS – or the U.S. government does… But who is the U.S. government becoming more indebted to? It’s China. So that leads you to have to ask who is really going to own our car industry than in America.

HANNITY: You know but it goes back - It does go back a little to the campaign. I mean, ‘spread the wealth, patriotic duty…’

PALIN: Kind of a ‘we told ya so’.

HANNITY: Well, is that how you feel?

PALIN: That’s how I feel! I feel like… and I think that more and more constituents are going to open their eyes now and open their ears to hear what is really going on and realize ok… Maybe we didn’t have a good way of expressing that, or articulating that message of ‘here is what America could potentially become if we grow government to such a degree that we cannot pay for it and we have to borrow money from other countries, some countries that don’t necessarily like America.

And this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead Sean it is the complete opposite. ItÂ’s expanding at such a large degree that if Americans arenÂ’t paying attention, unfortunately our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize.

HANNITY: Socialism?

PALIN: Well, that is where we are headed.

A bit more at Drudge.

Palin needs some rehabilitation, and this is pretty much the best kind. All of the people who called her dumb -- including, notably, Obama's cheering section in the media -- seem to have been wrong and she seems to have been right.

And the country is starting to notice, finally, as Gallup reports a bare majority (51%) now disapprove of Obama's handling of spending and the deficit.

Allah notes that those are still good numbers for Obama -- considering the astounding level of his spending, with deficits hitherto undreamed of. Certainly the public has never blessed such levels of spending before with approval; so why the relatively high level of support now?

There are a lot of reasons for that, including the media's hiding of the real story from the public and the public's demand to give the president they voted for every possible chance, but a big factor must be that these numbers are so large the public is only recently beginning to grasp them.

The public is conditioned to assume things about the working of government: Critically, that no matter who's running the government, the pendulum will only swing a small amount between capitalism and a European-style welfare state. That, basically, one party will only go, say, 10% to the right or left.

Because, historically, that has been pretty much the limit of presidential nudging. Reagan went a bit farther, and Bush, arguably, almost as far as Reagan, but as a general matter presidents don't change things that much. They tend to correct for what the public perceives as the excesses of past administrations of the opposing party. Did Reagan and Bush the Elder go too far towards capitalism? Okay, well here comes Clinton to push it a bit back to the left.

This is generally a fair assumption, and probably what the public expected they'd be getting in an Obama administration. Obama presented himself as a moderate, and the media fell over itself to vouch for him on that score -- even going so far as to "vet" private citizens such as Joe the Plumber who dared to suggest otherwise.

And since then the media has continued flacking for Obama.

So the public has been mostly assuming that Obama's policies, while a change in direction, were just a small but needed correction the other way. And they haven't bothered looking at the actual numbers, because they've been comfortable in their assumptions and haven't questioned the tale the media is telling them.

As the Dan Aykroyd character in Tommy Boy says, "What the general public doesn't know is what makes them the general public.'

But it seems that the general public is finally getting savvy to the idea that these budgets aren't just large, aren't just "what Bush did too," and aren't merely "a little worse than Bush." They are entirely unprecedented, except for a brief period during the Second World War.

I am closer to Ed's sanguine take on this than Allah's more cautious one. The public has never before embraced such outsized deficits. It should be noted that when deficits got large (but not nearly this large) in the late eighties and early nineties, deficit-control became a huge issue in the 1992 presidential campaign, inspiring the candidacy of Ross Perot, who secured a huge level of support for a third-party candidate. And Bill Clinton managed to win largely on his promises to control spending and reduce the deficit.

Only the economy, then in recession, was a bigger issue. (Well, the country was recovering from a recession, actually, but the general public didn't know that; which is what makes them the general public.)

And Republicans promised likewise in 1994, as part of the Contract with America, and were swept to a historic victory.

So, in 1992-1994, when the deficits were not nearly as large, the public reacted with such vehemence that they voted out the party controlling the presidency and the party controlling the Congress. They cleaned house. Old-school.

Obama does still have the recession on his side, as he can claim that he didn't have much to do with it. But as has been said again and again, this dispensation is of limited duration.

The public just doesn't comprehend -- yet -- the enormity of Obama's deficits. They don't yet get that this isn't like Reagan's deficits, or Clinton's early deficits, or Bush the Younger's relatively tiny deficits. These are an order of magnitude bigger then anyone's seen before (or at least since the middle of a World War against the Nazi and Japanese empires), and that's only slowly beginning to sink in.

People don't like admitting they were wrong, and Obama can count on at least that 52% who voted for him for a while. But at some point people are going to decide that admitting they were wrong is less objectionable than supporting this unprecedented -- radical -- level in spending, and they're going to turn on him.

And they're not going to say "I was wrong." There's a more psychologically-palatable way to admit error: I was lied to. And so when they turn, they're going to turn hard, and with emotion.

Incidentally: It occurs to me now that this fact -- that people would rather say "I was lied to" than "I was wrong" -- helped destroy Bush's popularity rating and doomed McCain.

The public supported the Iraq War. And then they didn't. Rather than admitting that they, like Bush and his advisers, were simply wrong about the costs and duration of the war, they preferred to imagine they'd been deceived. If you're tricked or lied to, it's better than just admitting you were wrong.

Note that the most unhinged and emotional supporter of Bush and the War became Bush's and the War's most unhinged and emotional detractor. And Andrew Sullivan got there, got to that level of self-righteous rage, not by admitting his own assumptions about the difficulties of war were wrong, but by convincing himself that he had been lied to.

See, Andrew Sullivan didn't make an intellectual or moral error. Bush is to blame. He lied to Sullivan.

At least in St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache's narrative, he did.

And I think the public was willing to entertain the Democrats' claims of "twisted intelligence" and "he lied us into war" because that version of the facts appeals to them. It lets them off the hook, intellectually and morally, for what they came to consider a mistake. It lets them remain intellectually and morally untainted... merely the victim of a malefactor's con.

I expect to see this same dynamic playing out with Obama's economic policies. Except, in this case, Obama and the media really did lie to them. He didn't just make a mistake; he lied. He always knew he'd have to jack up tax rates or inflate the hell out of the currency to support his enormous spending. He just lied about it, getting the country a little bit pregnant, as they say.

When that shoe drops, there's going to be a palpable and well-deserved sense of anger in the country.

Cracking: GOP takes lead on the economy according to Rasmussen.

Allah says he wants to believe. Believe. Unless Americans have truly had a sea-change in their thinking on enormous deficits and a huge change of heart on whether their taxes should go up, Obama's in trouble.

I don't believe either of those things are true. I think people like to deceive themselves, or allow themselves to be easily deceived, when someone cons them. They want to believe they can have more stuff without paying for it. They want to believe that. That's what makes every single con work -- seriously, that is the psychological lever that every con man pulls.

You can have this pile of money you didn't earn and don't deserve and all you have to do is trust me a little bit. And people fall for it every day, because they strongly desire that it's the truth.

But it's not.

There is no free lunch, and there is no such thing as a smooth-talking stranger or Nigerian prince willing to give you a stack of money if you just give them a tiny bit of money first.

And when people find out they're conned, they get very angry. They do not tend to blame themselves for being so greedy that avarice overwhelmed basic common sense. They get angry at the con man only.

And have no doubt-- the public was conned. They were told we could have all this free crap and we only had to raise taxes on the rich to the levels under Clinton.

Note that Clinton had much higher tax rates than Obama said we would have -- because Bush had since then reduced taxes on the poor and middle-class. And Obama was only proposing, supposedly, to raise the tax rates on one group, the rich, and only to the Clinton levels.

So here's the thing: If Clinton couldn't afford universal health care and vastly expanded federal spending of all types with his higher and deeper (i.e., broader based, extending to the poor and middle class) tax rates, how on earth could Obama afford all of this new spending supported by a lower and narrower tax structure?

It never made sense. Ever. Clinton is widely held, even by conservatives, as being a basically fiscally-prudent manager; if Clinton could not afford universal health care and huge new spending levels with his smaller pile of tax revenues, how on earth could Obama?

Is Obama, as is sometimes earnestly suggested, truly divine and magical, possessed of the ability to create wealth and suspend the normal laws of mathematics according to his deific will?

And that was the con. He told the public something that ought to have set their bullshit detectors ringing. But every good con relies on wish fulfillment to make it work. They wanted to believe the flat-out ridiculous -- more free stuff with lower tax rates than we've ever managed in all of history! -- and so they did.

But now comes the exposure of the swindle, this bait-and-switch. And it's going to dawn on them that this notion -- more free stuff and lower taxes too! -- never made a damn lick of sense, and someone is at fault for this swindle.

And they ain't going to be blaming themselves. They're not going to blame themselves for having been so stupid. Not when there's a more culpable party at had.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 2092 words, total size 13 kb.

"Doomsday Scenario"? California Mulls Ending State Welfare
— Ace

But will The One let them? If he threatens to cancel state "stimulus" money for a cut in state employees' salaries, I can't imagine he'll let them do this.

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

...

"I don't wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact" that eliminating CalWORKs would have, Palmer said. "But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July."

The article casts CalWorks as a welfare-to-work program. Though how much is welfare and how much is to-work, I don't know. Though I could guess the emphasis is on the former.

Via The Rhetorican.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Administration: Math Is Hard So We'll Just Make Shit Up
— DrewM

What's a number of "new or saved jobs" that will impress people worried about rising unemployment? We now know where the dart landed.

Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved.

..."We've done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibility than ever, to get the gears of the economy moving again," Obama said.

Based on the work done across a broad spectrum of federal agencies during the first 100 days of the administration, Obama said, "we're in a position to really accelerate."

Yeah, 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days is an acceleration over the 150,000 jobs after the first 100 days. Problem is, that 150,000 number is pretty much made up.

The administration last month claimed that 150,000 jobs had already been saved or created due to the stimulus bill, though that number is based on a theoretical projection and not an actual count.

As ABC NewsÂ’ David Kerley points out, last week Keith Hall, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, told a House subcommittee that he could not substantiate the claim.

“No,” Hall said. “That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate…We're busy just counting jobs.”

Thankfully Geoff at IB did the hard work of demonstrating how good Obama administrations predictions are.

Feel better now?

Posted by: DrewM at 09:47 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama Seems Mildly Pleased About Lebanon Elections
— DrewM

When I posted the results of the election last night I noted, "I think the White House is happy about this". Now I'm not so sure.

Chris Good at Marc Ambinder's site notes Obama praised, "their peaceful handling and voicing U.S. support for a sovereign, stable, and peaceful Lebanon. He did not, however, comment on the results."

Statement by the President regarding the elections in Lebanon

I congratulate the people of Lebanon for holding a peaceful election yesterday. The high turnout and the candidates – too many of whom know personally the violence that has marred Lebanon – are the strongest indications yet of the Lebanese desire for security and prosperity. Once more, the people of Lebanon have demonstrated to the world their courage and the strength of their commitment to democracy.

The United States will continue to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, committed to peace, including the full implementation of all United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It is our sincere hope that the next government will continue along the path towards building a sovereign, independent and stable Lebanon.

Government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Commitment to these principles of peace and moderation are the best means to secure a sovereign and prosperous Lebanon.

Nothing about the rejection of terrorists violent extremeists. Nothing about the rejection of foreign interference by Syria and Iran. Nothing about our willingness to work closely with and stand by a decent and responsible government which stands on the front lines against those we fight. Nothing about the courage of the people of Lebanon to chose decency in the face of terrorism man-made disasters.

It seems these are the things that should be noted. Elections in Lebanon aren't the same as say in the Canada where the party options don't represent an existential choice for the nation.

Sadly, this kind of pathetic display from Obama is the norm.

And worst of all, nothing about protest babes!

Maybe building hospitals, schools and all that other crap isn't enough to get people to sell their souls. Seems like that's something worth congratulating. But then, I'm not a God.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:11 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

The Road To Health Care Serfdom
— DrewM

Keith Hennessey, Director of the National Economic Council under George W. Bush, has gone through the health care 'reform' bill drafted by Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd.

Yeah, it's as bad as you might fear.

Lots of regulations? Check

Increased demands for private information? Check

New taxes? Check

And the hits keep coming, Read the whole thing and weep.

Remember when Obama savaged McCain for a plan to tax health benefits?

Yeah, now that may not be such a bad idea after all. Hey, if a God doesn't have the right to change his mind, who amongst us does?

Of course, McCain's plan came with an offsetting tax credit. Obama's? Not so much.

The best hope we have for maintaining freedom in the health care market and avoid government control of another huge swath of the economy is the details of the plan. "Health care reform" is fairly popular in a generic, non-specific sense. When you start putting plans on the table and having to make hard choices support tends to fracture.

Obama and the Democrats will try to make this a battle about 'saving the economy' (you have to spend money to save money or something) and about covering the millions of uninsured (a case which is often overstated to say the least).

Republicans and conservatives need to make this about freedom of choice (something the Democrats claim to be in favor of in other circumstances) and the ability to keep their own doctor.

Welcome to the Second Battle Of HillaryCare!

AoS gets results!* Republicans begin push back.

In a letter President Obama, key Senate Republicans say they're unwilling to support one of Obama's pillars for health-care reform: a public/government insurance program to compete against private plans. The letter was signed by all but one of the Republicans on the powerful Finance Committee, one of the panels writing the health-care bill. (The one Finance Republican who didn't sign: Olympia Snowe.)

Citing the looming financial crisis for Medicare and Medicaid, the senators said that "creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice."

Olympia Fucking Snowe. Who couldn't have seen that coming.

*I keed, I keed.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:08 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Justice Delayed...
— Gabriel Malor

It's a complicated case, but three years complicated?

A complex climate lawsuit dating to former President George W. Bush's first term remains among the unfinished business on the docket of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

At issue is a lawsuit filed by eight states, New York City and environmental groups against the nation's five largest electric utilities in 2004, alleging that the companies had created a public nuisance with greenhouse gas emissions that must be reduced to counteract the effects of global warming.

The panel heard oral arguments on June 7, 2006. Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:59 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

California Dreamin'
— Gabriel Malor

Boy, this just says it all:

The relationship between Democratic leaders and some of their labor benefactors has turned particularly frosty: Many of the programs union members rely on for paychecks -- and the unions rely on for dues -- have been slated for deep cuts.

The union leaders say they are appalled that Democratic leaders are talking openly now about decimating government programs without first making a stand for bigger, broader tax hikes that could substantially offset budget cuts.

"Democrats came to Sacramento to help people," said Marty Hittleman, president of the California Federation of Teachers. "I know they did not go there to destroy government. For some reason, they are unwilling to stand up and say 'This is not what I was elected for.' "

Bigger, broader tax hikes, oh my.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:48 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Top Headline Comments 06-08-09
— Gabriel Malor

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:16 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

ObamaCare sounds like RomneyCare - sign up or be penalized/fined.
— Purple Avenger

This kind of shit turns my stomach.

...There could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who donÂ’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline...

What this really is, is a government mandated subsidy for the health care [insurance] industry. The bottom line is - insurance companies aren't in business to lose money. What they collect in premiums is going to be more than they pay out on average. Anyone who chooses to pay cash for their health care needs, because the net cost is cheaper, as I have for the past 10 years, isn't subsidizing insurance company profits and must be stamped out with a vengeance.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:55 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.