The House Ways and Means Committee says it is looking at surtax on wealthy taxpayers as the primary source of funding ObamaCare:

As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, according to officials involved in the discussion. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the panel is looking at a surtax around 3.5 percent.

In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.

Given today's news that unemployment continues unabated (159,000 Americans filed new claims for unemployment last week) it's not unreasonable to ask if the Democrats pushing for these tax increases actually know where jobs come from. As has been mentioned on this blog many times, small business is the largest employer (and the largest source of new jobs) in the U S economy. The "wealthy" that the House Democrats are targeting for tax increases are these small businesses, not the stereotypical "coupon clipping" aristocrat that Congress would have you believe.

One of the advantages that small businesses enjoy is their ability to react quickly to changes in their market spaces. They are quick to hire when business expands and quick to fire during a retraction (as we are in now). Having dealt with small businesses for years I've come to learn that they are also quick to respond to higher operating costs such as tax increases by reducing what usually is the largest expense they incur: payroll. Small business is already staring at the sunset of the Bush tax cuts; however, now Congress proposes to burden them with an additional surtax to pay for ObamaCare.

Does anyone believe the new ObamaCare surtax will expand employment? That begs the question as to whether Democrats actually care about unemployment. Judging the Democrats by their actions (instead of their intentions) indicates that there is a growing gulf between the working (and employing) class in America and the ruling class in Washington.

Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Democrats
Tags: Obamacare Surtax, Tax Increases

This morning, USA Today is reporting:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid -- about $17 billion -- is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

Conservatives will surely be quick to point out that this smells a lot like political payoffs, but I disagree. The places that are always begging for -- and receiving -- the most Federal money are generally large cities with large minority populations. These cities (Washington DC, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, etc.) have been controlled by Democrats for decades, and in many instances (e.g. Detroit) their minority community has ascended to power within the local Democratic party structure, and reliably delivers >90% of minority votes to Democrats on a regular basis.

It is no surprise, then, that these cities have received a huge chunk of Federal aid dollars. They have gotten the lion's share of this money for decades.

But the big cities are still not happy. The New York Times is also reporting that big cities are upset over the fact that Stimulus money for transportation projects has been awarded largely to rural counties for improvements on inter-city and inter-state highways. According to the Times report, major cities house 2/3 of our nation's population and contribute 3/4 of its economic activity, and those cities expect a similar share of Federal transportation aid to help combat problems like traffic jams and chronically underfunded public transportation systems.

This story serves as yet another example of the growing chasm between the politics of large urban areas and the rest of America. While counties (and sometimes states) without enormous urban areas have generally been able to plan and pay for their own infrastructure and welfare improvement programs with only a modicum of Federal assistance, city and state governments long under the control of liberal Democrats have grown progressively more dependent on massive Federal aid. The differences between Texas (no state income tax and a fiscally conservative approach to government) and California should put any disputes over this subject permanently to rest.

It is ironic, yet entirely truthful, that the Democrats have morphed from the party that once championed the common working man into the party that now champions massive and politically-powerful city, state governments and Federal agencies over their less urbane counterparts in so-called "Middle America." Democrats also enthusiastically support Big Labor and Big Business over small businesses and the self-employed, thanks to the billions of dollars in lobbying money and political contributions that they have gathered over the years. Name any major Democrat legislation (stimulus, TARP, SCHIP, Fair Pay, Cap and Trade, health care reform, etc.) and I'll show you a bill that disproportionately benefits Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Government.

If it's "Big," then you can bet it has "Democrat" written all over it.

...

And speaking of "big," this piece from TigerHawk is essential reading (h/t Instapundit):

The Obama administration aspires to restructure large parts of the United States economy. Because its efforts have been broken into separate initiatives with different justifications, few people other than news junkies have noticed how extraordinary Barack Obama's agenda is. Perhaps a number will help: 35%. That is the aggregate percentage of United States GDP produced by the three industries that the Democrats hope to restructure from the top down: Health care (17% of GDP), energy (9.8% of GDP), and financial services (8% of GDP). Think about that. Without even considering the transformational impact of proposed anti-business laws of general application, such as the Orwellian "employee free choice act," the Obama administration wants to redesign 35% of gross domestic product from the center. And he proposes to do it all in a rush this summer, lest the decline in his popularity and that of the Congressional Democrats erodes his power to do so.

Even FDR wasn't that reckless with his party's power during his first year in office. And liberals complained that George W. Bush had an "Imperial Presidency"?

Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2009 Spendulus Bill

The report for initial claims for unemployment insurance was just released and the media spin, not unexpectedly, is focused on a drop in first time claims. Further down the story the uglier data is exposed:

For the week ending June 27, the number of Americans receiving state jobless benefits rose 159,000 to a record 6.88 million, more than double the level during the same period in the prior year.

"Not as bad as expected" will be the prevailing media news theme until Congress finishes with Cap and Trade and ObamaCare. Thereafter, as the momentum increases for Stimulus II, a decidedly negative spin on employment and negative GDP will predominate. Manipulating the news cycle is an integral tool in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi strategy. But as today's unemployment data demonstrates, joblessness continues to rise and federal tax receipts will continue to shrink as a result of fewer wage earners and disappearing private sector profits.

Yet to emerge is a Democrat that will make the case for how private sector growth will result from their policy initiatives passed this year. It must be said again: the private sector creates the wealth that pays all of the taxes the government collects. What are Obama/Pelosi/Reid doing to promote private sector recovery and growth?

Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2009 Spendulus Bill, Congress, Democrats, Economics, Politics
Tags: Stimulus II, Unemployment

Just to pass some time the day after Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska, I decided to roam around the internet and see what types of words and phrases were being used to describe not just her actions, but her as a person.

These examples come from blogs, newspapers, TV, comment sections, etc. Some were from political sites and platforms, some not.

Keep in mind, these are all examples used to describe Mrs. Palin after just a 6 minute, 50 second resignation speech. After just a bit of reading this, I was exhausted.

Anyway, here is but a few minutes of surfing. (Warning: Some of it gets a bit explicit):

Bizarre, nutty puppy, sociopath, silly, weirdness, quitter, depressed, a tool, megalomaniac, rubbish, non-coherent, white-trash, Mark Sanford's soul mate, illogical, Caribou Barbie, rambling, not cognitive, wingnut, Michael Jackson's supplier, she's pregnant, Bristol's pregnant, Willow's pregnant, Todd is leaving her, stupid, starred in "Specs Appeal VI (a porno about women in glasses), Todd is pregnant, she is "tea bagging" the Appalachian Trail, manager of the Wasilla Dairy Queen, illiterate, "in a scandal with hookers and blow", horrible, clueless, Fox news host, imbecile, she was "fucking John McCain", twit, run on a platform for more retardation, meth addict, dangerous, has the moral fiber of Satan.

One said "Sarah Palin seeks to control your thoughts and eliminate your basic human freedoms."

Just a couple of clicks revealed that.

Sheesh.

I am constantly amazed that this woman, who supposedly has not the education, insight, or ambition to reach an office of substance, has the type of effect on liberals that holy water had on Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

The disdain these people have for this one "incompetent" woman speaks volumes as to their collective self-esteem issues.

The punditry suggests that she did this on a long 4th of July weekend so it would not garner much attention.

Are these people kidding? Anything she would do at any time would garner this type of hyperventilating coverage.

While I believe she chose to do it on this particular holiday weekend, I believe it was meant to send a message more in keeping with the reasons for our observation of this holiday: Freedom, independence, individualism, and spirit. That is what I feel is the reason as to the timing.

Whether this has to do with cranking up a 2012 Presidential run, I have my doubts. However, the idea of her "quiting" due to the difficulties of scrutiny is disingenuous and bogus. The minute Barack Obama was sworn into his Illinois senate seat, he was off to the 2008 presidential races. The difference between the Governorship and one Senate seat out of a hundred is that as Governor, you actually have to make decisions. Obama had the luxury of voting "present" during his phony tenure as a Senator. Governor Palin has no such option.

That said, how many times, from the left and the right, have we heard there is no "voice", no messenger with which people can relate to coming from the Republican leadership and those in the Conservative spectrum.

Governor Palin may not have her eyes set on the 2012 Presidential Race, and that may be a wise decision, but there is no denying the void that exists between our elected officials on the right and the people of this country.

Sarah Palin is genuine. She may not be a policy wonk, but considering where the current Wonk-in-Chief has gotten us, that's not a bad thing. She also has the "it" factor. If not for her, McCain's defeat would have been Carteresque in its legacy. His "campaign suspension" should go down as one of the biggest and most disastrous purposeful blunders in the history of American politics.

The economy got Obama elected, not McCain's choice of a running mate. If anything, it saved him from sheer embarrassment.

Sarah Palin seems an extremely capable, driven person. One who could easily fill a void. One to be the voice, not necessarily of politicians trying to get their message across, but a voice for us, trying to get ours across.

There is no need for Sarah Palin to "re-brand" or "rehabilitate" herself. No need to change her image. Political bomb throwers, leftist loons, and jealous media shrews like Maureen Dowd have their opinion of her, and they ain't changing. That's a good thing. Know thy enemies..

Sarah Palin came out of nowhere. Governor of Alaska. America's North Pole. Look at what she has done with it. Garnering tens of thousands of people at large gatherings, they weren't there to see John McCain. She still commands attention from the media, who report every little thing, whether true or not, about this woman, her job, and unfortunately, her family.

Her love of Alaska notwithstanding, she has now thrown off the shackles of that far off land, allowing her, if she wants, to become whatever she wants.

There's not much one with such drive and ambition can truly accomplish from up there. And what there is to accomplish there, she has done it.

The end of Sarah Palin?

I don't think so.

Permalink | Comments (69) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sarah Palin

Michael Lewis has written an extraordinary piece on the AIG failure for Vanity Fair. As with most of his work, the article is informative, funny and written in an easy to follow manner. When you have time read the whole thing.

As Lewis relates, the problems at AIG (and particularly AIG Financial Products, the unit that was excoriated in the infamous "bonus payments" of a few months ago) were not the result of some ingenious evil scheme hatched by devious masters of the universe. The AIG implosion was, rather, the result of some incredibly dumb decisions, a lot of greed and the inexplicable regulatory failure of government agencies. That the government failed in its mission to regulate Wall Street and the financial sector should surprise no one. And before any stereotypes like "wealthy bankers/ Republican Party" take root let it be known that this was a truly bipartisan fiasco until 2006, at which time the Democrats cornered most of the political cash (particularly from AIG).

In short, AIG blew up because it had underwritten massive risk via credit default swaps (CDS) with other major investment banks. In these CDS trades, AIG basically insured other investment firms against losses they might incur on trillions in mortgage bond holdings. These "insurance contracts" were unregulated on the insurance side, hence the failure of state insurance regulators to step in and stop the practice. However, no one should assume that New York state insurance regulators were unaware of what AIG was doing. The unregulated aspect of CDS was the fig leaf regulators hid behind as AIG publicly boasted about their business.

However, the SEC and the Federal Reserve had no such fig leaf to hide behind because the counter parties to AIG's massive insurance bets were the largest commercial and investment banks in the world. It is certainly in the purview of those agencies to question counter party risk at places like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. But apparently they didn't ask the right questions and $180 billion tax payer dollars later the right questions are still not being asked. As Lewis notes:

At no point did anyone from the U.S. Treasury or the U.S. Congress, or any of the various New York State authorities that had gotten involved, call them up, much less visit A.I.G. F.P.--as, say, someone might who was genuinely curious to know what, exactly, had happened there.

The AIG failure is Exhibit A as to how ineffective and unresponsive government regulation can be in a rapidly evoloving industry such as finance. It is also a testament to the unmitigated disaster that can result when politicians and bankers both have regulators on a short leash. Congress has a thing for holding widely publicized and televised hearings after a disaster has occurred. But conducting actual oversight of regulators to prevent disasters? Not so much. Are you sure you want these people in charge of health care?

Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress
Tags: AIG, Congressional Oversight

As the Obama administration launches a fusillade of trial balloons about the need for a second stimulus package, Democrats in Congress are getting in on the action also:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Tuesday became the latest Democrat to open the door to a second stimulus package. ....Hoyer, speaking to reporters earlier Tuesday, sounded more amenable to the idea of another economic package. "I think we need to be open to whether we need additional action," Hoyer said.

While Senate Majority Leader Reid says he has no appetite for a second round of spending legislation his record would show that talk is the only thing that is cheap about his history of deficit spending.

There is little doubt that Stimulus II is in the works. Democrats have a crowded legislative calender to contend with as ObamaCare and Cap and Trade enjoy priority right now. But as unemployment worsens and GDP continues to shrink, progressives will not be able to resist another round of heavy spending.

The most interesting question is whether Republicans will offer any opposition (or even token resistance) to the Democrat's binge spending. It is looking moreso everyday that the Republican congressional leadership (pardon the oxymoron) is going to stand by and watch the place burn down. Schadenfreude can be deceptively appealing, particularly on the heels of a landslide defeat in 2008, but everyone must live with the consequences of the Democrat's fiscal craziness. Somewhere, sometime soon an opposition Party must emerge. The damage created by a second stimulus plan may be irreversible for generations.

In a search for accountability the first place to look may be among the Republican Senators that sold out on Stimulus I. Perhaps a quick litmus test of Michael Steele and Mitch McConnell's resolve would be to determine if they can control Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. If they can't reign in those two the odds are high that a third party platform may emerge, which will mean the end of supply side policy for years.

Permalink | Comments (95) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2009 Spendulus Bill
Tags: Stimulus Spending

As mentioned last Thursday, the State of California has started issuing IOU's in place of cash as a result of a political impasse in Sacramento. One commenter here chastised us that this has been done many times before and it is much ado about nothing. I beg to differ.

These IOU's are useful to the state of California and the recipients only as long as banks are willing and able to exchange them for cash. It appears now that the banks are sending signals that they don't want to accumulate this quasi currency for much longer:

A group of the biggest U.S. banks said they would stop accepting California's IOUs on Friday, adding pressure on the state to close its $26.3 billion annual budget gap....The banks had previously committed to accepting state IOUs as payment. California plans to issue more than $3 billion of IOUs in July.

The California IOU example may wreak havoc with President Obama's monetary and fiscal policy goals as it exposes the risk of issuing fiat currency. Kevin Hassett made this point quite clearly yesterday:

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama's health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California's. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

This type of scheme only works as long as the money and financing flows and therein is the flaw of the "business as usual" argument. If the banks refuse to accept the California IOU's it is game over. If the banks continue to eat the scrip issued by the state it is a de facto bailout of California's fiscal insanity by the U S taxpayer.

Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: California Bailout. Obanomics, California IOU's, TARP

Mark Halperin reports that Sarah Palin will be on Fox News tomorrow morning. I'm assuming she will discuss her decision to step down from the governorship of Alaska as well as what she'll be doing with herself in the near future. From what ABC News is reporting the offers are coming in fast and furious.

Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sarah Palin

With the passing of Robert McNamara it's instructive to remember the legacy of one of the "best and the brightest" of another administration that was ushered in with great pomp and circumstance. Robert S. McNamara came to Washington to serve in the Kennedy administration after a brief but highly visible stint as president of the Ford Motor Company. The aura of brilliance and newness that made up the image of the Kennedy White House was embodied in the brainy McNamara. The taciturn and unexciting style of the Eisenhower White House gave way, in a revolution of style over substance, to an electoral adrenaline rush of what might be described as the 1960's version of hope and change.

There's something about the debut of progressive Democrats in the Oval office that brings with it the gushing descriptions of brilliance and brains, whip smart personalities and towering intellects. From JFK to Clinton to Obama the mantra has been consistent: these are really, really smart guys. Unfortunately, as far as the first two were concerned, auspicious beginnings were soon overwhelmed by the hard realities of the office. Kennedy was quickly humbled by the Bay of Pigs disaster; Clinton by the 1994 mid term elections. It appears that the economy will be President Obama's banquet of consequences.

While Robert McNamara was ushered into Washington to the sound of hosannas, called to serve by a president who was wildly popular at the time, he left the town in ignominious defeat, reviled by the very electorate that had showered him with praise. McNamara had a poorly thought out strategy for the war in Vietnam and he will be forever remembered as the principle architect of failure in that mission. For such a smart guy, no one at the time would have thought that a writer like David Halberstam would have later said of him...

"[He] did not serve himself or his country well. He was, there is no kinder or gentler word for it, a fool."

The Obama administration would be well advised to study the rise and fall of Robert McNamara.

Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics
Tags: Robert McNamara

The fact that Barack Obama was elected President is a pretty clear indicator that Politics is not scientific. That is, with all due respect to the President, his resume was the thinnest in memory, with no real substance to support his claims that he should lead the country. Nevertheless, Barack Obama won, defeating first a powerful Democratic party rival with an impressive political resume and efficient campaign machine, then a Republican opponent with far greater experience on most of the issues important to voters. In the 2008 election, however, style won over substance, although it may be fairly argued that neither party's nominee made an effective case on the merits of their qualifications.

The election of 2008 was hardly unprecedented. Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush on pure style and media spin, just as the first President Bush beat Michael Dukakis on rhetoric and style in 1988. While Reagan beat Carter with arguments supported by evidence, his most effective tactics used style - we still remember and ask if we are better than four years ago. This goes back at least to JFK's victory over Nixon in 1960, effective use of media and style to win over the public.

This brings up the question on 2012. Many Republicans have assumed that Obama would follow the path of Jimmy Carter and implode, opening the door to the 'Next Reagan'. A closer look at the matter indicates such optimism may be unfounded. First off, Carter recovered from most of his mistakes, and Obama has learned how to move beyond his blunders; the plain fact is that wit ha compliant media Obama's blunders have a political half-life of only a few weeks at most, far too short to damage his re-election chances significantly unless he either commits a major mistake immediately before the election, or makes so many mistakes that the weight of their total overwhelms him. It could happen, but it would be foolish to expect it to be so.

The second problem is the missing New Reagan. By the time the GOP Convention finished in 1976, many Republicans knew that if Gerald Ford lost, Governor Reagan would have the de facto lead for the 1980 race. Reagan was tested by other would-be nominees, but he was clearly the leading man from the start. Putting it bluntly, the GOP has no such candidate now. Look at 2008; John McCain frankly took the nomination by default, because no one really showed up to make a strong case. Conservatives got excited about Fred Thompson, but to be blunt Mister Thompson lacked the stamina and energy to sustain a serious campaign. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were too thin and brittle to be successful, showing no ability to attract supporters outside a limited spectrum. John McCain got the nomination for the same reason that John Kerry won the Democratic Party nomination in 2004; he was believed to be the most "electable" in a field of uninspiring contenders.

Who, frankly, inspires the nation from the Right? Those with strong followings, like Sarah Palin, tend to attract support from a tight range of political opinion, lacking the means to attract and win over the undecided and doubters. Others do their jobs well, Like John Boehner, but have no evident charisma to build a national following. Worse, the national party has two serious problems - they are out of touch with grassroots Republicans, supporting senior Republicans even when they do not represent the party's ideals (one notes that the GOP has refused to condemn Governor Sanford's adultery and malfeasance, even after his confession) and sometimes even opposing fresh contenders in the party who have broad support and represent reason for hope. And second, the national GOP has siloed, with factions standing off against each other in petty feuds, preventing unity on critical issues and campaigns. The matter has become serious enough, that many who oppose the Democrats and President Obama, do so without declaring support for the Republicans who might run for reform. The simple fact is that right now the voting public has little confidence in the Republican Party to be any better than the Democrats. And until that changes, President Obama and the Democrats have little to fear from the next election or two.

- copied over from WizPol -

Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has assembled a great roundup of photos and summaries from dozens of July 4th Tea Party protests around the nation. The overall turnout for these protests was very encouraging considering the fact that so many Americans travel out of town to celebrate the 4th of July.

Here in Oklahoma City, the organizers of the first two OKC Tea Party protests (held February 27th and April 15th of this year) canceled their plans for a July 4th Tea Party, in favor of a larger protest to be held on September 12. You can read more about the "912 Project" founded by talk radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck here.

But another group of citizens seized this opportunity and organized a "Sooner Tea Party" for July 4th. I wasn't able to attend the protest, but reports seem to indicate a decent-sized crowd (1500 or more) and a rally that captured the spirit of the nationwide Tea Party movement.

With the death of Michael Jackson and the resignation of Sarah Palin filling the weekend news cycle, there was little coverage of the Tea Party protests in the national news media. And there has been virtually no ridicule of the Tea Parties from the usual liberal suspects during the past few weeks. Liberals greatly overplayed their hand on April 15th with their non-stop barrage of tasteless and crude "teabagging" comments. Perhaps now they are hoping that if they just ignore the Tea Party protests, the movement will quietly fade away.

But as long as government continues spend recklessly while the economy teeters on the edge of what could turn out to be a very deep double-dip recession, the Tea Party movement won't be going anywhere.

Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Tea Party Movement

This week's Weekend Caption Contest™ had a pretty good showing for a holiday weekend. The assignment this week was to caption the following picture:

Here are the winning entries:

1) (griff) - "I bleeping told you ACORN was the bleep you stupid bleeping hayseed bleeeeeep. I'm a bleeping Senator now you bleeping bleep and there isn't a bleeping bleep you or any other bleeping voter can do about it for six bleeping years."

2) (Stephen Macklin) - "It's my Senate seat.I stole it fair and square."

3) (GMAC) - "I'll have you know that *THIS* is the 'Al Franken decade' at last and nothing you can do is going to stop it!"

4) (jim2) - "Soros tops Caligula, who had needed ALL of a horse to make a senator."

5) (Porkopolis) - "After weeks of practice in front of a full-length mirror, Senate-elect Al Franken channels John Kerry and tries out his 'Do You Know Who I Am' pose on an unsuspecting constituent."

6) (iwogisdead) - "Al Franken reacts to learning that he has to pay for his coffee in the Senate cafeteria."

The Readers Choice Award this week went to griff's winning entry. In its place I offer this editor's choice caption:

(Rick13) - "You just watch Kevin! In five years I'll prove how stupid the people of Minnesota really are, and I'll be a U.S. Senator!"

That's all for this weekend. A new edition of the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ will debut Friday morning.

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Weekend Caption Contest

Some of you may have noticed that the main page at Wizbang seems somehow different.

In a nutshell, I've decided to focus on Wizbang and Wizbang Pop! The other sites, while still there, are being phased out. I won't go so far as to say that they are being permanently shuttered, but the focus will be on the aforementioned two sites, and there are no plans for the other sites.

The two sites I will be concentrating on will be getting a variety of upgrades and new features in the coming weeks. As always all of us who write at all of the Wizbang sites appreciate your support and patronage. We are committed to providing you the best opinion, analysis, and entertainment and lifestyle coverage possible.

Carry on...

Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Site News

I suppose it's my turn to write about the sudden resignation of Sarah Palin this past Friday. As I digested the news reports and commentary this weekend, one word kept popping into my mind: "outsider".

In politics, there is something magical about being an outsider. Political consultants sell their candidates' outsider status as a kind of synonym for purity. Outsiders are expected to work for the people, not for the system, because they have not been bought and paid for by special interests.

Barack Obama's political strategists used his relatively short tenure in national politics in order to portray him as an outsider. Obama was young, smart, free from corruption, free from D. C. entanglements, not beholden to the Clinton political machine, not controlled by the DNC, etc. They directly contrasted this to the cold, calculating demeanor of Hillary Clinton, who was suddenly transformed from the idealistic, progressive sweetheart of the 1990's into the epitome of the kind of iron-fisted Washington establishment figure that Obama's "Hope And Change" was supposed to trump.

Then Sarah Palin showed up. And she really was an outsider, in every conceivable sense of the word.

We know that John McCain's campaign staff harbored a lot of resentment toward Sarah Palin. Perhaps jealousy is a better word. Palin immediately eclipsed McCain on the campaign trail, simply by being herself. She rose to the top of the ticket without minute-by-minute briefings and instructions from McCain's handlers. She planned her own schedule, she took her own phone calls, she chose her own outfits (until McCain's staff forced her to wear outfits picked by a high-dollar Manhattan fashion consultant, a move which grossly backfired). She politely, but firmly, refused to be turned into a puppet by the McCain campaign staff. And that burned them up.

In spite of the wholesome nature ascribed to political outsiders, within the world of politics outsiders are thought of as foolish amateurs, and their ignorance of the system is considered to be a dangerous liability by political veterans. Sarah Palin's natural popularity was something that seasoned political insiders within both the Democrat and Republican parties found difficult to understand. I think Palin was somewhat prepared for the attacks from Democrats (though no one could have predicted the viciousness with which liberals would personally attack her and her family, especially her son Trig who has Down syndrome). But I don't believe that she was prepared to be handled in such a rough and patronizing manner by staffers from her own party.

I think Palin learned an important lesson from her vice presidential candidacy: the Washington, DC political establishment did not like her, and no one -- not even the national Republican party -- could be trusted to back her if she decided to pursue a Senate or Presidential candidacy.

I always believed that Sarah Palin entered politics to make a real difference. That's why she got involved in her local school board, then ran for city council and mayor. When she was appointed Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she refused to go along with the "good old boy" system and eventually filed ethics complaints against Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner Randy Ruedrich and former Alaskan Attorney General Gregg Renkes. Both of these men were Republicans, and Sarah's commitment to ethics above party politics is a marvel that few political figures are capable of. (Honestly, can you imagine Barack Obama taking on the Chicago Democrat political machine in a similar fashion?) I think we can take Palin at her word when she says that being a lightning rod for the Republican party has severely crippled her effectiveness as an elected leader.

So what will Sarah Palin, a legitimate political outsider, do now that she is no longer an elected official?

I think Palin knows that she is still very popular within the broad base of middle-class Americans who vote Republican. She was, without a doubt, the phenomenon that drew the crowds of tens of thousands to McCain-Palin campaign events. I think she also knows that she is still very popular outside of the circle of die-hard Republicans. During the final weeks of the 2008 Presidential election, a significant number of Americans, whether or not they all agreed with Sarah Palin's personal beliefs, found Palin's humble roots, impressive accomplishments, and devotion to her family all enormously appealing. And these same people were shocked and disgusted by the way she and her family were mercilessly pilloried by the news media and the Hollywood entertainment industry.

Again, this broad appeal is what drove the establishment crazy. No matter how hard the news media tried to portray Palin as a clueless idiot, no matter how hard liberal opinion writers tried to convince their readers of Palin's ignorance and unpreparedness for the office of Vice President, no matter how hard entertainers tried to portray Palin as an uncouth denizen of the redneck culture that thrives on teenage pregnancy, firearms, and Bible-thumping, Sarah Palin's popularity remained unchanged. The greatness of the liberal establishment's success in transforming Barack Obama into The Messiah was embarrassingly squelched by the thoroughness of their failure to destroy Sarah Palin's grassroots appeal.

As our own Hugh S., Kim, and many other conservative pundits have stated, Palin's effectiveness will be much greater whenever she becomes a private citizen. Americans have little patience for high-profile figures who deliberately savage ordinary citizens, and (as Hugh S. noted) the misogyny and contempt for special needs children that has saturated much of the anti-Palin bile spewed by liberals has left a bad taste in the mouths of the American public, and could horribly backfire in the near future if it is not discontinued.

The conservative movement in this country needs a strong figure to rally around, if for no other reason than to counter the massive cult appeal of Barack Obama among the liberal chattering class. I believe that Sarah Palin could become such a figure, even if she does not run for elected office again. She has the ability to galvanize the conservative movement and organize it around a set of positive, proactive goals, which is what conservatism needs right now. The Cult of Obama has too great a hold on American popular culture for conservatives to simply be "against" the Obama presidency.

Whatever her new calling turns out to be, I wish her all the success in the world. She has certainly done enough to earn it.

...

ADDED: I thought this observation from The Bosque Boys was worth noting:

Prediction: Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States.

However, there is no reason why she can't be a Republican Al Gore, beloved and admired on her side of the aisle and reviled and ridiculed by her irate opponents. Remember, Vice President Gore has reportedly earned $100 Million during the years following his defeat in 2000. Like Gore, Palin will always have star power and the ability to draw a crowd. We can expect her to use her influence on the party faithful when needed, and we can also expect her, like Gore, to continually dangle the prospect of running for president before the press and her faithful boosters (but my hunch is, ultimately, she will never pull the trigger again on a all-out run for the big prize).

All she needs now are a "few inconvenient truths."

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds adds: "...she'd be wise to avoid Al Gore's weight gain."

Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sarah Palin

This comes from an FBI agency spokesman, so there's absolutely no doubt about it. The rumors and lies on the left wing blogs that she resigned because she's the subject of an FBI investigation are just that, rumors and lies:

A day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resigned, a federal official in her home state dismissed one potential explanation for her sudden and unexpected resignation: a rumored FBI investigation into the former Wasilla mayor on public corruption charges.

Despite rumors of a looming controversy after the Republican governor's surprise announcement Friday that she would leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

Well, that settles that. And just in case some mainstream media outlets are still interested in smearing Governor Palin anyway, they've been put on notice by her attorney:

Ratcheting up her offensive against the news media, Gov. Sarah Palin's attorney threatened Saturday to sue mainstream news organizations if they publish "defamatory" stories relating to whether Palin is under federal investigation.

In an extraordinary four-page letter, Alaska-based attorney Thomas Van Flein warns of severe consequences should speculation that until now has largely been confined to blogs about whether Palin embezzled funds in the construction of a Wasilla, Alaska, sports arena find its way into print.

"This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law," Van Flein warned, citing Alaska liberal blogger Shannyn Moore.

"Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact," the Anchorage attorney wrote.

Neither the Times or the Post made any mention of the embezzlement rumors in their Saturday editions, but sources close to Palin consider the letter a warning shot to stay away from the topic.

In the letter, Van Flein writes: "'The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right.'... These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable."

I'm glad she's standing up for herself. She and her children have been the targets of media campaigns to defame, malign, and besmirch them. The liberals and progressives in the media hate Sarah Palin to their cores so they want to destroy her any way they can, and I think William Jacobson is right that it has always been about Trig:

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, the left would have been okay with it. If she hid Trig offstage and out of sight, all would be good. But treat the child as you would any other child, and that cannot be tolerated.

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

Kurt Schlichter at Big Hollywood has an interesting take on the positives on Sarah's resignation:

Remember when Darth Vader faced off with Obi-Wan Kenobi? "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?" She's now immune from bogus legal claims and her book will not only raise her profile but set up her family financially for life. Now Sarah is unbound, freed from the need to be up in Juneau and able to network, fundraise and even (maybe) campaign without limitation. And the modern media environment will let her do these things without even a nod to the mainstream media (Do you think Katie Couric will ever get to ask Sarah another question? Ha!)

Lefties, if you were responsible for her doing this, you just unleashed your strongest opponent and made her immune from your strongest attacks all at once. Ouch. It must hurt to know a woman you pride yourself on seeing as a drooling Neanderthal nitwit so thoroughly out-maneuvered you. You do see it, right?

Be sure to stop by Kurt's post and watch the Star Wars clip he's posted.

I have no idea if Palin had a grand plan in mind when she resigned. I think she was doing what was best for her family and her state. I also think she was doing what was best for her Lieutenant Governor, too, because he will now be able to run as an incumbent. While she helped him, she took all the wind out of Hollis French's sails. He was prepared to run for governor against Palin and was going to get really nasty and use the same "it's not business, it's personal" tactics the MSM has been using. It sucks to be him right now.

Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media, Sarah Palin

I'm not quite sure what was behind Sarah Palin's announcement on Friday that she would not seek reelection and would resign as governor of Alaska (but, as Kim noted, I will take her at her word until persuaded otherwise by facts). If the past few days have demonstrated anything it is that the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin among those on the left has become pathological.

Just after the Palin announcement The Huffington Post post ran a piece titled "Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform". After the Free Republic complained to the HuffPo the site took the piece down, but not before a screen cap was made. You can view it here. That a liberal site would use a special needs child as its foil is no longer shocking in the demented universe of Palin haters.It's encouraging to see evidence that the Palin family is going to take the gloves off and go after these scum bags (read this for more).

I agree somewhat with William Jacobson that much of what drives the hatred of Sarah Palin is her son Trig. Trig Palin is, to put it bluntly, a living and breathing indictment of the abortion industry that simply will not go away. Trig Palin's very existence makes the abortion advocates squirm in their seats and sweat. That's why so much energy and attention has been focused on the political and personal destruction of his mother.

But there is another element to the Palin obsession on the Left. As has been thoroughly discussed on this site and in the comments, if Sarah Palin was the dolt her opponents so eagerly claim she is then why the non stop demonization of her well after a landslide victory by the Left in 2008? The answer is that the Left knows that Palin speaks to a large constituency in the middle class that is becoming more organized and vocal as each month of this economic collapse worsens. On a deeper level, the Left also knows that there is a thread of misogyny that runs through much of the propaganda against Sarah Palin and this deep seated contempt for women will bring about a furious backlash. Therefore, the Left must not just wound her, they must eliminate her.

Sarah Palin has been vilified unlike any politician I have seen in my lifetime. Unless there is some scandal about to break (and it appears unlikely) the Left (with its contempt for her family) will have succeeded in turning her into a martyr. As such, she will raise more money for Republican politicians than any other figure on the national stage. The midterm elections got a lot more interesting on Friday.

Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics
Tags: Palin Legal Action, Palin Resignation, Thomas Van Flein

Update: It is looking like this was a murder-suicide. The woman, his 20 year old girlfriend, shot him and then turned the gun on herself. McNair, however, was married and had four children. I feel terrible for them.

What horrible news. Pray for his family:

Former NFL quarterback Steve McNair has been shot and killed. He was 36.

Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron confirmed that police were called to a residence and found McNair and a woman shot to death inside. Aaron said authorities don't yet know the circumstances of the shooting.

"I don't have any answers for you now as to what's happened, who's responsible," he said.

Aaron said police have tentatively identified the woman but did not release her name.

Titans owner Bud Adams also confirmed the quarterback's death in a brief statement released Saturday.

Adams called him "one of the finest players to play for our organization and one of the most beloved players by our fans. He played with unquestioned heart and leadership and led us to places that we had never reached, including our only Super Bowl."

McNair played 11 seasons in the NFL with the Tennessee Titans franchise and then spent two seasons with the Baltimore Ravens.

He was a three-time Pro Bowler and was the Co-AP NFL MVP in 2003.

He just embarked upon a new career as a restaurateur:

Steve McNair never really planned on owning a restaurant after his professional football career, even though he's known within his family as a pretty good cook.

But he's got one open now -- called Steve McNair's Gridiron9 -- on Jefferson Street near Tennessee State University. McNair said his place is at that location for a reason.

"I always wanted to retire and teach kids about life, and I'm still doing that with my camps,'' McNair said. "This is something that I can still give back to the community. A lot of college students don't have the funds to go to (upscale) restaurants, but we can still offer them good food, healthy food they can afford.''

The restaurant has a bit of a college, come-as-you-are type feel to it, not big, but relaxed.

"We want to know (customers), their name, what they eat and drink,'' McNair said. "If I'm in town, I'll be here every day.''

McNair plans to open additional Gridiron9 locations. He'll first look to expand at other areas in and around Nashville and then, perhaps, in McNair's home state of Mississippi.

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News

Sarah Palin's announcement that she's not running for reelection for governor in 2010 and will step down and hand the reins to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell on July 26th was a shock to everyone. Of course, everyone is speculating why. The Anchoress wondered if she or someone in her family is sick and she mentioned how thin she has become lately. Others are wondering if she is positioning herself for a 2012 run. Those who tend to see the world through a bit more cynical colored glasses are speculating that there's another scandalous shoe to drop. I have to admit, being a Sarah Palin fan, I want to see the positive in her decision.

Being a mom, I have found myself furious after hearing about all the disgusting accusations Palin's opponents have made about her family. I just don't get the hatred that flows in some people's veins. I would not blame her one iota if she decided to say "screw it" and leave politics in order to protect her kids. But I don't think that's it. She also mentioned in her announcement today that it's become nearly impossible for her to even do her job as governor with all the frivolous ethical complaints her political opponents in Alaska keep throwing at her. Her brother in a phone call to Fox News said she told him she and her staff spend 80% of their time dealing with them. But I don't think this is the primary reason, either.

If you take her at her word, and with her I am willing to, I think she sees a greater opportunity to advance the conservative cause outside the governor's office. This will allow her to campaign for conservative candidates and give speeches at conservative events.

A post at the Huffington Post offers an explanation from the head of the Republican Governor's Association Nick Ayers:

"I don't think this is buckling to pressure," said Ayers. "I think this is her coming to the realization that the legislature in Alaska and that some bloggers and activists in Alaska are going to do everything they can to stymie her progress. This is a governor who didn't run for the office because she wanted a title. She wanted to make significant change in the state. She realized that that was no longer going to be able to happen, because things had become so partisan there."

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money not going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game.

It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but this isn't what anyone had in mind for Alaska.

If I have learned one thing: life is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time; but to build up this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and "go with the flow".

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.

But I won't do it from the Governor's desk.

Thomas Lifson has more at the American Thinker.

Bruce Kessler writing at Maggie's Farm says today is Sarah Palin's Independence Day.

Permalink | Comments (56) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics, Sarah Palin

As Americans prepare to celebrate the 4th of July it's worth asking, are you better off than you were two years ago when Democrats took over Congress? Are you better off than you were six months ago? If not, then consider what you have to look forward to for the next couple of years.

The Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration promised a peak unemployment of 8% if the stimulus legislation was passed. Now that that unemployment has blown through 9.4% in less than five months after its passage voters should think hard about some other unemployment data that paints a much more depressing picture of the U S economy. Those Americans that are employed are working on average 33 hours per week. As the Wall Street Journal notes, that's the lowest level in 40 years:

Average hours worked per week dropped to 33, the lowest level in at least 40 years. This means that millions of full-time workers are being downgraded to part-time, as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water. Because people are working less, wages have fallen by 0.3% this year. Factories are operating at only 65% capacity, while the overall jobless rate hit 9.5%. Throw in discouraged workers who want full-time work, and the labor underutilization rate climbed to 16.5%.

So what does Congress have on deck to address this underemployment and unemployment? A minimum wage hike from $6.55 an hour to $7.25 an hour. As real wages in the private sector are falling the government is mandating higher wages to accomplish what? Higher employment? Hardly. An increase in the minimum wage will exacerbate the already contracting market for jobs as employers continue to squeeze out cost savings in a shrinking economy.

Asked about the surprise surge in unemployment Thursday, President Obama had this to say:

"If we're weatherizing every building and home in America, if we are creating windmills and solar panels and biofuel facilities, that is a huge promising area not only for jobs here in the United States, but also for export growth."

That answer is on par with his "tune up" advice for car drivers last year when gas prices spiked. Has there ever been a more disengaged, clueless Executive on the matter of economic and fiscal policy? The answer is no because this president has set himself apart from the rest by advocating a massive energy usage tax (Cap and Trade),a massive health care tax, increased taxes on small business, and mandatory wage hikes on small business.....all in the first six months of office, all in the midst of the worst recession in forty years.

As the Journal editors correctly note, "a sustained expansion and job creation must come from private investment and risk-taking". There is nothing in President Obama's policy that encourages risk taking. In fact, there is much about the President's policy that encourages risk avoidance and tax avoidance, both of which behaviors are anathema to private sector growth. Democrats in control of both Congress and the Presidency offer little real hope and change for the unemployed. In light of the legislative milestones of the past six months Republicans need to exploit the gift their opponents are serving up to them: every unemployed and underemployed person is a swing vote worth fighting for.

Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: Minimum Wage Hike, Obama Tax Increases, Unemployment

The Politico reports Governor Palin will make an announcement from her home in Wasilla, which some are speculating means that she will announce she won't run for reelection as governor. Who knows. Maybe the hateful, bigoted, and just plain insane accusations (Sullivan still insists Trig is not her baby) made about her and her family may have just become too much. I hope that's not the case because it would mean that the haters can succeed in driving out those they fear from public office.

Update: Mark Halperin offers 10 reasons why Governor Palin won't run for reelection as governor.

Here are some predictions from friends on Twitter:

The Anchoress thinks Palin will announce she is ill and won't run for reelection. She makes this prediction based upon the fact she has become quite thin lately.

Jim Geraghty says his wife thinks Palin will announce she and Todd are expecting again.

Update II: CNN reports that according to GOP sources Palin won't run for reelection. \

Update III: Palin says she can better affect positive change for Alaska and the country from outside the governor's office. In the video of her speech announcing she would not run for reelection she referenced all she did to help Alaska's energy production, but she also said she and her staff spent too much time and public money to fight the frivolous ethics complaints. It cost the state $2 million and her family $500,000 to as she said "set the record straight."

My gut tells me she will not run for president in 2012.

Update IV: Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC says sources tell her Palin is out of politics for good:

Some have speculated in the past that Palin may be interested in running for president in 2012, but she did not mention running for another office at her press conference. Sources told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that Palin is out of politics for good.

Update V: The Anchoress is sticking by her prediction that there's something else going on that she wants to keep secret, like maybe she or one of her kids is ill and has no interest in giving the leftist haters something else to rip apart with their fangs.

Update VI: Jim Geraghty touches on what has me upset and that is how Palin's kids were treated by sickos like Andrew Sullivan, David Letterman and others on the left who said such evil, nasty things that I have begun to accept that they have no souls but are the human equivalent of Orcs:

The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

Permalink | Comments (89) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: News, Sarah Palin