Thanks for all the contributions here - what a wealth of information. The alignment  topic has been central to my life for about 35 years.   When I was 17, I was hit hard as a pedestrian by a car going roughly 50. I was hit on the lower left leg.  There was swelling like a basketball and about 50% overlap on the tibia and fibula. They decided that the set was good enough to heal and fill in, and I was plastered from hip to toe. 

On the first follow up the swelling had gone down and the alignment was checked by x-ray and modified by cutting and shimming the cast at the break with a cork and re-plastered over it.  Still the inside of the cast was loose and the resulting alignment was better but still off. 

I had doctor reports about alignment.  If I recall, the lower half of the lower leg is angled forward and out by 11-14 degrees, the foot is angled a little inward and the knees are fairly loose and slightly knock-kneed on both sides.  Amazingly, only one doctor thought to measure length and discovered that I lost 7/8 of an inch.  If I didn't notice almost an inch, there are people out there unaware of a 1/16 that foxmarten says should be addressed.

When I exercised and trained and built muscles around the knee I felt pretty good.  When I didn't play sports I would also lose the strength to stand or walk much.  My senior year in college I went on a mission to decide what to do about the alignment .  At each stop the first orthopedic surgeon would call in a colleague and then the department head.  It was amazing to me that I could sway their recommendation by whether I complained or downplayed my symptoms.  It seemed like there was little science to it.  I saw the head of the orthopedic department at the Mayo Clinic.  He wouldn't say he recommended re-breaking to correct the alignment, but said he would do it if that is what I wanted and we set an appointment for an osteotomy.  They would re-break higher on the bone than the original break and take out a notch for alignment.  I would actually have lost even more length.

I saw another specialist who recommended against it, wouldn't take on the risks of non-union, non-healing etc.  I canceled the procedure, got on with my life and have rarely looked back.

I tried to find out about a lift for the shortened leg.  Heal lifts were no good because they change the ankle position which is instant pain for me. I walked into medical supply places, asked questions and finally got a referral to a custom orthopedic shoe provider.  They build a 7/8 inch full length lift on a leather shoe, high topped to prevent ankle rollover and I wear it for everything, even golf. I felt better instantly and could feel years of damage go from 'hurt to heal to harmonize'. 

Now I'm 52 and doing well.  It's hard to tell which aches and pains are from sports, which are from aging and which are from this battle.

Some comments and observations:  Kids often notice the unmatched shoe heights instantly while many adults I've known for decades have no idea.

As I think Richard wrote, the alignment and function at the hips is the key to the back and spine.  Sitting and standing too long are strangely harder for me that playing up to 10 sets a day of tennis. 

Maija: "Everything is connected to something or how does that go?" - Lol.  When I tell people that their knees are connected they think I'm crazy, but the knees are only separated by a couple of hips, and the alignment on one side directly affects the other.  Limping to favor one side hurts the other. 

Paul (Foxmarten): the joke about being careful when you talk to someone who carries a knife is prophetic for me.  I've already got more good years without surgery than they would have predicted with it.  They were not selling a fast, certain or complete recovery.

Interesting point about the knee hurting with a shim.  In the ski boot business they do something called canting.  My racing boots have allen screws that allow you to set the sideways tilt of the boot to the footbed so that the ski will sit flat on the snow as you stand naturally. 

CCP:" I wonder where drugs would be on the list of imports from Mexico if records were kept."

  - Good point.  Also it is said that if China paid full price royalties for the software, music and movies that it takes, that would entirely close the trade gap.
 
"One wonders how we export so much oil rather than use it all here?  It must not be that simple."

  - I don't know the mechanics either - shipping lanes or refined versus crude etc.  We have a large geography.  Reuters: "The biggest share of U.S. oil products exported went to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil",
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0325640920080703?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Looks to me like refined product gets shipped out the west coast (no doubt that some of it originated in Canada, hence both import and export).  I looks like the US east coast is a large importer, remember the Katrina refinery shutdowns in New Orleans (south coast?).  I know Iran for example has no refining so they export oil but have to import all their gasoline. When Venezuela was threatening to cut off oil to the U.S, one analyst wrote that they would then have tankers going both directions through the Panama canal.  It is a global market.  Wouldn't it be easier to just switch the shipping labels.

Thanks for the feedback that my link did not light up correctly.  I use this bookmark for the economic posts of Brian Wesbury: http://www.ftportfolios.com/Common/Rss/CommentaryFeed.aspx   All of the posts marked commentary or analysis are well worth the read IMO.

For the latest trade deficit link, scroll down to: "The trade deficit in goods and services fell to $36.0 billion".  I'll try to hot-link again:
http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2009/3/13/the_trade_deficit_in_goods_and_services_fell_to_$36.0_billion_in_january

My point was that if imports declined by 23% and exports declined by 16%, both are bad news even though the 'trade deficit' is now smaller.

(Wesbury should have been Bush's Fed chair pick instead of failed Fed insider Ben Bernancke.)

http://www.realclearworld.com/lists/most_dangerous_cities/most_dangerous_cities_intro.html

10.London - knife related violence
9. Saskatoon - aggravated assault and robbery
8. Norilsk - pollution, life expectancy 40, no living tree within 30 miles
7. Johannesburg - theft, robbery and violence
6. Rio de Janeiro - violent gun crime, assassinations and drug-trafficking
5. Detroit - violent crime, property crime, most notably rampant arson and car theft
4. Caracas - homicide rate doubled under Chavez, 'Murder Capital of the World'
3. Linfen - dirtiest air in the world
2. Ciudad Juarez - epicenter of rival drug cartels, smugglers, kidnappers and criminals
1. Mogadishu - gun battles between rival militias and tribal factions

"The biggest exporter is Germany"

Impressive statistic for Germany but not a fair comparison with the US economy IMO for the following reason:  When Germany ships to any other country in European Union it is counted as an export, when someone in Florida, Texas, California, New York, Massachusetts or 45 other states ships across state lines it does not.

"I am trying to find out what our biggest exports are; autos? gas? oil? technology?"

Here are some trade stats to sift through, imports: http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/ir842.htm,  exports:  http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/er842.htm, Other countries: http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/indexri.htm.

What you see there might surprise you.

Addressing a strain of political economics that considers imports and trade deficits to be symptoms of economic weakness or failure, it is interesting to note that in this bad economy our trade deficit is 'improving', down to its lowest level since our last bad economy.  (We also had a trade 'surplus' during the great depression.)  http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2009/3/13/the_trade_deficit_in_goods_and_services_fell_to_$36.0_billion_in_january

I'll try to explain my view better... commerce is good (except for warheads to tyrants etc.), each transaction involves productive behavior between consenting adults and EACH transaction is a win-win situation for BOTH parties or they wouldn't make the deal.  So each import is good and each export is good.  More is better. To make a judgment about how they are going you should ADD them together for the trade figure instead of subtracting one from the other.  You don't see growing imports in a contracting domestic economy or growing exports in a contracting global economy.  In this bad economy, both imports and exports are way down.  That is a more meaningful observation than comparing one with the other IMO.

Riot/protest video edited out of this topic per moderator directive. I stand by my observation that this unrest is now in Sweden because these people moved there, not for the weather, not for the jobs with 70% unemployed, but for the world's most lavish welfare benefits including universal healthcare. - Doug

CCP, The way forward IMO involves building the coalition between the factions you allude to, not to abandon EITHER core group in favor of another.  There is nothing 'Christian' about being pro-life or else at least half of Christians aren't Christian.  The second strongest defense of pro-life views I ever heard came from radio host Dr. Laura Schlesinger who is Jewish, and the strongest argument I've seen comes from science and ultrasound photography.

The point you make about the platform is correct.  The platform tradition should be ended instead of ignored by the elected candidates.  It is used only by opponents to demonstrate the extremism of their opponent.  The pro-life wording in the platform you cite would trump abortion for even the areas where all serious elected conservatives politicians would draw an exception.  The platform process is dominated the small minority of the involved and should be replaced by a Newt-style contract, agreed to and promoted in public, finding core principles that overlap realistic, electable plans for governing. 

Crafty: "I find the question about the likely dramatic decline of Chinese exports and the domestic consequences thereof to be an interesting one."

I have long believed that the Chinese rulers would not survive a serous downturn in their economy, but I also have learned over time that I am more offended by the oppressive regime there than the Chinese people are.  I don't know how an uprising would happen nor do I understand how such a small ruling class could contain a billion people over these years as they watched most of the globe move to consensual government.  In any case, they haven't been tested with real economic troubles.  The words of Rahm come to mind - you hate let a good crisis go to waste.

The leaders know to pre-empt upheaval by flexing their military strength and commitment.  As they try to energize nationalism, maybe Obama is of some advantage in this situation.  When they try to play the U.S. as the reason to pull together, maybe the evil, pre-emptive warmonger George W. Bush was a more convincing bogeyman for the masses than the affable, green behind the ears, can-we-talk, Barack.  As they see the disarm, talk and surrender foreign policy of this administration it will be hard try to convince your people that your nation is under a serious threat from afar.

Interesting take Prentice.  "They didn't say anything about the lack of mental heathcare or look at the pressures of family life and at work or school." 

I haven't looked into these cases at all but in general would add that the tools to force treatment or confinement for the suicidal have been dropped in our society.  Their freedom comes with these risks. 

Just like the terrorists, fear of administrative penalty on equipment violations isn't a motivator for those intent on ending their own life.  Only a giant government magnet can make certain that criminals and wackos comply with each new law change.

I hope that I am with one of my concealed carry friends if ever caught up in one of these rampages.

It seems to me a matter of timeliness that has elapsed.  The accusers needed to challenge this when he went on the ballot, not when he started winning or after he won and was sworn in.  This case was tried by the voters who knew he had a foreign father and spent overseas time as a child.

Let's say for sake of argument there is something fishy about the original birth certificate on file in Hawaii.  The accusers still would need more than a hunch and multiple theories to get a judge to force a look.  And what if they now find a sloppy or reconstituted document?  Then what? Put the document on trial.  Prove it's not original. And then what?  Even a right-wing congress or conservative court would still not remove him now from office IMO.  If the story of the sources in the WND piece are true, which is doubtful because Justices don't speak candidly on open matters to their spouses, much less at book signings, it sounds like you would have 3 votes maximum out of 9 at most AFTER proving the President ineligible to serve.  I think no Justice and no congress would reopen this under any circumstance

I watched the hysteria on liberal boards about non-stop Bush impeachment talk that made it all the way to the fringe members of congress.  The answer then was that the President will leave at the end of his term and in this case after being defeated or serving two terms. Trite but true: elections have consequences.  There is a way forward and this isn't it.

Chad, Thanks for posting.  Steele will be fine IMO if he can now hit the ground running.  If not for the mis-steps (all publicity is good publicity?) no one would have noticed or cared that a black man is now running the Republican Party.  Repubs had a black man and black woman at the highest cabinet posts and a black man to the highest court in the land without black voters noticing or caring.  If/when Michael Steele has accomplishments as RNC Chair, maybe then he will become a national voice and begin to influence a voter or two.  There is plenty of room for Steele to make a huge difference, but this defense of Steele came from his own PR person. We will see.  We will see what he can do with top down leadership for a deflated structure that needs to be re-built from the bottom up.

One public improvement that comes to mind is to stop having the equal-time opposition speaker talk to an empty room.  These should be done with enthusiasm that spills from the live audience to the television, radio and internet audience - either with stadium sized support or in a staged, Letterman/Leno type setting.  A citizens version of a joint session of congress is what they need IMO.  The future political leaders need to speak to a crowd and the party had better go find and train the candidates that can do it.  They also need clarity of message...

Mark to Market is one valuable tool to analyze the value of an asset.  The rigid accounting of nothing but mark to market on all loans ignores the reality that most families will stay in their home and make the payments un der most circumstances. 

We have a long tradition of incompetent regulation.  That is not an argument for no regulation nor is it an argument to increase the size or budget of the failed regulators.  To me it is an argument to define the role of the federal government down to a manageable, constitutional size and hold regulators to efficiency and performance standards in line with their responsibilities.

I am grateful for intelligent dissent on this board, especially from Rachel.

"Every time I go to post all I seem capable of writing is snarky comments or a harangue. I deleted these kind of  comments before they were posted.  I'm sure you all could handle my negatively but that is not the person I want to be."

Likewise, I have seen other boards digress that way and wish for my own postings and thoughts to not stoop that way.  I regret when my replies to you have crossed that line without being cleaned in the proofread.  My intent was always to challenge you politically, intellectually and morally on the issues, such as pro-life vs. reproductive freedom, not to put you down or myself as superior.  And to be challenged back which is often lacking, especially in your absence.

There has been a lack of clarity about what got us into this mess and what should have been the way out now. 
Gilder is at his best on economics IMO, not stock picking...

GEORGE GILDER, Featured in "The
Claremont Review": In the current financial and political circus, with
Fabian fantasists and climate cranks in control of economic policy, the
mainstream media join Ivy League sages in condemning Adam Smith’s
invisible hand. Free market ideology has blinded conservatives, say many
sophisticates, to a crime wave on Wall Street, as Adam Smith gives way to
Bernie Madoff as the epitome of capitalism.

For perspective on what is going on, however, we should contemplate the
view of Richard Armey, the crusty cowboy who long served as Republican
majority leader and economic guru in the House, who pointed out to me more
years ago than I want to recall, that economics has more hands and feet,
visible and invisible, than the media imagines. Confounding the market’s
invisible hand during the past decade’s financial follies were the
government’s very visible handouts. These outlays massively and
conspicuously supported popular causes and constituents: low income
mortgage seekers, affirmative action litigators, failed farmers, US
automakers, ethanol junkies, sugar beet shysters, hustlers of solar power
and windmills, socialist educators, climate cranks, and other altruistic
but addled government dependents, plus all the interventionist CRAP
(Community Reinvestment Act programs) that mandated the suspension of
credit rules for politically favored home buyers. With much of this murky
activity guaranteed by the government, it prompted orgies of overreach,
with the “assets” of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac rising from a few hundred
million to five trillion in a decade or so. Democrats fervently celebrated
all these visible handouts and wish to expand them hugely.

Meanwhile (in perhaps Armey’s best trope), the invisible foot of
government went to work. This millipedal regulatory force covertly kicks
at the underpinnings of private economy activity by capriciously
debauching the dollar; imposing onerously progressive tax rates on
successful economic ventures but making investors eat the losses;
fostering anti-business law suits and class action rackets; restricting
access to energy resources; snarling international trade; and enacting
ever more intricate mazes of contradictory laws and regulations with ever
more acute moral hazard, which assures that the results of the
intervention will be the opposite of its goals. The effect of these
relatively inconspicuous activities is to unleash the visible foot of the
market—all those bankruptcies and foreclosures—and increase demand for the
visible hand of government largesse.

In general, to rectify the situation, the invisible foot of government
must be removed—regulations retrenched, tax rates reduced, tariffs
eliminated, the value of the dollar restored. But instead conservatives
focus most of their energies attacking Leviathan at its strongest and most
popular point: the visible handouts of government spending—earmarks,
subsidies, and such—which matter relatively little if the invisible
assaults are suppressed. Since the visible handouts cannot be reduced in a
recession, the only spending cuts that actually happen as a result of the
Republican complaints are in defense.

A few decades ago, supply side economists, such as Arthur Laffer and
Robert Mundell and inspired journalists such as Jude Wanniski and Steve
Forbes pointed out the politically feasible remedy. Lower tax rates and
retrenched regulations result in more revenues for the government and less
need for visible handouts. Because this footloose outcome allows the
expansion of government and the defense of the country while the private
sector grows even more rapidly, it was extremely popular for a few years.
Its truth, demonstrated globally (look it up), is incontrovertible. Supply
side policies enable the otherwise impossible combination of guns and
butter: large defense efforts with low tax rates and rapid economic
growth. Countries with low or declining tax rates can increase their
government spending three times faster than countries with high or rising
tax rates, because the low tax countries grow six times faster than the
high taxers.

Why then is this truth controverted today by all reputable economists?
Even the disreputable supply siders seem to concede to the Democrats that
it is possible to increase revenues by increasing tax rates from current
levels or to sustain social security and medicare without reducing the
payroll tax. The reason is that all economists have been tied to the
procrustean bed of existing national models which exclude all the
factors—economic growth, tax shelters, entrepreneurial innovations,
transnational and interstate investment flows and demographic
migrations—that register the supply side effects.

Meanwhile, the profession upholds the phantasmagorical models of demand
side economics. Because these models find no confirmation in reality—as
Jean Baptiste Say proved centuries ago, demand is always and only a side
effect of real supply—established economic theories are extremely
difficult to learn and remember. You get Nobel prizes for minor and
obvious insights in economic geography. Thus the exponents of the standard
model are deeply threatened by any reality-based economics.

These experts are now completely in control of Washington, attempting to
spend their way to political dominance, while taking well over half the
voters off the federal tax rolls and giving actual taxpayers a greater
incentive to hide and shuffle existing wealth than to earn or create new
wealth. These measure will retard recovery from the recession and reduce
revenues. But globalization means that entrepreneurial creativity—in which
the United States is increasing it lead—can survive by adopting foreign
locales and resources. Countries such as Israel (a global center of
innovation) and Ireland (a low tax haven), China (a manufacturing dervish)
and India (ascendant in software), are taking the lead and will help
capitalism survive the Lilliputians currently trying to ruin it in the
United States. What will matter, after all, is not whether President Obama
approves of markets but whether markets approve of President Obama, who
may think he has protected his future by buying off the middle class with
tax rebates but will soon discover that his future will be decided by
global markets for currencies and stocks.

To any socialist revival, the invisible hand will still deliver the final
finger.

This belongs in music but it is political so I will enter it as a rant - a beautiful, beautiful rant.  The Obama-resistance movement now has a tune...

Hey Washington, It Ain't Your Money to Spend

http://www.4shared.com/get/90054955/bfbba3c/It_Aint_Your_Money_to_Spend.html

If the link doesn't work try the artist's website: http://kathleensings.com/

  Hey Washington ...

   IT AIN'T YOUR MONEY TO SPEND! ©

2009, Words by Steve Jones, Music by Kathleen Stewart

Don't spend my grandson's paycheck.
He's only two years old.
With Obama in the White House,
His future's bought and sold.
Stop this immoral spending spree.
Stop assaulting our liberty.
Let me help you comprehend:
It ain't your money to spend.

Born and bred for freedom.
Got me a lot of rights.
They're all but disappearing
Before your fiscal appetites.
You're taking the fruit of my labor
To give your next-door neighbor.
I'll say it from beginning to end:
It ain't your money to spend.

It ain't your money to spend.
You're acting like a bunch of jerks.
I'm the one who earned it.
I'm the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain't your money to spend.

You started a spending orgy and then,
You made me long for Georgie again.

You gave some cash to ACORN.
Those folks are so corrupt.
All the pork and all payoffs,
It makes me want to erupt.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,
The scariest folks since Bela Lugosi.
Let me help you comprehend.
It ain't your money to spend.

It ain't your money to spend.
You're acting like a bunch of jerks.
I'm the one who earned it.
I'm the one who works.
Your income redistribution
Doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
So I got a little message to send:
It ain't your money to spend.

I jump in on this Spanish language discussion of oppression in Venezuela with a rough attempt at translation.  Please correct me if wrong...

Photos show celebration and demonstration by Chavez who 'won' a right of permanent reelection and is consolidating military power with new appointments to the highest positions.

Crafty thanked Denny for informing us with his first hand look from Venezuela:  'Thanks for your reports. I see that for every post that there are almost two hundred persons reading it. Impressive!'

Denny: On the contrary, I am the one who should give you the thanks in name of my compatriots by yielding us the space and the readers in this fight for liberty and decency.  There are many forums where they have prohibited me to publish news of Venezuela.  I wish that people never have to fight against [this kind of] oppression. 

There is no reason that a tyrant [should be able to take from us] our right to [freedom and pursuit of happiness].

With a grand fraternal hug I give you the thanks.  - Denny
----

God Bless you Denny.  Be safe and keep up the good fight.

Powerline does a nice job of bias and accuracy watch over a place that Crafty calls the NY Slimes. 

The Times Clears Up a Misunderstanding

The New York Times has long been an advocate for illegal immigration. Today we got some insight, perhaps, into what has motivated the Times' editors, via the paper's corrections section:

    An editorial on Feb. 22 stated incorrectly that unlawfully entering the country is not a criminal offense. It is a misdemeanor for a first-time offender.

It's quite remarkable: until today, the Times' editors believed that illegal immigration was legal!

Is He Doing It On Purpose?

There's a school of thought that the Obama administration is deliberately damaging the economy and gutting the stock market, on the theory that doing so will make more people dependent on the government and pave the way for a far-left regime. Doug Ross makes the argument:

Consider that, in the teeth of a devastating recession, Obama has:

• Raised taxes on small businesses, the engines of entrepreneurship and job growth

• Raised the capital gains tax

• Lied about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans", offering instead $13 a week, achieved not through tax cuts, but by changing the federal withholding tables!

• Destroyed charitable giving by axing the tax breaks for 26% of all giving (or $81 billion in 2006)

• Proposed a carbon cap-and-trading scheme designed to punish oil companies and further tax consumers

Why would Obama inflict these destructive policies while the economy is collapsing? Simple. Each step strengthens the role of government in people's lives.

• Squelching the stock market kills its attractiveness as a parking lot for private capital. Combined with an increase in the capital gains tax, investors will swarm to bonds -- tax-free vehicles like municipal bonds, which benefit the growth of state and local government. And unions, of course.

• Carbon cap-and-tax will raise taxes on all Americans as the cost of goods and services will increase to address a non-existent threat.

• True tax cuts would grow the economy, which is why, of course, Obama shuns them. The last major recession was Jimmy Carter's malaise. It consisted of of double-digit inflation and unemployment. It was finally licked by across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity.

• Charities reduce the role of government assistance for those in need. That, in Obama's world, can not be tolerated. That is why charities must be choked off and allowed to die. Especially faith-based institutions.

The only plausible explanation is that Obama's destruction of the economy is intentional.

It is based on a failed ideology that has never -- and can never -- succeed.

It is, I admit, an intriguing theory, but I don't buy it. Obama can't possibly want to be a one-term failure. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and Obama must know that it will happen to him, too, if his policies are perceived as dragging down the economy.

More likely the explanation is that Obama is an economic illiterate, and subscribes to the idea--which I think is rather common among Democrats--that what the government does has little impact on the economy. Obama likely believes that the economy will recover on its own, and in the meantime--in Rahm Emanuel's immortal words--he shouldn't let the crisis go to waste. So he enacts every left-wing measure that he wanted to do anyway, expecting that when the economy eventually recovers he can take credit for it, even though his policies, if anything, retarded and weakened the recovery.

That's a cynical strategy, although not quite as cynical as destroying the economy on purpose; the difference is that it may well work. - John Hinderacker Powerlineblog.com

I posted recently in "Islam in Europe" that Sweden will host the Davis Cup tennis this weekend versus Israel in Sweden's third largest city Malmo and allow no spectators due to Sweden's inability to provide security.  Imagine if you will the Super Bowl, World Series or the Masters golf at Augusta played without spectators.  What a sad state of affairs that would be.

Curious, I looked a bit into the history and demographics of Malmo which is on the southern tip of Sweden, just a bridge away from Copenhagen, Denmark - home of the Islamic prophet cartoon controversy.  From Wikipedia:

-
"By 1985, Malmö had lost 35,000 inhabitants and was down to 229,000. However, the toughest difficulties were yet to emerge. Between 1990-95, Malmö lost about 27,000 jobs, and its economy was seriously strained.

However, thanks to several government-funded projects, Malmö started to emerge as its current modern incarnation by 1995. Malmö has the highest proportion of individuals of non-Scandinavian extraction of any Swedish city. It remains a city of sharp social divide and high unemployment."
-

Reviewing this Swedish 'border' experience, they built an economy on government funded projects (stimulus bill), they offer free health care to anyone, whether you work or not, whether you paid in or not, whether you are a citizen or not, and now they have a massive population of non-Swedish speaking, non-Scandinavian people with high unemployment, high crime and total lack of security - so bad that they are unable to host a tennis match.

And we want to copy them.

As we Americans head full-force toward becoming a United socialist State in the western European tradition of powerful central government with free-everything guaranteed it is interesting to note that Sweden, Canada and France have since elected right-leaning governments that are unable to put the socialist-welfare toothpaste back in the tube.   - Doug

As Newt has pointed out, we need some common sense conservatism to emerge among Democrats and independents as well.  Looking to 2010, the entire House is up for election, but the recidivism rate is around 98-99% due to the advantages of incumbency.  The senate is even tougher to turn over because only about a third are up for election each cycle and of those, there are very few vulnerable, red-state Democrats.  Running the same calculations are those red-state Democrats who are up for reelection and wanting not to be vulnerable.  First to triangulate away from Pelosi-Obama is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Watch for North Dakota's Byron Dorgan to follow and for Harry Reid of Nevada to just continue to look confused. - Doug

Update: Russ Feingold (D-WI) also plans to vote no, not because he is centrist but because he is running for reelection in a state with mixed politics, where welfare reform began.
---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612545277023901.html

Deficits and Fiscal Credibility
A Democratic senator says no to a huge federal spending bill.

By EVAN BAYH

This week, the United States Senate will vote on a spending package to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 is a sprawling, $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largess.

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

Drafted last year, the bill did not pass due to Congress's long-standing budgetary dysfunction and the frustrating delays it yields in our appropriations work. Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed dramatically, which is why the Senate should go back to the drawing board. The economic downturn requires new policies, not more of the same.

Our nation's current fiscal imbalance is unprecedented, unsustainable and, if unaddressed, a major threat to our currency and our economic vitality. The national debt now exceeds $10 trillion. This is almost double what it was just eight years ago, and the debt is growing at a rate of about $1 million a minute.

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.

Last week I was pleased to attend the president's White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit. It's about time we had a leader committed to addressing the deficit, and Mr. Obama deserves great credit for doing so. But what ultimately matters are not meetings or words, but actions. Those who vote for the omnibus this week -- after standing with the president and pledging to slice our deficit in half last week -- jeopardize their credibility.

As Indiana's governor, I balanced eight budgets, never raised taxes, and left the largest surplus in state history. It wasn't always easy. Cuts had to be made and some initiatives deferred. Occasionally I had to say "no."

But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate.

Now is the time to win back the confidence and trust of the American people. Congress should vote "no" on this omnibus and show working families across the country that we are as committed to living within our means as they are.

Mr. Bayh, a Democratic senator from Indiana, served as governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1997.

Coming back to Freki's points and enthusiasm toward the Fair Tax... I will answer and clarify some key points but I think we both made strong points already and neither was persuasive to the other.

Amending the constitution and REPEALING the authority for a federal income tax:  "Granted this is a real problem and the main obstacle to the fair tax, but you can not win a fight by standing idle."  - In rough terms, it would require around 75% popularity where we can't even win 50% approval to stop the current expansion of government and taxation complexity.  Ronald Reagan only won his first time with 51%.  With current demographics they say that total would only make 46%... 

Inclusive v. exclusive:  "...it is just in how you chose to do the math."  Yes, but the burden is on the proponents to blow the opponents argument out of the water.  When you calculate as an add-on sales tax, it is a 30% tax, which becomes a 37% sales tax in my state and I think as high as 39.5% in the highest sales tax locations.

"It is my understanding that even the government would pay the fair tax.  It was stated in the fair tax book and on their web page."  - But of course the government can't pay, we do.  The public sector, including counties, schools, roads, military and on and on comprises close to 40% of the economy, but let's say 30% of purchases.  While you strive to be 'revenue-neutral', it is implied that we will fund the same sized government.  Therefore, to be 'spending neutral' we need to raise and spend enough  additional to cover government's share of the tax.  By my math, the 30% sales tax becomes 40% which becomes 47% with state tax here and over 49% in the highest tax areas.

State Income Taxes, I wrote: "Unless you live in South Dakota or another location without a state income tax you will still need to file a complete income tax return including all of the schedules with the government every year. (Who really thinks the states will soon quit taxing income.)  Freki replied:  "These states with state income taxes I believe will fall into line once the people see how easy it is to do their taxes.  They will demand their states change.  The power of goverment lies with the people.  If this is no longer the case then our civilization is on the downward slope.  I still have hope we can fix it."

I chose South Dakota as the example because it is the nearest state to me (in MN) that has no income tax and because it sounds so remote.  In fact, seven states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.   We come at this from different perspectives because I am in an oppressive, high tax state and I think you are in one with no state income tax.  I envy that, but keep in mind that most of the other 43 states are totally and completely addicted to the complicated and progressive taxation of income.  Imagine California today canceling it's income tax.  Is that realistic?

Freki wrote:  "What system do you prefer?  Where is your support going and why"

This is a great question which slowed down my response to think about this.

I think we should evaluate tax choices on many different levels, efficiency first - that is to raise the money while doing the least harm to the incentives that make the economy work.  Morality - I think there is a case to be made for right and wrong in the way that taxes are applied and debated, and of course trying to be politically realistic. 

If we were starting from scratch and creating a LOW tax, simple system to finance the basics of constitutional government, I think I would be with you and favor a small tax rate against consumption instead of income.  The founders had a tariff on imports which I would oppose,  but would accept an across the board tax applied to everything evenly at a very low rate.  In hindsight, it would have been far easier to defeat the income tax amendendment then than to repeal it now.

From where we are today, I think the outrage, the battle and the uprising has to be first aimed at spending.  We must tax enough to pay our bills, but our bills are out of control.  I just can't get excited enough to work decades and dedicate a part of my life to such a large cause as defeating almost everyone in the House and Senate to move this forward and take this movement across the land to pass it in 3/4th of the legislatures if the reward at the end is to have a revenue-neutral change in tax systems that funds all of the crazy programs, cradle to grave, that we currently demand.

I would like to see the current income tax simplified and applied more widely at much lower rates.  I actually think all income should be taxed at exactly the same rate no matter who earns it or how.  As a political matter I know that isn't going too happen, but we need everyone to have 'skin in the game'.  I would settle for a mildly progressive system with continuously variable rates that start with a very low rate on your first dollar of income and cap at something lower than what we have today, perhaps 24% with VERY FEW or no deductions.   If we could apply a tax rate more evenly across the electorate, then maybe we could lessen the demand for wasteful programs and spending.

"...[Obama's] speech was formal, so that is the reason the Marines seem so stiff."

Yes, but the leaders and handlers in the front applaud and try to get some excitement going while the room of Marines remain stiff and silent.

Seems diversionary to me to refer to (false IMO) numbers about an effective or average tax rate when it is the marginal tax rate that sets the disincentive to invest, expand, hire or build further.

Please document one major oil company that posted a record profit while paying next to nothing in taxes.

It crosses my mind as I fill up at 1.80 per gallon that no one (not just here) points out the role that unaffordable energy played in collapsing the global economy.  I remember that gas used to be the example of inelastic demand.  As a country, we refused to drill, build or refine more product, but as consumers, our usage is a little bit inelastic in the short run and within certain ranges.  For example, when gas went from 50 cents to 60 cents or from 1.19 to 1.29 per gallon, people still lived the same distance from work, from church, from Grandma's house, from the store etc. so we bought the same amount of gas.  When we replaced our vehicle we still needed the same number of seats and hauled the same cargo. 

When gas prices double and triple, we started combining some trips and thinking about sharing rides with family, friends and co-workers.  At $4 per gallon and $80 per tank or at some higher number, we gradually change our usage but we keep buying the product until bankruptcy because we still need to get places to live our lives.  As consumers, gas was still a relatively small piece of the family budget. 

But as oil hit $120-$150 per barrel, there were places around the globe less prosperous than the US that cried uncle first.  All the data seems to indicate that the current downturn hit the rest of the world first and hardest.  Factories shut down and workers were laid off.  That leaves me to believe that energy prices around the world, not just Fannie, Freddie and other US shenanigans, played a major role in the global meltdown.

Today we don't talk about energy shortage because gas prices are artificially low.  But they are low because of financial ruin.  If/when the economy rebounds around the world, we still have the same energy shortage or worse that we had.

Instead of addressing the energy shortage, the far-left machine is hellbent on crippling supplies for the future.  Somewhere in that debacle is an opportunity for an out of power party to gain traction and bring forward a positive agenda.

Guinness,  Thanks for your attention to this topic. 

"Natural causes of "greenhouse gas" emissions dwarf manmade, but that often escapes the notice of the environmental apocalypse mongers."

Toward the end of page one of this thread (Feb. 07) I posted some crude math that I entitled 'global warming math', (no replies).  The alarmists it seems will always tell us that man's role in warming is large, significant, even fatal, but they never tell us just how much, so I did my own math.  I'm interested in your view and others.  How much warming was caused my man?
-----------------
"...here I give it my first shot. I recognize that all components of my math are inexact (wrong) and controversial, but they are based on the best estimates I have found, and I already disclosed my bias above.  Please re-do the math with the data you trust better and post your answer to the question - at what rate is mankind warming the planet?

Estimate of total warming over the last 50 years:  0.5 degrees Celsius  (Doesn't count recent cooling back to starting point)

Proportion of atmosphere CO2 attributable to humans:  3% (0.03)

Proportion of greenhouse effect attributable to CO2: less than 2% (0.02)

Negative feedback factor estimate: 50% (0.5)

Conversion factor of 50 year warming to per decade warming: 1/5 (0.2)

Total warming attributable to humans: 0.5 x 0.03 x 0.02 x 0.5 x 0.2 =0.00003 degrees C per decade.

This is not in contradiction to the wording of scientists that it is very likely, with 90% certainty, that human activity is contributing to global warming."

----
The reason I'm not alarmed is not just because the number is infinitessimally small, but also because the system has automatic corrective forces and because I believe the period of time that man will depend heavily on fossil fuels is a blip in time in terms of the history and life of the planet.  I expect we burn gasoline for maybe 50-70 more years maximum out of more than 4.5 billion years.

Interesting piece on Newt.  Of course the person who can electrify the room at CPAC is not likely same one who can connect with the other demographics that need to stop seeing a massive government in control of everything as the American dream.  Far more urgent than the Presidential election of 2012 is the congressional election cycle of 2010.  For certain, the Republicans / conservatives need to nationalize these contests the way Newt did in 1994.  Even then, very few Democratic Senate seats are vulnerable (maybe Harry Reid in Nevada?) while several Republican ones are.

Freki, I very much like the way you are thinking in terms of simplifying and changing the current system and abolishing the IRS, but I oppose this proposal.  I wrote an opinion in 2007 explaining why I think it is unworkable.  I will summarize here, this time with fair tax in the title so it can be found again. I look forward to your comments and others.  I think it is extremely important that like-minded people debate the policies now and get on the same page before the next election cycle or face yet another trouncing.
----

My top ten reasons that the 'FairTax' is a non-starter.  IMHO you can stop reading after the first sentence of point 1) below which constitutes a total and complete show-stopper.

1) Changing over to the 'FairTax' requires the repeal of the 16th amendment. You will not see 2/3rds of Nancy Pelosi's House, 2/3rds of Harry Reid's Senate and 3/4ths of the legislatures, including states like Senator Amy Klobuchar's Minnesota and Senator Hillary clinton's New York, voting to 'permanently' cancel the authority of the federal government to tax income at all while their careers are fully focused on "raising taxes on the wealthiest among us" to pay for health care and more government of all kinds.

2)  A 23% "inclusive" tax is a 30% sales tax.  When you buy a $1 item you pay $1.30.  The inclusive version is fine for comparing with income tax rates but this is a sales tax and you add 30% (best case) to the price.

3) Unless you live in South Dakota or another location without a state income tax you will still need to file a complete income tax return including all of the schedules with the government every year.  (Who really thinks the states will soon quit taxing income.)

4) Somewhere approaching 40% of the economy are the government purchases.  You can make them FairTax-exempt and then adjust the 30% tax WAY upward for the rest of us.  If we make them not-exempt, then adjust our public spending 'needs' up by 30% to cover the tax.

5)  The so-called "prebates" that remove the harshness of sales tax regressivity also remove the simplicity which was the primary strength, purpose and justification for the 'Fair Tax'.

6)  New items are taxed and used items are not taxed again because they already were, yet 'used' homes will be taxed!  Again, there goes the simplicity and the lobbying as it means the rules are negotiable.

7)  Fairness? For whom? Those who worked hard, paid taxes and saved for the future and now want to enjoy it will be openly double taxed.  So much for fairness.  Again, if we adjust for fairness, out goes the simplicity.

8.) What kind of real and restructuring tax reform is revenue neutral?  Those who want reform generally want lower tax burdens.  Those who preach the populist 'tax the rich' message of today oppose efforts to lower or remove the burdensome taxes on production.

9)  The false promise (IMO) of ending taxation on income has split and damaged the already feeble movement to truly reform our massive, incomprehensible tax system.  Case in point, look at the GOP contest in Iowa (2008) that will spread from there.  The already thin minority of Iowans who are inclined to be a) caucus-goers, b) fiscal conservatives and c) have a tax reform orientation are now split candidates with income tax reform proposals and one who just recently co-opted the 'FairTax ' banner.  IMO that means certain defeat for the larger cause of simplifying and lessening the burden.

10)  I take issue with the nomenclatures and slogans of "FairTax"  and "revenue neutral".  They remind me of telling us that taxes are mere "contributions".  Changing to consumption-based taxation is not fairer, it is just different.  It is not revenue-neutral to the individual taxpayers.  It would shift burdens around and half the people would certainly cry out 'unfair!'.

Bonus, 11)  A national 30% sales tax would compete and worden the state and local sales taxes that are as high as 7% and higher.  States and localities would then shift taxation heavier toward the income side, potentially removing most or all gains after adding an enormous new layer of taxation.  Imagine your local public schools looking at all that new revenue potential.  Nothing in the federal constitution or future amendments removes the ability of the state, county, local, school, or waste, stadium or transit commissions to go after any revenues that the feds leave on the table.

[the Obama plan] "will no doubt result in less benefits, more costs to patients, and much more controlled care."

Costs paid directly by the consumer and prices yielded directly to the producer comprise the mechanism that allocates resources the most efficiently.  But the more crucial the market, the more we try to use inferior mechanisms to allocate the resources.  In the 1990's the WSJ published an unbelievably complicated flow diagram of how healthcare decisions would be made, almost cartoon-like, taken from the literal text of the Hillary-care proposal.  Congressional staffers and mid-level bureaucrats will be making very important decisions for people they never met.
----
Scott G wrote this week:  "we could probably solve 80-90% of the healthcare problem by simply changing the tax code so that anyone, not just employers, could deduct the cost of healthcare insurance. This would reintroduce basic market dynamics to the healthcare market, and that is the only thing that can make healthcare cost-effective and widely available."

"Why are they blasting Hillary? The anger should be directed at the source - BO."  - More convenient and less controversial to attack HRC.  They want to influence the Pres. not damage or destroy him, or even being seen undermining him.

"Jews and Blacks are not as aligned..."  - It's a strange coalition that makes up the Democrat power base.  Blacks and Jews are aligned by a common political enemy - Republicans.  Far left extremists are the most anti-Israel of any voters in the country, yet share a party with most Jewish voters.  Non-Jewish far-righters are the strongest defenders of Israel in this country, for not for religious reasons.  Meanwhile Blacks love school vouchers and school choice, directly at odds with another huge money and power base of the party - the education unions.  But no matter how much they all hate or disagree with each other, they will not jump parties. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but liberal American Jews would rather stand quiet while Israel is destroyed before they would ever support a moose hunting, peace through strength, conservative for Commander in Chief, just as Catholics pull the lever for for abortionist supporting candidates at the same rate as the rest of the country because of other liberal priorities. 

I had the opportunity to see a Davis Cup semifinal years ago featuring USA v. Sweden in Minneapolis.  There were no riots in the streets or car burnings.  This story in Malmo is amazing, they are host to Israel v. Sweden and the show just won't go on.  I would be very interested in hearing from people who have witnessed the unrest in places like France and Sweden.
---------------------------------
 Anyone for tennis in Malmo?
February 24, 2009 Powerlineblog.com

The AP reports that spectators will be barred from the Sweden-Israel Davis Cup match next month in Malmo. There appears to be a vague concern about controlling Swedish youth in Malmo:

    The Davis Cup matches between Sweden and Israel will be played without spectators in Malmo next month. Attempts to move the venue to Stockholm fell through.

    Officials have cited security concerns for the World Group series, which will be played March 6-8. Several anti-Israeli demonstrations have been planned in Malmo.

    Stockholm had offered to host the matches, saying it was better prepared to guarantee security arrangements. But that possibility ended when Stockholm officials said they couldn't get organized in time for Sunday's arrival of the Israeli team.

What's the problem in Malmo? Interested readers are left to fill in the blanks for themselves.   

I don't like to see misguided policies confused with criminality.  Of course there should be oversight and any criminals jailed but I disagree with the idea that we would be better off if the politicians had even more direct control over the supply of money.  I also think it is unrealistic to think that printed dollars will ever again have a direct redemption in gold.  Most money and transaction value never sees a printed dollar.

The Fed is about as private as the Supreme Court.  The President appoints the Directors, the senate confirms, and the profits all revert to the U.S.Treasury. 

"I disagree with "stimulus" in general." - Crafty

This wisdom from Scott G's site sums up the rationale opposing govt stimulus superbly:

“The usual effect of attempts of government to encourage consumption, is merely to prevent savings; that is, to promote unproductive consumption at the expense of reproductive, and to diminish the national wealth by the very means which were intended to increase it.” - J.S. Mill


"Want to turn things around in a flash?  Abolish the capital gains tax" - CD

Yes, but zero chance with the social justice crowd in power. But we should stop taxing the inflation component of the gains and, at the minimum, lock in current rates for today's investors to rely on.  Even then you can't undo the panic that was caused by the transfer of power starting in Nov 2006 that promised to punish investors who don't rush to dispose of their assets.


"Put the auto companies through Chapter 7... Let bankrupt banks go bankrupt."

I would add, let foreclosed homes be foreclosed.  How can resources flow to their most valuable and productive use when we constantly put up roadblocks to block the flow.

"Cut the corporate tax rate down to the level of other major economies (from 34% to low 20s) , or LESS!"

Amazing how the same politicians that are furious about corporations moving operations elsewhere keep coming up with proposals and policies to punish them if they stay here. 

What is the 'right' price level for housing?

It was propped up artificially by government policies.  The unrealistically high prices were unsustainable and led to the eventual and unavoidable collapse in home prices along with the end of residential construction, the layoffs of the workers, the rise of unemployment, the collapse of the securities markets, the fall of the banks and the economic depression world-wide - to put it lightly.

The Obama-Pelosi response:  We need to artificially re-prop up home prices.

Median price home in America is/was around 200k.  Should it be higher?  Should it be lower?  Which branch and departments of government should set housing price levels?  Maybe we could call Nixon's Price-Wage board back in...

Speaking of generational theft, who does this help?  I own homes but it doesn't help me either way.  My primary residence isn't for sale, so the eight-fold increase I've earned on paper just leads to eight-plus-fold increases in property taxes.  My rental properties can't be cashed out because of impending capital gains increases at the federal level and confiscatory taxes on the inflationary gains at the state level as well.  I can't even move out of state to avoid capturing that income in this state.

Do artificially high home prices help the young people who hope to branch off on their own and buy and live in at least as nice a place as they grew up in?  - NO!

Sorry I'm having so much trouble adapting to our new fascist-socialist system and they haven't even finished working on healthcare.  Soon you will have your heart stints specified by the people who picked our bridge gusset plates.  Good luck.

CCP,  Thanks as always for the thoughtful reply.  I appreciate Colin Powell for all the things he did for this country - past tense.  For my money, he is worthless now to the party.  'We' nominated the least conservative, most centrist candidate for the purposes of winning in a Republican-unfriendly environment - and he ran against the Senate's most liberal and least experienced member.  Gen. Powell couldn't contain himself with the excitement of voting for a half-black man and the media attention of finally distancing himself with the administration he once served proudly.

For sake of argument, let's just stipulate that Rush is another negative that R's have to deal with while 'reaching out' to minorities, young people or other potential new supporters.

Obama gave away to me in his pork, massive government-enlargement bill signing ceremony the key to the message for Republicans moving forward:

"We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time."

The party and the candidate of the opposition better learn to articulate a different view of the American dream.  $5 billion to ACORN, picking and choosing which homeowners to help, federal takeovers of banking, housing, healthcare, transportation, education... Is socialism unevenly applied by lobyists and staffers who write bills that representatives can't read the American dream.  I thought that term was coined to describe something like the viewpoints you read here: rugged individualism, self-discipline, work hard, retain a right to self-defense, look back regularly at statements about individual liberties in the actual words of the founding fathers, the right to personal freedoms and self-determination and maybe even the right to choose which charities you support with your excess income instead of having it rammed down your throat by Washington.

We need someone to paint that picture.  Reagan was 1980s and our next leader runs in 2012 so he is no longer relevant, and we can pick at his errors or inconsistencies, but what he did overall was project the bigger picture of the American dream for all, over the hodgepiodge of federal programs for the unlucky who qualify.

Just pointing out the most obvious in media bias and failings,  I was struck during the 'stimulus' press conference last week by the fact that no one asked the President where the money was coming from.  McCain has called it generational theft.  If this were a business proposal from a company president, the board of directors' first question would be where is the money going to come from.  Same if it was a proposal for a case study project at any reputable school of government.  The professor's first question would be, where is the money you propose to spend going to come from?  But no curiosity whatsoever from the White House puppet press corps.  That is the sad state of the fourth estate.

Any chance that wouldn't be Helen Thomas' first question if this were 'W' or even McCain?

"Colin Powell is right.  If we don't change our message we are destined to continue losing market share."

    - I am curious what you think would be a good summary of Colin Powell's positions on the issues of the day.  I don't know what they are and I don't think Republicans will ever win by running with Clinton or Obama style ambiguity.  I also think he can get away with flip-flopping (supporting Bush, then supporting Obama) only because he is a war hero and a NON-candidate.


"Limbaugh IS wrong." 

   - Wrong on style to run for office, but like Colin Powell, Rush will not be the candidate.  He is intentionally too rough on people who hold different views (as if Obama is tolerant of other views, lol).  So aside from style or temperament, what positions do you think Rush holds on the issues of the day that are too conservative?

Speaking of agencies not speaking to each other, we have the INS (immigration enforcement) which I think has changed names and changed departments (are they still in business?) and we have the Census Bureau which periodically tracks every little private detail about every living person hidden anywhere in the country, for political purposes.  One reason Judd Gregg stepped down from becoming Commerce Secretary was because the Glibness Group wants control of the Census moved from Commerce to the White House.  The reason the WHite House wants greater control is to make a more aggressive count of the 'new people' in the country.

It ocurrs to me that while we are spending federal dollars and sending federal agents to comb all neighborhoods, finding out every private detail about their life for political purposes... maybe we could also use that opportunity to ask them for documentation for citizen or visitor status.  Just a thought.

My recollection is that he was a young ambitious staff worker working the strategy and rapid response war room with James Carville.  They had to answer a number of things that came up other than policy, "I didn't inhale", Gennifer Flowers, letter to draft board, etc. but they just keep saying Carville's line: "it's the economy, stupid."

Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo.  As a reporter and analyst it would be normal that the analysts and anchors stay in touch as best they can with both sides getting the latest word before they go on the air.  But this story says Stephanopolous was too close to one side - a major media outlet perhaps favoring Barack Obama and hope and change over those ugly Republicans.  Please say it isn't so.

GM is right that it is fat soluble, therefore lingers in your system.  People say it takes 30 days abstention to pass a zero tolerance test, but tests don't have a zero threshold.  The biggest other problem is that there is no portion control or active ingredients strength labeling, like an ibuprofen measuring 200 mg. 

Granted it takes away from the attention span and short term memory.  Let's say usage in moderation takes 10 points off your intelligence during the effects.  That would explain Crafty's friend still able to tackle complex legal issues while a person with 85 cents on the dollar intelligence-wise is lowered to near retarded levels.

I would not accept Crafty's old acquaintance representing me high in front of the Supreme Court, but I have no objection to an average Joe enjoying a few breaths while enjoying a Friday evening sunset on his private deck in the mountains.

Pot harms plenty of people.  In most cases I think they over-use, cause other problems in their life and then eventually quit.  People with mental health issues also tend to self-medicate and cause themselves deeper problems, and alcohol pot are the most accessible crutches.

The pilot who landed the jet in the Hudson could do a normal day's work flying on auto pilot and calling the tower a couple of times with a small residue of THC in his blood.  But his job is not to fly on auto-pilot on a calm, clear day, it is to take charge of the safety of hundreds in every possible unforeseen circumstance.  I want my pilot, my surgeon and my Fannie Mae oversight chairman to be drug-free.

"The next time posters here get annoyed when I mention the system is rigged in favor of those with money and there does need to be better oversight and a leveler playing field you may want to read this."

 - FWIW, I don't know any conservative who opposes having the federal government govern.  We pay for an SEC, anti-trust enforcement, an FCC, an FTC, an EPA, an ATF, an FBI, an IRS and the worthless agencies that 'watched over' the corrupt, government-sponsored, mortgage giants.  We deserved oversight, bought and paid for.  Instead we passed laws telling them to make MORE bad loans and to package, hide and disguise them. 

90% of the budget is transfer payments.  Opposing some of that does not mean  looking away from anti-competitive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace.

I would add that we lack a watchdog media for oversight in business (Enron? Music Industry?) and to expose failure in government programs.  Why didn't one investigative reporter at any mainstream outlet smell a rat with Madoff or Enron or Freddie Mac and sink their teeth in?  As long as we care more about Michael Phelps than our economic system, I guess we get what we deserve.

Finally getting to the post recently from BBG - Daniel J. Mitchell is spot-on.  He provides the data that demonstrates that the plight of the poor and the plight of the middle class and the plight of the rich are infinitely and irreversibly intertwined.  The mantra that the 'rich are getting richer' is a meaningless, selective judgment.  More accurate would be to notice that 'these are good economic times, all groups are prospering'.

Look at the chart.  Who gets hurt the most when that rich aren't getting richer?  The line consistently shows that the lower incomes earners gets hurt later, deeper and longer during downturns than the higher income earners.  Pro-growth policies help the poor the most, assuming the goal is to avoid being poor!

The criticism was whether the data was up to date.  IT WAS A HALF CENTURY STUDY.  Do we need more recent data for the Law of Gravity?

Meanwhile, the Bloomberg piece twists a good story upside down.  The rich got richer during good economic times.  Really!? Do you know anyone who thought the second million was not easier and faster than their first - especially during good economic times.  Maybe the kids finished college and they had more to invest, maybe they learned something with the earlier business or investment success.  Maybe because of past success they had more to invest. WHY IS IT BAD that they made more money?

And why is it any of our business?  Which article in the constitution says spread the wealth and limit people's upside??

Specifically, Bloomberg wrote:  "Rich got richer as their tax rates fell in Bush years, data show"

 - That is 100% media spin.  Fact is that the "America got Wealthier Because Punitive Marginal Tax Rates Were Eased - Across the Board!"  It wasn't just the rich that got richer.  Who are they trying to fool?

Next we hear about the richest Americans.  The increased income and increased revenue to the Treasury is a HUGE success story.  The revenues were beating forecasts by more than $100 Billion per year, growing at as much as 15% per year!  How do you spin that into BAD NEWS???

Bloomberg tells you the change in income for "the richest 400", but they don't tell you that the people who make up the richest 400 changes very quickly, as do the magic quintiles.  They hate telling you that it isn't the same people just a few years later.  The new rich make more money, more quickly than in the past because they inventing for, or selling into, a more prosperous world.  Why is that a bad thing?

Capital Gains reductions accounted for most of the economic surge, according to Bloomberg.  No worry:
Candidate Obama promised to restore the punitive rates.

Obama Should Channel Harding, Not FDR
By Matt Kibbe

In the first half of last century two presidents inherited recessionary economies from their predecessors. Both campaigned on smaller government, and both blamed the profligate ways of the previous president for their economic problems. One ended the recession in less than three years; the other lengthened it by seven. One responded with laissez-faire capitalism; the other with unprecedented government expansion. Scholars rank one among the worst presidents ever; the other they rank as one of the best. These two men are Warren Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Warren Harding was elected president in 1920 at the end of World War I, directly following the popular Woodrow Wilson. Harding inherited an economy transitioning away from wartime production as well as decreasing international demand for many American goods that had driven economic growth during the war. American factories were retooling and soldiers were coming home looking for work. The nation's output, by some measures, fell as much as 24 percent and unemployment more than doubled between 1920 and 1921. Between 1919 and 1921, farm income had dropped by 40 percent. The country was falling deep into recession.

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower.

Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, following Herbert Hoover. Hoover raised taxes, increased government spending, regulated industry, and increased tariffs as the country went into recession. Despite this long list of big government, anti-market policies, Hoover is often mistakenly thought of as a laissez-faire capitalist. Government spending skyrocketed during Hoover's term in office from just 11 percent of GDP in 1928 to over 20 percent before he was done. FDR simply followed in Hoover's anti-market pro-spending footsteps and maintained the size of government around 19 percent of GDP until World War II, when it went much higher.

A recent study by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian show that FDR lengthened the Great Depression by seven years with his anti-market "stimulus" policies. They write that prior to FDR's interventions, "The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies." Somehow, though, FDR is considered one of the best presidents in the history of the country, despite the millions of people out of work and in the breadlines. Hoover is rightfully considered one of the worst, but perhaps FDR should be, too. As Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of Roosevelt's top advisors commented, "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

President Obama has taken office as our country stands at a crossroads where the laws enacted in the next few weeks could lead our country to prosperity or to ruin. Whose steps will he follow? Warren Harding got government out of the way of business in 1920 to unleash the market economy and launch the Roaring Twenties. FDR tripled taxes, regulated business, and massively expanded the role of government in our lives resulting in the longest and deepest recession this country has ever experienced.

President Obama has mentioned his fondness for FDR. Let's hope he soon comes to prefer Harding.
Matt Kibbe is president of the FreedomWorks Foundation.

GM: "At least the dems that love to raise and spend taxes are very diligent about paying them, right?"

 - I wonder if anyone other than his opponents has noticed what a pattern of disaster his appointments have been.

Rachel,  Thank you for sourcing your view on soil neglect. I will look into it further before commenting other than this, I find it counter-intuitive and it doesn't match my experience that others care more about preserving the quality and value of a resource than the resource owner.

With reference to Rachel's bill signing photos, I see your point regarding political skill.  I also see a group of white conservative men more concerned about those most needing our protection than the most powerful liberal women in the country.

Obama's pay equity concern is empirically false.  His campaign payroll had the exact same percentage disparity as the nation.  I prefer if people clean up their own act before mandating 'change' on others.

The fitting crowd to assemble for the partial birth abortion ban photo should have been a visiting classroom of smiling black school children since abortion hits black children at THREE TIMES the rate of white children.  Yet we celebrate this Auschwitz style tradition in the cloak of "Reproductive Rights".

"unchecked private sector without regulation certainly can't be trusted either...If the SEC simply enforced laws already on the books, if we simply enforced our immigration laws and include those of us who hire them for example, we would not have the mess we are in."

I agree with the second part.  The banking mess in particular was caused by feds not doing their job, or in the case of an activist Fed and a redistributive banking oversight 'industry', being assigned the wrong job. 

I think 'unchecked private sector without regulation' is an unintentional straw man argument.  I don't know anyone who favors free markets and free enterprise but opposes a proper role for government to govern.  I recently elaborated on the success for example of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that actually helps the industry it regulates by creating trust in the system.  Certainly the same goes for the regulators that perform safety inspections at nuclear power plants.  Nobody (that I know) wants new drugs without approvals, we just want them faster and better.  YOur examples, SEC and INS are also great examples.  I would add anti-trust regulation that is protective, not political.

As Scott Grannis points out http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-relief-from-obamas-speech.html 90% of the budget, over 2 trillion and growing, could best be described as transfer payments, not governing.  Without trying to run every private industry from housing to health to energy to transportation to education, at the FEDERAL level, maybe they could perform their proper roles of governance and protecting the people a little more effectively.

"Using a portable radio transmitter, a local Taliban leader, Shah Doran, on most nights outlines newly proscribed “un-Islamic” activities in Swat, like selling DVDs, watching cable television, singing and dancing, criticizing the Taliban, shaving beards and allowing girls to attend school. He also reveals names of people the Taliban have recently killed for violating their decrees — and those they plan to kill."

 - If true, I can't imagine anyone still thinking this movement is less dangerous than Hitler-Nazi-ism was.

Since weather is now political, I offer my comments on Minnesota winters as a political rant.  Like a hurricane victim in a hurricane zone, I know the reaction is - why do you live there, you fools.  I'll leave the positive aspects of changing seasons to another post with hopefully deeper thoughts.  Before food stamps on a credit card and free health care, we used to say that MN winters keep the riff-raff out.  It's pretty hard to live under a bridge with the weather we've been having.

One of Paul Wellstone's failings was to continue the lobby for 'cold weather assistance' to cold places.  And that was before the global warming scare.  How can we hope to pay less for others, the risks they take and the mistakes they make - to re-build in flood zones, storm zones, wild fire zones etc. - if we keep telling people in Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas that one of the nation's most prosperous states needs national help with our utility bills...

Last week was cold by our standards.  The week before was below zero from Monday through Friday, and yes, that includes the highs!  Last night I overheard a weather head speaking of a gradual warm up starting with a wake up temp of 9 below tomorrow.  We had a cold December also.  One point is that any Minnesotan who anecdotally says it isn't as cold these days as it used to be is probably wintering in Arizona.

Yesterday (Saturday) at 8am my daughter and I drove across the Twin Cities to her ski race along the Wisconsin border which was again plagued with weather advisories.  As we drove along the cities' southern freeway, both of us suddenly became aware of an amazingly brilliant rainbow we were driving toward.  I took off my sunglasses to see if that was part of the illusion but it was only more beautiful and brilliant without them.  The strangest part was that the sky was 100% blue - no clouds, no rain (hopefully that is obvious) and no snow.  All I can gather was that the moisture content of the air was so cold that it was no longer gaseous but containing microscopic crystals of ice instead, playing reflective games with the flow of sunshine to the earth.  I don't recall that happening so dramatically before.

Twice during the coldest week I lost control of my car momentarily on scraped roads with no recent precipitation of any kind, at 30 mph in a 40 zone  one evening and going 20 mph in a 30 zone the following morning.  Mind you, I am an experienced and expert winter driver, just ask me, lol.  The causes I think were: a) car exhaust contains moisture which instantly freezes to the road at these temps, b) road salt doesn't melt ice below -20 F and sand doesn't stick, and c) letting off the gas  with a front wheel drive car is a form of braking with the front tires, like downshifting.  The only way to re-gain control was to lightly re-touch the accelerator to again pull forward before it went into a spin.  In my case both times I was lucky there was no one in front of me!  I was amazed during the coldest week how many cars I saw off the road that appeared to be 'victims' of one car accidents, also with how many cars looked like they pulled over without a mishap along the sides of the freeways, either spooked by the conditions or maybe with a mechanical problem on cars that looked very new.  Belts, hoses and lubricants don't like the extremes any more than mammals do.

One major school district shut down because their politically correct biodiesel buses had their fuel supplies turn to jello which doesn't flow through the fuel lines and into injectors at these temps.  Live and learn.

On the coldest of all the cold mornings, I went out to start a car.  Like predicting who will win a fight by just looking at them, it is not always obvious which car will start at the coldest temp.  In my case it was a tiny Honda that out matched the stronger minivan and even the car that had been resting in the cold garage.  For the first few miles I noticed a new problem - the turn signals didn't work.  Later they did, so I realized it had something to do with extreme cold on the electrical contacts. Presumably moisture from ambient air was on the contacts, was unmelted by the low amperage attempting to flow across and failing to make a connection.  I wonder if Pelosi and the gang figured that in as they social engineer us our next millivolt powered transportation system with hampster-wheel generators. Can you imagine what size battery a Chevy volt will need to heat the passenger compartment of a comfortable sized car at 30 below zero and defrost the windshield if we remove the gas power from the heat system?

My political point is that will you of all please make sure that politicians from San Francisco or Hawaii or anywhere else do not decide which ride is right for you, for your family, for your climate, for your profession, for your activities, ski races, hockey games, camping trips etc. etc. etc.  There are considerations and decisions that people make in their lives about what is best for them regarding where they live, what they drive and everything else, that are not best handled at your state capital, in Washington DC or at some global conference of corrupt kleptocrats.  Even if you forget some of the reasons why these people don't know what is best for you, please cling to what individual liberties and choices you have left with every vote you make.   - Doug

Obama last week: "I won" [we'll do it my way!]   Bush in 2004: "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, ... I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it ..."
---
CCP regarding Rush, Hannity, Coulter: "[I am] a moderate Republican...I don't necessarily disagree with their philosophy but more their strategy."  - I agree, and I'm not a moderate Republican.  But these people are not R. strategists.  They are entertainers and pundits.  They are selling viewership and listenership, not hope, change or electoral success.
---
The argument that the rich keep getting richer I think is moot after this present downturn.  The rich get richer in an up economy because they are invested.  The rich get poorer in a collapse because they are invested.  Look at the famous quote from JFK about rising tides lift all boats.  For the rich it lifts a bigger boat.  We simply don't have a way to lift all but the rich though we keep trying to concoct schemes.
---
I was moved by a post about 'Soviet Britain' where in some areas the government is 70% of the economy.  The move towards socialism by both parties, but in this case, Obama-Pelosi, is not rhetoric or scaremongering.  It is the elephant in the room.
---
"...conservative George Will to me look like fools to have met with BO.  He is used them hook line and sinker.  I thought they were smarter than that.  I guess they fall for fanfare and celebritism like most everyone else."   - No, they aren't smarter than that and they aren't smarter than Obama.  And me neither.  My first reaction was that he is reaching out... A day later I think I read it more accurately, that he had a pro-life evangelist at a ceremony, that he broke bread with a few conservatives, etc. These are attempts to inoculate himself against the inevitable repeat of affiliations and liaisons with people like Jememiah Wright, Ahkmad 'dinejad etc.
---
While I rant about 'His Glibness', I am constantly reminded that Sarah Palin didn't answer a question about what she reads, but Barack Obama to my knowledge has never been asked what book he has EVER read about the free-enterprise system that is not anti-free-enterprise.