In my latest column, now on Taki’s Magazine, I look high-and-low for “Honorable Hondurans for Hire,” to depose of the D.C. bloodsuckers before they do more harm:
“Vice President Joe Biden has been slightly more candid than his boss, confessing of late that he ‘and everyone else misread the economy.’ For his ‘everyone else’ refrain, or plain fib, Joe can be forgiven. Drawing comfort from ‘the warm smell of the herd’ he surrounds himself with is slightly better than Obama’s way out. Beloved of the herd, Obama opts for sophistic statements—the kind that cannot be proved or disproved. To wit: sans stimulus, more jobs would have been lost.
Yes, jobs. Although Obama’s chief economic advisers promised that their ‘stim’ would hold the unemployment rate below 8 percent, it has risen to 9.5 percent and is expected to exceed ten. This is the highest unemployment has been in almost 26 years, with employers cutting 467,000 jobs in June alone.
A few months back, when Obama passed his $787 billion of stimulus—consisting of politically directed projects that ballooned government at all levels—there was not a scintilla of uncertainly in the minds of his gurus and the patsy pundits who service them. This infusion of borrowed and counterfeited funds, they asserted, would pick up the slack in the languishing economy, to use one crazy Keynesian concept. (Keynes was to economics as Katrina was to New Orleans.) …
… Laura Tyson, eminent adviser to the president … managed to make front-page news—vying with Jackson and the carrion beetles consuming his remains—by asserting that the February stimulus was ‘a bit too small.’
Not a great deal too small, mind you, just a wee bit small.
When issued, the lion’s share of this oh-so carefully calibrated loot ought to go toward hiring a few honorable Hondurans to depose of the bloodsuckers before they do more harm. …”
The complete column, “Seeking Honorable Hondurans For Hire,” is now on Taki’s.
Miss the weekly column on WND.COM? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine every Saturday.
The so-called town halls set up for the propagandist-in-chief to peddle his policies are as alarming as the infomercials the networks avail him of. All the more so given that no forum airs any serious, substantive questions. There is something both mindless and eerie about the monolithic, collectivist nature of Obama’s “National Discussion on Health Care Reform.” Say after me, all together now, etc.
The guy is also flooding the Internet with his “message.” Is this propaganda? Heavens no. The toxic, and intoxicated journalistic profession would say this is but a savvy use of the new technology. And isn’t it all so very groovy and cool?
In last week’s “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” I explained one fundamental difference between the private market and the “public plan”: The latter “is a subsidized plan in which prices are artificially fixed below market level. As sure as night follows day, overconsumption and shortages always ensue. If he is as smart as he thinks he is, even the smarmy president must knows that, to compete with the state, private plans and insurers cannot offer services below their real cost for long.
Private practitioners who sell their wares at a loss—are not ‘too big to fail,’ and have yet to slip between the sheets with the derriere doctor-in-chief—will be waylaid. Conversely, because it enjoys a monopoly over force, the government is immune to bankruptcy. It covers its shortfalls by direct and indirect theft: by taxing the people, or flooding the country’s financial arteries with toxic fiat currency.
Other than to indenture doctors, the overall effect of forcing professionals to provide healthcare below market prices will be to decrease the supply and quality of providers and products.
My colleague Vox Day adds the following important points:
It would not be logical if the government were competing on anything remotely resembling a level playing field. However, that’s not the case with government, which has several advantages even when it doesn’t make use of its ability to assert a monopolistic position. First, a government agency has no need to make money. Subsidized by the taxpayers and public debt, it can run at a loss for decades. It can therefore undercut private competition by any amount it chooses, thus creating demand for its services even if they are inferior. Second, a government agency is allowed to exclude itself from regulations that apply to private competitors, giving it further competitive advantages that don’t necessarily show up on the balance sheets. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could successfully sue an employee at a government health care provider for malpractice. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950, which prevents veterans from suing any Veterans Administration physician for malpractice. So, among other things, federal health care providers would not need to carry insurance due to their so-called sovereign immunity.
Obama and logic: never the twain shall meet.
An aside: My language-loving ears were stung when I heard the man, hailed for his literary skills, say in today’s portion of the week, “her and her husband …” It’s “she and her husband,” you doofus. And then, “One of the many options we have are….” It’s “one of the many options … IS.” Hint: One is singular. I’ll remind you that the fact the Obama speaks better English than Bush means nothing at all.
Update I: Chip Reid of CBS News and Helen Thomas skewer Obama’s cackling hyena of a press secretary, Robert Gibbs, over Obama’s town hall-by-invitation. Reid explains to the Mouth what a townhall is—a free for all. Both the public and the questions for the ostensible “National Discussion on Health Care Reform” were carefully preselected and screened. My sense that this was a convention of automatons was based on the fact that indeed it was. Thomas, a historical relic herself, says that this White House is the first to conduct itself in this manner: “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness …” Imagine that: Thomas, who regularly gave Bush hell, might come to miss The Shrub, as we progress down the road to serfdom.
Update II (July 2): What Thomas told CNS News (via the Glenn Beck newsletter):
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said. “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
Asks Glenn (or his proxy): Does this mean Obama’s honeymoon with the press is coming to an end?
I answer (not that he’d know it): don’t count on it. The “parrot press” has a lot riding on that ass.
The so-called town halls set up for the propagandist-in-chief to peddle his policies are as alarming as the infomercials the networks avail him of. All the more so given that no forum airs any serious, substantive questions. There is something both mindless and eerie about the monolithic, collectivist nature of Obama’s “National Discussion on Health Care Reform.” Say after me, all together now, etc.
The guy is also flooding the Internet with his “message.” Is this propaganda? Heavens no. The toxic, and intoxicated journalistic profession would say this is but a savvy use of the new technology. And isn’t it all so very groovy and cool?
In last week’s “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” I explained one fundamental difference between the private market and the “public plan”: The latter “is a subsidized plan in which prices are artificially fixed below market level. As sure as night follows day, overconsumption and shortages always ensue. If he is as smart as he thinks he is, even the smarmy president must knows that, to compete with the state, private plans and insurers cannot offer services below their real cost for long.
Private practitioners who sell their wares at a loss—are not ‘too big to fail,’ and have yet to slip between the sheets with the derriere doctor-in-chief—will be waylaid. Conversely, because it enjoys a monopoly over force, the government is immune to bankruptcy. It covers its shortfalls by direct and indirect theft: by taxing the people, or flooding the country’s financial arteries with toxic fiat currency.
Other than to indenture doctors, the overall effect of forcing professionals to provide healthcare below market prices will be to decrease the supply and quality of providers and products.
My colleague Vox Day adds the following important points:
It would not be logical if the government were competing on anything remotely resembling a level playing field. However, that’s not the case with government, which has several advantages even when it doesn’t make use of its ability to assert a monopolistic position. First, a government agency has no need to make money. Subsidized by the taxpayers and public debt, it can run at a loss for decades. It can therefore undercut private competition by any amount it chooses, thus creating demand for its services even if they are inferior. Second, a government agency is allowed to exclude itself from regulations that apply to private competitors, giving it further competitive advantages that don’t necessarily show up on the balance sheets. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could successfully sue an employee at a government health care provider for malpractice. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950, which prevents veterans from suing any Veterans Administration physician for malpractice. So, among other things, federal health care providers would not need to carry insurance due to their so-called sovereign immunity.
Obama and logic: never the twain shall meet.
An aside: My language-loving ears were stung when I heard the man, hailed for his literary skills, say in today’s portion of the week, “her and her husband …” It’s “she and her husband,” you doofus. And then, “One of the many options we have are….” It’s “one of the many options … IS.” Hint: One is singular. I’ll remind you that the fact the Obama speaks better English than Bush means nothing at all.
Update I: Chip Reid of CBS News and Helen Thomas skewer Obama’s cackling hyena of a press secretary, Robert Gibbs, over Obama’s town hall-by-invitation. Reid explains to the Mouth what a townhall is—a free for all. Both the public and the questions for the ostensible “National Discussion on Health Care Reform” were carefully preselected and screened. My sense that this was a convention of automatons was based on the fact that indeed it was. Thomas, a historical relic herself, says that this White House is the first to conduct itself in this manner: “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness …” Imagine that: Thomas, who regularly gave Bush hell, might come to miss The Shrub, as we progress down the road to serfdom.
Update II (July 2): What Thomas told CNS News (via the Glenn Beck newsletter):
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said. “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
Asks Glenn (or his proxy): Does this mean Obama’s honeymoon with the press is coming to an end?
I answer (not that he’d know it): don’t count on it. The “parrot press” has a lot riding on that ass.
Is the slavish NEWSWEEK being unfaithful to the Celestial One and his gaseous energy policies? Robert J. Samuelson has belatedly and anemically concluded that “the Obama administration is biased against the oil and natural-gas industries.” Dah! You know, a watered down version of the stuff we have been writing about for years (with some important distinction, naturally):
“Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States still has huge oil and natural-gas resources. The outer continental shelf (OCS), including parts that have been off limits to drilling since the early 1980s, may contain much natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil, about four times today’s “proven” U.S. reserves. The U.S. Geological Survey recently estimated that the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana may hold 3.65 billion barrels, about 22 times a 1995 estimate. And then there’s upwards of 2 trillion barrels of oil shale, concentrated in Colorado. If 800 billion barrels were recoverable, that’s triple Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves….
The president is lauded as a great educator; in this case, he provided much miseducation. He implied that there’s a choice between promoting renewables and relying on oil. Actually, the two are mostly disconnected. Wind and solar mainly produce electricity. About 70 percent of our oil goes for transportation (cars, trucks, planes); almost none—about 1.5 percent—generates electricity. So expanding wind and solar won’t displace much oil, though there might be some small effect on natural gas for heating. Someday, electric cars may change this. But at best, that’s decades away.
For now, the only ways to reduce oil imports are to use less or produce more. Obama has paid some attention to the first with higher fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. But his administration is undermining the second. At the Department of the Interior, which oversees public lands and the OCS, Secretary Ken Salazar has taken steps that dampen exploration and development: canceled 77 leases in Utah because they were too close to national parkland, extended a comment period for OCS exploration to evaluate possible environmental effects and signaled a more cautious policy toward shale for similar reasons.”
Update: “According to the analysis … conducted at The Heritage Foundation … the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
…Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.”
