Chris Coons, Bearded Marxist.

In 2004, when Coons first ran for the job, he promised not to raise taxes. Since then he has raised taxes not once, not twice, but three times.

Coons inherited a surplus. Celebrating victory on election night in 2004, he said his "top priority would be to continue balancing the budget without increasing property taxes," according to an account in the local News Journal. Yet in 2006, he pushed through a 5 percent increase in property taxes. In 2007, he raised property taxes 17.5 percent. In 2009, he raised them another 25 percent.

Coons wanted to raise other taxes, too. He proposed a hotel tax, a tax on paramedic services, even a tax on people who call 911 from cell phones.
Coons says the increases were necessary because New Castle County, despite its surplus, was saddled with extravagant spending obligations made by his predecessor.

Posted by: Ace at 10:03 PM | Comments (186)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, when you put it like that...

I see two central reasons for the Tea Party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like 8. Instead it's 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."

What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward 5 inches. And they believe Tea Party candidates will do that.

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the Tea Party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

No, seriously, I did need that crystalized for me. Maybe I had gotten a little too wrapped up in standard thinking.

From Hot Air, where Allah's round-up is mostly about Sarah Palin's apparently likely presidential bid.

Posted by: Ace at 08:23 PM | Comments (285)
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

From the sidebar, I'll do it old school..

Out: "Global Warming"

In: "Global Climate Disruption"

Because "climate change" wasn't really taking hold. And also, that whole warming thing kinda wasn't happening much either. "The Total Destruction of the Earth, Mankind and Everything There Is On Account of Our Awful Global Awfulness" was under consideration, but probably too wordy.

Sometimes I feel like this administration is overloaded with marketing consultants. The power to shape public awareness and opinion depends on us finding a really compelling expression and another campaign speaking tour to test market our new word thingy.

From the administration that brought you "man-caused disaster" and "overseas contingency operation," another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term "global climate disruption" in place of "global warming" -- fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

Hey, speaking of which, you know how a consultant makes love? He sits on the edge of the bed and tells you how f'n awesome it's gonna be.

A precisely-worded, more meaningful expression is just the thing to make the rubes forget all about those conspiratorial emails, made up junk data sets, models that don't work, and your ability to smell bullshit when it's being rubbed in your nostrils.

Did I say "bullshit?" Sorry, I meant "Bovine Planetary Death."

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:45 PM | Comments (166)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Nonsense up with which he shall not put.

Posted by: Ace at 05:39 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Thursday all. Or is it?

Does Affluence Make You Happy?

Well this chart suggests that in the large it does.

And looking at the trend lines for each country it looks like the more affluent a country is, the bigger the difference between the happiness of the wealthy versus the poor. So absolute affluence makes you happy, but being richer than your neighbors makes you happier still. Which I guess is only surprising to those unfamiliar with the not-so-nice parts of human nature.

Why I bet you could develop two competing economic ideologies just based off working both ends of this happiness differential.

So if affluence brings happiness, how much affluence do you need?

Answer: at least $75,000 a year.

The study found that people's evaluations of their lives improved steadily with annual income. But the quality of their everyday experiences -- their feelings -- did not improve above an income of $75,000 a year. As income decreased from $75,000, people reported decreasing happiness and increasing sadness, as well as stress. The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one.

As a kid I remember the car or TV breaking down or my mom needing a crown being BIG deals - not just for the aggravation factor, but these also put a real crimp in our financial situation and meant no eating out for a long time. Now at $75K you're hardly rich but then having to fix the car's transmission or get a crown doesn't push you into financial crisis either.

Interestingly people who win the lottery have elevated happiness for a year or two but by year three they're basically back to where they were happiness-wise. By comparison unlimited heroin and the power to destroy people are both good through at least year five.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:35 PM | Comments (688)
Post contains 841 words, total size 7 kb.

The Los Angeles City Controller has released her audit (PDF) of what we've done with the $111 million dollars in stimulus funding we've received so far.

DPW has received $70.65 million and created or retained 45.46 jobs, though they are expected to create 238 jobs overall (the fraction of a job created or retained correlates to the number of actual hours works). LADOT has been awarded $40.8 million and created or retained 9 jobs, though they are expected to create 26 jobs overall. Overall, the Departments have received $111 million in federal stimulus funds out of the $594 million the City has been awarded so far and created or retained 54.46 jobs.

“I’m disappointed that we’ve only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million in ARRA funds. With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting the red tape and putting Angelenos back to work,” said City Controller Greuel. “While it doesn’t appear that any of the ARRA funds were misspent, the City needs to do a better job expediting the process and creating jobs.

54 and a half jobs. That's it. Out of $111 million. Couldn't even squeak out a final half a job and make it a whole number.

Greuel says that none of these funds were "misspent." I'm gonna assume she means none of the funds were used illegally. Because for damn sure they were misspent. That was $111 million dollars spent on nothing that Los Angeles wasn't already going to spend money on. The expansion plans for Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation were laid years ago. So, even if President Obama's goal of stimulating the economy was economically sound no stimulating could have come from this money.

And, of course, the President's stimulus is anything but economically sound. Time and again we've seen that all it has done is prop up public workers at the expense of the private sector. That is, the folks whose money this really is. Los Angeles is no different:

The DepartmentÂ’s process for using work orders for ARRA projects makes it difficult to distinguish between ARRA-related expenditures and expenditures using City funds.

Fancy that. Money is fungible. In six months when Obama deigns to have his next press conference, somebody should ask him if he can spell "fungible." For funsies, I swear. Because that quoted bullshit right up there is a polite way of saying that the Department of Public Works is fudging its numbers.

Also, great news, sportsfans. Los Angeles has another $483 million in spendulus funds coming its way. At the present rate that's a whole 239.3 jobs!

Thanks to Red.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:55 PM | Comments (206)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Ohio is one of the classic swing/battle ground states. For liberals to be writing off the Buckeye state in September...well that means things are really bad for them around the country. Really, really bad.

First consider PPP's Twitter note this morning.

Seems strange saying this but really doubt we'll poll Ohio again this cycle

That was striking enough but then there's this from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic "A Democratic Bloodbath in Ohio?"

In Ohio, it's getting so bad for Democrats that the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are actively weighing their level of commitment.

Public and private polling from the state suggests that Democrats will lose the governor's mansion, currently held by Ted Strickland, the Senate race (for an open seat that was held by a Republican), and at least four House races (OH 01, OH 15, OH 13, OH 16). Strickland's troubles have surprised some Democrats, since he's seemed to defy gravity for much of the year.

All 4 of those endangered House Democratic incumbents (Driehaus, Kilroy, Sutton, Boccieri) voted for the health care bill. That's clearly not the only factor in their troubles but it's not the lifeline Democratic leaders claimed it would be either (more like an anchor around their necks).

In the Senate race, the RCP average has Rob Portman up by 9. In the Governor's race it's former Congressman and FNC host John Kasich by almost 11.

These are devastating numbers in a swing state like Ohio. If the national committees do pull back or even out entirely, it's because they've essentially decided to build their firewall around, I don't know, Pelosi's district.

As always, this doesn't mean we can let up. It means we're just a step closer to seeing the Democrats vanquished and hearing the lamentations of their women.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:23 PM | Comments (358)
Post contains 324 words, total size 3 kb.

Sean Duffy's campaign sends me a lot of links which I never link because, well, he's going to win.

If I have to help Sean Duffy win, well, then I have badly misjudged this election. In case you don't know, he was on the Real World (Boston?) and married that spicy Cuban conservative HOPA Rachel Campos (?). But he doesn't run on that nonsense; he's been a district attorney for a while, with a good record and all that. He's like, golden, and most likely he doesn't intend to be a Representative for long, and I don't mean term limits.*

* Okay I shouldn't say this; saying he's going to win and doesn't need help is practically running a negative ad against him. He needs help like anyone. Let's not start plucking each other's cocks just yet, said Colonel Winston "The Wolf" Sanders. But: A commenter confirms my memory: This is the guy who scared long-term deadwood socialist idiot David Obey into retirement.

But he's run an ad of him looking cute (not Rubio cute, but cute) and swingin' an axe and for some reason the female commenters seem to believe this ad is directed at them.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Wait, it wasn't her? It was Nancy Pelosi telling us if she weren't in politics she'd be in business, and then desperately attempting to remember what little she's heard of business, like "markets"?

Oh never mind in that case.

Question: If this answer had gone one sentence longer, what are the odds she would have remembered a single other buzzword from the field of business?

The next thing out of her mouth was probably something like "bearer bonds," because sometimes she's heard her husband talking about Die Hard.

Oh, and by the way, "markets" really have less to do with business than with investing and finance. I mean, "markets" are kind of macro. But I'll give her the charity "okay, close enough, retard."

Just to point out, this is the sort of question that the MFM would immediately challenge Sarah Palin on, asking her the follow-up, in hopes she ran out of details, "Oh, specifically what do you like about business?"

But Nancy Pelosi tosses out "markets" and no one thinks, Gee, maybe she's talking way out of her hat here, maybe I should ask a seemingly innocuous but actually deadly follow-up.

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, come on, that one's cute.

Before I link the crap you already saw on Hot Air, here's a fresh picking: Charlie Cook now puts Connecticut as a "toss up."

Toss up. In Connecticut.

Okay, on to the hours-old crap:

At Hot Air, AP, one of the most reliably liberal-skewed polls, puts the GOP up by ten, and at over 50% -- 53/43.

Several people linked me this. Even AP isn't pretending anymore in the headlines. They have wishcasted themselves out.

AP-GfK Poll: Climate for GOP keeps getting better

...

"I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure that they're out of office," said independent voter Robbin Payton of Newport News, Va., reflecting just how toxic the environment is for the party in power.

Overall, it's an extraordinarily dreary backdrop for Obama's beleaguered party. And with just seven weeks until Election Day, Democrats are running out of options to mitigate widespread expected losses of House, Senate and governor's seats from coast to coast on Nov. 2.

Ed Morrissey explains how CBS maintains Obama still has 45% (but only 45%) approval. Another poll with an 8.5% Democrat skew, which they... round up to an even 10%.

Because, you know, that's what the polls are showing. Oh wait, no, most polls are showing parity between the parties for the first time in generations.

This has nothing to do with any of that, but have to give a mention of a columnist in the UK Telegraph mentioning our little blog.

On Tuesday, Carl Paladino scored another big Tea Party victory in New York, winning the Republican nomination for governor. He quoted, as have many others, the anguished cry of Howard Beale in the 1976 film Network – "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!" If anything, it understates the strength of anti-establishment feeling. The mood is closer to H L Mencken's observation, prominent on the Ace of Spades conservative blog, that "every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats".

Huh, right? And I know the irony there -- I personally have been more "don't rock the boat" than "go slit throats" -- but still, hey, an oversees shout-out is an overseas shout-out.

Thanks for krukke1 for that last tip.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (179)
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.