ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, June 20, 2008

SoshSecurity - From Ponzi Scheme to Pure Welfare

Throughout the Democrat primary, each time Obama spoke about lifting the cap on income that's taxable for Soshsecurity, I would laugh about Barry's lack of understanding about how Soshsecurity works or how it was established.

Barry wants to make any income over $250k taxable to soshsecurity. The way the system is currently set up, that income would merely result in increased returns for the individual making the contributions, so there would be very little gain. That is, unless Obama's not talking about keeping the system as it is and is looking to means test it - essentially taking the money raised from the taxes on income over $250k and simply giving it to all of those making less than that amount.

Ridiculous as it sounds - If I made slightly more than $250k, I'd be asking my boss for a cut in pay; if I made significantly more, I'd be hiring the best tax attorney in the land - this is exactly what Barry's proposing. Lawrence Lindsey has an excellent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal... here's his final analysis, but read the whole thing:

Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
June 20, 2008; Page A13

Sen. Barack Obama has a bad idea for "extending the life of Social Security." He has proposed applying the Social Security tax to incomes above $250,000, in addition to the current tax on incomes up to $102,000. It's unfair, he explained, for middle-class earners to pay Social Security tax on "every dime they make" while the very rich pay on "only a very small percentage of their income."
It is shocking to think that we have a presidential candidate who would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer. More likely, given the calculated political design of the proposal, no one in the Obama campaign told the candidate about the economic, ethical or historical consequences of his suggestion.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Can I call them Communists now?

We all know that deep down, inside each and every Democrat is a communist waiting to bloom. Normally, they repress their communist urges because they know it's not usually acceptable within the US. Bernie Sanders (Communist-VT) became a Democrat to run for US Senate and was welcomed with open arms by Howard Dean, who revealingly commented that Bernie's positions on the issues aren't that far removed from mainstream Democrat positions.

However, with the Obamessiah phenomenon and the populist rhetoric in this election, even elected members of Congress are becoming more vocal in their support for communist policies such as the nationalization of entire industries. First, the crackpot from Cali mentioned in a committee hearing with oil execs that the next step was to nationalize - take over - the oil industry. (I can't imagine a more compelling reason to locate your headquarters and operations overseas (where most of your revenue is located.) Watch as Maxine thinks about what she's going to say - pauses, considers whether it's really a good thing to say publicly in the Us - and then runs with it. (And you can see the people behind her chuckle at the thought of Maxine Waters running a @#%^ing oil company - or perhaps they're laughing because they can't believe she would so publicly admit that she's a commie.)

Next up is Maurice Hinchey (H/T to ProteinWisdom), Congressman from New York. Maurice was first made famous here on Another Rovian Conspiracy when we disclosed that he had committed murder - a charge for which he has yet to be prosecuted. Actually, Maurice suggested that Karl Rove planted the National Guard fake memos with someone in Texas, recognizing that the dogged Dan Rather would investigate and find them, not recognize that they were fakes, and go with the story. His claim was so ridiculous and baseless that we decided to make a similarly ridiculous and baseless claim: that Maurice Hinchey had committed murder.

Now, Maurice is calling for the US government - the same government that hasn't been able to balance its budget in, oh... ever... - the same government that can't do a single thing efficiently - Maurice is calling for that government to take over the refining companies.


"Once the government can set prices" is a hilarious statement. What in the hell does she think would happen when the government set prices below market value? Has this woman never seen a supply & demand curve and thought about what happens when you set the price below equilibrium? This is not rocket science.

There is no question that the Democrats and their Moonbat base have decided that this is the year to begin showing their communist bona fides and see whether they can bring the US voters with them.

If they say these things during the election and Obama still gets elected, along with large majorities in the Congress, they'll feel empowered to move the country towards a completely socialist/communist system. And, as demonstrated by Hayek, Friedman, et al... once the government starts to control portions of the economy, they have to increase their control over the economic actors within that economy - and that means the people within the economy.

It's no accident that when Neil offers up the nationalization of the media, his guest whacko responds - immediately - with "We'd love to take that over, too!"

It's all so predictable...

Also on HotAir

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Drill, Drill, DRILL!

Echoing Larry Kudlow over at the Corner:

Obama, meanwhile, is repeating the tired old Democratic response that there’s no way offshore drilling will lower prices now. But he is wrong. And McCain has an opening here if he’d only stop his silly attacks on “reckless speculators.” The Arizona senator doesn’t know anything about speculators or investors or commodity trading or any of that stuff. The reality is, should Congress overturn its offshore-drilling moratorium, those very same speculators are gonna start selling crude-oil futures contracts and price declines will filter backwards from the longer-term contracts to the cash market. In other words, what can be bought will be sold. If drilling expectations change on the hope that future oil supplies will rise, prices will adjust lower and it will happen fast.

It brought to mind one of my favorite lines from the movie Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy.

Randolph Duke: Exactly why do you think the price of pork bellies is going to keep going down, William?

Billy Ray Valentine: Okay, pork belly prices have been dropping all morning, which
means that everybody is waiting for it to hit rock bottom, so they can buy low.
Which means that the people who own the pork belly contracts are saying, "Hey,
we're losing all our damn money, and Christmas is around the corner, and I ain't
gonna have no money to buy my son the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip! And my
wife ain't gonna f... my wife ain't gonna make love to me if I got no money!" So
they're panicking right now, they're screaming "SELL! SELL!" to get out before
the price keeps dropping. They're panicking out there right now, I can feel it.
[on the ticker machine, the price keeps dropping]

Randolph Duke<: He's right, Mortimer! My God, look at it!

If tomorrow, the US Congress passed legislation opening up ANWR, offshore drilling and oil shale drilling across the board, the oil "speculators" that McCain and Obama are so quick to demonize will be bailing so fast on the oil future markets it will make your head spin. They're going to want to buy their son's the GI Joe with the kung fu grip!

The corrollary is that all this talk about not drilling in pristine ANWR means that the "speculators" are going to drive the price further up.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth - Part 1,775

Previous Inconvenient Truths here.

Algore, in addition to being a complete moron, is also a complete hypocrite.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

I'm going to take the Algore approach to saving the planet from global warming. But, since I don't have the income, wealth, or celebrity of Algore and can't simply burn up 20x the energy of the average person with a massive house and a private jet, I'm going to have to be a bit more creative.

I'm going to have to buy a Hummer and leave it running 24/7, turn the A/C on 65 (if Obama will allow me) with the windows open, etc. At the same time, I'll sanctimoniously demand that the developed and developing world stop any fruitful activities and return to the most primitive lifestyle possible.

Perhaps I can win a @%^%*ing Nobel Peace Prize?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sunday, June 15, 2008

SCOTUS: We'll Take That Presidential & Congressional Power, thank you!

Beldar provides this excellent analysis of the recent, ridiculous SCOTUS decision that grants Constitutional rights to terrorists - something that the Moonbat Left has been calling for since 2002. Beldar doesn't pull any punches and you should read the whole thing:

The Supreme Court ruled today that terrorists who are citizens of foreign countries, who have never set foot within the United States, and who have systematically forfeited all the protections of the organized laws of warfare that would entitle them to be treated as prisoners of war, are, when captured on foreign battlefields by the U.S. military, nevertheless entitled to access to the federal court system of the United States — in most essential respects, exactly as if they were lawful, taxpaying citizens born here, raised here, and arrested here by the domestic police for alleged crimes committed here.

If Osama bin Laden, wearing no uniform, surrounded by children as human shields, and in mid-stroke while he's sawing the head off a captured American nurse, is captured by American soldiers tomorrow in Pakistan or Afghanistan, then his rights to use the federal writ of habeas corpus to guarantee him the protections afforded by the United States Constitution will be, so far as I can determine, indistinguishable from my own if I were arrested at my home by the Houston Police Department on a warrant for overdue parking tickets.
This decision is a disgrace and a travesty. It's awful law and even more disastrous policy. It's the single worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime, and quite arguably its worst in American history. It can't be sugar-coated. It can't be minimized. In all probability, it can only be thoroughly undone by a constitutional amendment, or by a pronounced change in the membership of the Court that will deprive the liberal wing of a crucial fifth vote in such cases and open the possibility of this decision being overruled.

(There is, still, a chance that Congress and the president could sidestep the decision by formally invoking the Suspension Clause based on the invasion of 9/11, and I think Pres. Bush should immediately propose such legislation, so that it becomes a campaign issue in November races for both Congress and POTUS if Congress doesn't promptly go along. But Congress and the president ought not have to "suspend" habeas corpus rights for foreign terrorists who never, ever in American history have been construed to have them in the first place.)

It's the death of common sense that will guarantee our demise.

Perhaps it's time we have a Constitutional Amendment overturning Marbury v. Madison?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler