CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Stop funding big energy boondoggles

A recent item in The Hill, from Agriculture Energy Coalition’s Lloyd Ritter, called for passage of the Senate version of the Farm Bill, which amounts to little more than an expansion of the status-quo boondoggle we’ve seen for years:

Another simple extension of existing Farm Bill energy programs would ignore some important policy expansions contained in this year’s legislation and fail to make essential investments in rural energy infrastructure. The Senate’s version of this year’s Farm Bill Energy Title establishes long-overdue parity for renewable chemical manufacturers and includes $900 million in mandatory energy program funding. I encourage the conference committee to include these provisions in any final package.

Where to begin. For starters, $900 million in new spending of any sort should make any conservative cringe.

We’re more than $17.2 trillion in debt and facing a litany of other fiscal woes at the moment. Are expanding big government edicts in the energy sector really the right move?

In addition to piling on nearly $1 billion in new spending, the Senate Farm Bill designates the funds as mandatory spending, meaning government has mandated that amount be spent under its direction, and funding cannot be decreased or shifted if programs become unnecessary or ineffective. Mandatory spending does nothing to wean the energy and agricultural sectors off of governmental reliance.

According to Stephen DeMaura, a different path is outlined in the House’s counter-Farm Bill:

The House bill eliminates mandatory funding for subsidy programs under the energy title (Title IX), authorizing only discretionary spending for these programs that can be eliminated as market forces dictate, thus ending the practice of subsidizing billionaire agribusiness tycoons.

Ritter’s piece goes on to highlight several programs funded within the Farm Bill's energy title, arguing for their positive impact on rural communities and energy producers. It is a short-sighted view indeed to believe that a marketplace shackled by dependence on mandatory funding from Washington is a marketplace that will ever be self-sufficient and growth-oriented. 

The House's discretionary and market-driven approach to appropriations, on the other hand, enables the phasing out of these subsides and allows taxpayers to save billions:

Enacting the House legislation and phasing out these energy title programs is projected to save $160 billion over the next decade – a drop in the bucket that is our $17 trillion national debt but an important step toward getting government out of private industry and one that would send a clear message to subsidy-seeking entities that the accountability-free cash register is closing.

It is incumbent on House and Senate Republicans (and Democrats interested in getting reelected) not to be deceived by liberal rhetoric on the Farm Bill; tacking the word "rural" in front of government spending is merely cloaking a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is a simple choice between scaling back government, saving billions, and charting a free market-based course forward versus continuing the failed practice of letting government pick winners and losers.

Gomez responds to Markey's despicable negative attack ad

Yesterday we took the very Liberal Democrat Congressman Ed "Mudslinging" Markey to task for his despicable ad that features Republican Gabriel Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's.

Republican Gabriel Gomez, a former Naval Aviator and Navy SEAL, responded directly to Markey's negative attack ad this morning on Fox and Friends. Gomez called Markey's use of Osama Bin Laden a disgrace, not only to his service, but also to his former teammates and the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Meanwhile, one of the things that he's done in the campaign is to have a negative ad about you in which you are, I believe, pictured along side Osama bin Laden. Do you have any response to that?

GABRIEL GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, a career politician like Ed Markey comes swinging out of the gate with his first ad, it's a negative, despicable ad which puts me next to Osama bin Laden which is an absolute disgrace, not only to my service but also to my former teammates and more importantly to the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters. I think people are tired of these despicable, untruthful ads, and I can't think of anything more dishonorable than what he just did.

TUCKER CARLSON: Now you were at, as we said a minute ago in your intro, at the Boston Marathon shortly before those explosives devices went off. Did you hear it? Did you know what it was when you heard it? What was your initial reaction to it?

GOMEZ: I did. I was about a block and a half away. I'd just seen my wife and four young kids before I crossed the finish line. Shortly thereafter, I heard the first explosion and I saw the smoke coming up. I knew right away what happened, just with some experience before in the service. Obviously my first reaction was trying to figure out where my kids and wife were. It took about 25 minutes because of the cell coverage. But I knew right away, and I saw the first responders responding right away, I saw the police officers getting on the horn, getting the emergency vehicles there. I mean, from going from the worst in Boston, I literally saw the best in Boston immediately right after.

You can watch the video of Gomez's response here.

We are not the only ones objecting to Markey' mudslinging. Medal of Honor recipient Thomas Hudner calls Congressman Ed Markey’s Osama Bin Laden ad "dishonorable," and said it should be taken down "immediately":

"I was shocked to see that the first advertisement from Congressman Ed Markey’s campaign is a negative attack on Gabriel Gomez that places a picture of him next to the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.” said Hudner. “This dishonorable political attack is beneath the dignity of the office for which Congressman Ed Markey is running for and he should immediately take down this outrageous ad.

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy Pilot and Navy SEAL and fought like so many other brave men and women to defend this country against threats from abroad. As a Veteran, he deserves better than to be juxtaposed with a terrorist for Congressman Markey’s political gain."

Markey's Osama Bin Laden attack ad, entitled 'Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican," can be seen here.

Like we said yesterday, there is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing.

Senate passes Obama's fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill below.

Mat 12564

It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It's like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats' ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That's right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to "prevent very real financial pain" by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income -- another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

• Bennett D-CO
• Carper D-DE
• Grassley R-IA
• Harkin D-IA
• Lee R-UT
• Paul R-KY
• Rubio R-FL
• Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

Obama to leave Hawaii early for more fiscal cliff political theater

In an obviously preplanned propaganda ploy, President Obama will leave his Hawaiian vacation "early" returning to Washington to engage in more fiscal cliff political theater.

When Fox News first reported Obama's travel plans, we were reminded that Obama let it slip last week that he would return this week:

An administration official tells Fox it is now “likely” the President flies back to Washington late Wednesday night to deal with the fiscal cliff.

Last Friday the President told reporters in Washington “see you next week” before leaving for Hawaii, though it had not been clear until now what day he would be flying back to DC.

Why is Obama returning when there are no plans for the President to meet Congressional leaders upon his return? Obama's early return is just political theater carefully designed to ensure the Republicans get the blame for the massive Obama tax hikes his stubborn intransigence is about to impose upon us.

Obama has once again blown a deal to get $800 billion in additional tax revenue. This time According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama's stubborn insistence on more and more taxes included higher tax rates on more successful taxpayers.

Obama's insistence on higher tax rates was doomed to failure. As Louisiana Republican Congressman John Fleming recently explained, the House of Representatives has never increased income tax rates when it has been controlled by Republicans. Boehner's failed attempt to pass a higher income tax rate on those earning $1 million proves this Republican controlled house still not break that 100-year tradition.

Rallies Supporting Rights For Illegal Aliens Fizzle

Supporters of illegal aliens marched in several U.S. cities on Labor Day in far smaller numbers than they did this spring:

Crowd estimates for Labor Day rallies in cities from San Francisco to suburban Chicago ranged from the hundreds to the low thousands, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who gathered in several cities in the spring.

[. . .]

In Southern California, about 400 people marched Monday, compared with the 400,000 marchers who had jammed a Los Angeles boulevard in May.

[. . .]

In Arizona, about 900 immigrant rights supporters gathered at the state Capitol in Phoenix by midday to protest the government's inaction on repairing what they called America's failed immigration system.

The Phoenix rally also drew 100 advocates for limiting immigration.

The Associated Press' numbers may not be reliable. It reported about 500 people marched to Dallas City Hall asking Congress to legalize millions of illegal aliens and their families, but the Star-Telegram put the number at about 200 people.

The massive spring rallies supporting rights for illegal aliens also failed to produce a surge of new Hispanic voters. An Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom that could sway elections:

"I was anticipating a huge jump in registration. I didn't see it," said Jess Cervantes, a veteran California political operative whose company analyzes Hispanic voting trends.

[. . .]

The AP reviewed new registration numbers over several years in metropolitan areas that include Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif.; Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.; Dallas and Houston; Chicago; Atlanta; Denver; and Jacksonville and St. Petersburg, Fla. The time frames included January-through-July periods dating to 2004 and periods before statewide elections, when registration efforts are most intense.

According to the Associated Press, new registrations were up this year compared to last year, but they were well below the numbers in 2004.

Those advocating rights for illegal aliens overplayed their hand with the massive spring rallies. Efforts to gain political advantage by turning those protesting in support of rights for illegal aliens into Democratic voters is at best unseemly.

As President Bush says, America is a welcoming society. We are indeed a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. If you are here legally, you are more than welcome and greatly appreciated. If you are here illegally, please go back to your nation of origin and come back legally and play by the rules.

Gingrich On Speaker Pelosi

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks that Democrat Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and third in line to the presidency would be a disaster:

"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said.

I'll tell you when I disagree.

Iraq Still Public's Top Priority

A new Gallup poll finds Iraq continues to be Americans' top priority for the president and Congress, followed by fuel prices, and immigration policy.

The poll asked respondents to identify, without prompting, what should be the "top priority for the president and Congress to deal with" at the present time.

Over the past month, Americans have become increasingly likely to say fuel and oil prices and the war in Iraq should be the government's top priorities. Twenty-nine percent of Americans in April said the war in Iraq should be the top priority, and now, 42% feel this way. There has also been a 16-point increase in mentions of fuel prices, up from 13% in April to 29% now. More Americans now say fuel prices should be the top priority than immigration, which showed only a slight increase from 20% in April to 23% in May.

There is of course a significant partisan divide over where the president and Congress should be focusing their attention:

Republicans have three top issues: the current situation in Iraq, immigration, and fuel or oil prices, with between 30% and 37% mentioning each. Among Democrats, the war in Iraq is, by far, the most salient issue, with nearly half of Democrats mentioning it.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mention immigration (33% vs. 14%), while Democrats are more likely than Republicans to mention the war in Iraq (47% vs. 37%), the economy (17% vs. 10%), and healthcare (12% vs. 7%). Republicans mention fuel or oil prices more frequently than Democrats, though these differences fall within the margin of error for this survey.

Since April, there has been an increase among both party groups in mentions of Iraq and fuel prices. Mentions of Iraq increased from 25% to 36% among Republicans and from 31% to 47% among Democrats, while the percentage saying fuel prices rose from 14% to 30% among Republicans and from 14% to 26% among Democrats. Republicans are also slightly more likely to mention immigration this month, up from 27% to 33%, but there has been little change among Democrats, from 15% to 14%.

I am surprised that twice as many Republicans mentioned Immigration than did Democrats.

The poll was conducted May 22-24, 2006 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent.

Optimism Breaks Out

Optimism about the War Against Terrorism rebounded smartly in the last month according to Rasmussen Reports polling released today:

Forty-eight percent (48%) [of] Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning. That's up nine points from 39% a month ago and represents the highest level of confidence measured in 2005.

Just 28% now believe the terrorists are winning, down six points from 34% a month ago.

There is more good news. Forty percent now believe that the U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11. That's up from 34% a month ago. The number who say the U.S. is not safer has declined to 43 percent, down from 50% a month ago.

Forty percent (40%) of Americans now believe that, in the long run, the U.S. mission in Iraq will be viewed as a success. Forty-five percent (45%) believe it will be viewed as a failure. Those figures also show increased optimism compared to last month.

The survey was conducted on November 30 and December 1, following the President Bush's speech outlining the Strategy For Victory In Iraq, and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

It is interesting that this rebound in optimism about the war occurred in the midst of the Pelosi Democrats' campaign for a withdrawal from Iraq. Rasmussen did find Democrats less optimistic than Republicans, only 28 percent of Democrats believe we are winning compared to 74 percent of Republicans. But the Democrats are also becoming more optimistic. Last month only 19 percent of Democrats thought we were winning.

According to Rasmussen's ongoing presidential approval polling, President Bush's job approval numbers aren't nearly as bad as the mainstream media would have you believe. The President's approval numbers have stabilized in the mid 40s. On Election Day 2004, the President's Job Approval was at 52 percent. Today's rating 46 percent is pretty good when viewed in light of the fact that during
2004, reports on the President's job approval were based upon surveys of Likely Voters. Typically, a survey of Likely Voters would report a Job Approval rating 2-3 points higher than a survey of all adults.

Polls can be and are often used to support a predetermined finding. Rasmussen's ongoing polling is less prone to such gimmickry and claims to be most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election predicting the final outcome within half a percent of the actual total.

Chairman Dean's Dementia

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, said on national television Sunday that it is "false" that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.

DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. [From NBC's "Meet The Press," May 22,2005]

Chairman Dean is, of course, wrong. Contrary to the Yowler's assertion, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States actually supports the fact that Osama bin Laden "had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States." From the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States' Monograph on Terrorist Financing [PDF file], at page 27:

Once in Afghanistan, Bin Laden focused on building al Qaeda into a fully operating
organization. Al Qaeda spent money on military training and support, including salaries
for jihadists, training camps, and related expenses. Reportedly there were also
propaganda and proselytizing-related expenses and costs to support al Qaeda outside
Afghanistan.

Before 9/11 al Qaeda was reportedly highly organized, with a committee structure that
included the Finance Committee. Credible evidence indicates that Bin Ladin played a
significant role in planning each operation and was very attentive to financial matters.
Other than Bin Ladin, the person with the most important role in al Qaeda financing was
reportedly Sheikh Qari Sa’id. Sa’id, a trained accountant, had worked with Bin Ladin in
the late 1980s when they fought together in Afghanistan and then for one of Bin Ladin’s
companies in Sudan in the early to mid-1990s. Sa’id was apparently notoriously
tightfisted with al Qaeda’s money.18 Operational leaders may have occasionally bypassed
Sa’id and the Finance Committee and requested funds directly from Bin Ladin. Al Qaeda
members apparently financed themselves for day-to-day expenses and relied on the
central organization only for operational expenses.

Al Qaeda funded a number of terrorist operations, including the 1998 U.S. embassy
bombings in East Africa (which cost approximately $10,000), the 9/11 attacks
(approximately $400,000–500,000), the October 18, 2002, Bali bombings.

The scary thing is that Chairman Dean and many of his followers may actually believe Dean's vile ranting, even though it is demonstrably false. To avoid the charge that I took dean's quote out of context, I've provided a longer passage from the Meet The Press transcript in the extended post. It is worth reading, if for no other reason than to see more evidence of the uncivil tone used by Chairman Dean when talking about Republicans:

Gregoire Sworn In As Washington's Governor

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that Christine Gregoire pushed back tears as she took the oath of office as Washington's governor. Gregoire outlined her vision for the state in her inaugural address, "casting herself as the governor for everyone and claiming a mandate to mend fences and build on a centrist agenda:"

"We have work to do," she said. "This is not an easy time to lead."

Tacoma's News Tribune reports that Republicans were unenthusiastic but polite during the inauguration:

Republicans, either by plan or happenstance, were polite if unenthusiastic. Only a handful wore orange ribbons – a symbol borrowed from the Ukranian opposition party that means the wearer supports a revote.

They stood when Gregoire entered the House chambers. They applauded – briefly – as she walked up the aisle. They stood when it was expected, they applauded when it was expected.

Many other times, when Democrats were standing and applauding with all the enthusiasm of a party given a second chance, Republicans sat silently. But no one should have expected them to be happy Wednesday, just civil.

In her inauguration speech, Gregoire offered empathetic words for Rossi.

"My heart goes out to you," Gregoire said to Rossi.

According to the Post Intelligencer, the Republican candidate, who won the first two counts, played the roll of sore loser reminding everyone that Gregoire must battle questions about her legitimacy:

Rossi said concerns about thousands of questionable ballots, improperly cast ballots and disenfranchised voters undermine Gregoire's administration.

I thought Rossi went too far when he said, "Most people believe that Washington does not have a legitimately elected governor." But Spokane's KHQ-TV, via MSNBC, reports that 3 of 5 in Washington State want a new election in the governor's race:

An Exclusive KHQ NewsPoll conducted by Survey USA shows, 62% in the State of Washington say there should be a new election to re-vote on the governor's race.

[. . .]

A re-vote is supported by 76% of Republicans and 64% of Independents. In Eastern Washington 59% of those polled back a re-vote, 61% in the Seattle area back a re-vote.

Democrats oppose a re-vote, but even among Democrats, it is close:45% support holding a new election, 52% say they oppose it.

The survey of 600 adult respondents from Washington State was conducted January 10 and 11, 2005 and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

Rossi shouldn't say things which have the effect of undermining the legitimacy of Gregoire's governorship. Since the Washington electorate was so evenly split, questions about Gregoire's legitimacy may come back to haunt Rossi should he prevail in the courts.

Both sides have been using legal means trying to sort out this election. So far the Democrats have used the legal system to better effect. Rossi should reserve all comments about Gregoire's legitimacy for his court papers. He should also pledge to support Gregoire, as governor not necessarily her policies, should he lose his legal challenge. To do less will make him appear as much a sore loser as the Democrats who objected to Ohio's electoral vote in Congress.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge agrees that Rossi should take high road and accept losing gracefully.

At Trolling In Shallow Water, Kent also posts that Rossi should gracefully accept the loss.