Monthly Archives: March 2010

Update II: Waiting For The Weasel Vote (Baier Badgers Barack)

Democracy, Democrats, Healthcare, Media, Regulation, Republicans

“A procedural sleight of hand,” the Washington Post calls Pelosi’s putative plan to pass her hulking healthcare bill without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

“It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

This is not unusual; Republicans have resorted to “deem and pass” in the past, but will now make a big fuss, I hope. However, let this country not be lauded, as it often is, by the pundit peanut gallery for the great democracy it is. It is well-accepted that in a democracy the minority is thwarted. Less accepted is the fact that democracy bypasses the majority as well.

Update I: Via Glenn Beck a chart depicting the bypassing of democracy discussed in this post:

Update II (March 17): BAIER BADGERS BARACK. Bret has to be saluted for his valiant efforts to get this smooth operator of a president to answer a question instead of mouth agitprop, in this exclusive FoxNews interview. It’s worth watching Baier at work. He’s good. But, of course, the top propagandist had the upper hand in the end.

Devastating New Poll For Swing-State Dems About Obamacare

Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Government, Healthcare

Writes Robert Bidinotto:

This critical Wall Street Journal article may turn the tide on the ObamaCare vote:

The central argument used by Team Obama to line up wavering congressional Dem support for ObamaCare is: ‘You’ll pay a heavier price in November if we fail to pass ObamaCare, than if you vote for it.'”

This poll proves that this claim is a big lie. It’s the first survey to demonstrate conclusively that swing-district Democrats will pay a heavier price at the polls in November if they vote YES for ObamaCare, than if they vote NO. In fact, if they vote against it, voters are significantly more likely to cut them slack in the next election.

From the poll:

“Sixty percent of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current [health-care] legislation and wants to start over.” But “the survey does provide a little good news for wavering Democrats. A congressman can buy himself a little grace if he had previously voted for health-care reform but now votes against it. Forty-nine percent of voters will feel more supportive of that member if he does so, 40% less supportive. More dramatically, 58% of voters say they will be more supportive of their congressman’s re-election if he votes against the bill a second time. However, for those members who voted against it in November and vote yes this time, 61% of voters say they will be less likely to support their re-election. Over a third of respondents say they will actively work against a candidate who votes the wrong way or for the candidate who votes the right way.”

[SNIP]

Bidinotto thinks “that it is critical that this survey receive the widest possible attention, especially among swing-district congressmen.” He has a request: “Please link to it on your websites and forward this message to others, including your representative. It may just tip the balance in the vote this week.”

I hope so.

Toyota Shakedown Continues

Business, Government, Republicans, Technology, The State

Torquemada’s onslaught against Toyota has signaled to others in the business of shakedown to try their luck. That was what James Sikes, in his unstoppable Prius, was up to, as the malfunctioning media broadcast a blow-by-blow account of his Prius gone wild, while network bimbos looked on, shaking empty heads and tsk-tsking loudly.

Sikes was trying out the trick Rhonda Smith of Sevierville, Tenn., pioneered, and with which she won the Congressional inquisitors to her side. Smith’s run-away “Herbie” was a Lexus 350 ES sedan. You don’t want to get into one of those death traps.

Toyota Motor Corp. dismissed the story of a man [Sikes] who claimed his Prius sped out of control on the California freeway, saying Monday that its own tests found the car’s gas pedal and backup safety system were working just fine.

The automaker stopped short of saying James Sikes had staged a hoax last week but said his account did not square with a series of tests it conducted on the gas-electric hybrid.

The Regulator in the person of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif) was looking over Toyota’s shoulder during the testing. We’re safe! He follows the proud tradition of the Floridian Republican, John Mica and Jason Chaffetz.

During the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform inquisition, last month, “in florid language,” Mica blasted a Toyota official: “‘I’m embarrassed for you, sir,’ Mica shrieked, clutching his smoldering toupee. Not much better was Chaffetz. This Republican admonished Mr. Inaba for an internal Toyota brief that called ‘the American government safety agency under the Obama administration less ‘industry friendly.'”

This revelatory reality—at least to Republicans—had pushed the Toyota team into a dalliance with the regulators. Any serious student of economics knows that regulation forces an entrepreneur to substitute viable, voluntary trades and transactions with politicized decision making. But what does Chaffetz [and his fellow Republicans] know?

Yelling About Yellen (The New BO Appointee)

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Labor

In an economy of high unemployment and inflation, Barack Obama has gone and appointed as vice chair of the Federal Reserve a woman called Janet Yellen, by whose “economic” model inflation is the result of “too many people working and too much economic prosperity.” Or at least, that’s how Larry Kudlow distills the theory.

That such an economic theory exists attests to the degree to which economics and politics have become intertwined. Certainly, “Keynes’s political creed guaranteed a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and its stooge economists. Most of what Keynes advocated entails giving the state enormous confiscatory powers.”

Is “the Phillips-curve model,” Yellen’s preferred theory, an extension of Keynesianism, or is it just some form of free floating statism? I have no idea. But since most economists are servants of the state in-waiting, following the Phillips Curve—which posits “a consistent inverse relationship: when unemployment is high, wages increase slowly; when unemployment is low, wages rise rapidly”—has given rise to “a menu of policy options.” Examples, courtesy of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, are:

with an unemployment rate of 6 percent, the government might stimulate the economy to lower unemployment to 5 percent. Figure 1 indicates that the cost, in terms of higher inflation, would be a little more than half a percentage point. But if the government initially faced lower rates of unemployment, the costs would be considerably higher: a reduction in unemployment from 5 to 4 percent would imply more than twice as big an increase in the rate of inflation—about one and a quarter percentage points.

OF COURSE, the unquestioned premise of these phillipic prescriptions is that “stimulus” does indeed lower said unemployment rates. Only in The Oink Sectors.