We here at Why Not Nashville? like to look at proposed legislation and ask “why?” Too often our leaders propose legislation simply to say they did something and hope their constituents are satisfied, even if said legislation will have virtually no positive impact. For example, the whole thing about banning assault rifles. Why? What’s the benefit? It isn’t going to do anything about the rifles that are already out there, it probably wouldn’t have stopped the Connecticut shooting from happening, and it isn’t going to do anything about the primary weapon used for shootings, the semi-automatic handgun (which we have a Constitutional Right to own). Moreover, gun laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals anyway. In other words, banning assault rifles would have no impact, other than to advance the agenda of the anti-gun left. Not much of a reason if you ask me.
The fiscal cliff debate is another such example, although its assumed outcome will have a far more practical effect than simply lessening our liberties. It should be rather obvious to everyone that Barry wants us to go over the proverbial fiscal cliff. How do we know this? House Speaker John Boehner was actually going to give Barry what he allegedly wanted: a bill that would permanently fix tax rates for the overwhelming majority of Americans, while ultimately allowing the rates on rich people to go up on January 1. The conservatives in the House shot this possibility down last night, but Barry had already stated he was going to veto such a bill. Why would he want to do that? Because he wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, while Boehner’s bill would only have raised taxes on approximately the top .9%. But why does Barry want so desperately to raise taxes on the top 2%? Even the left agrees raising taxes on the top 2% will negatively impact small business. They also agree it would retard the already tepid economic growth we’re experiencing. Crap, Barry’s even asking for stimulus money to try and offset the negative impact of the tax hike. Finally, the tax hike will do virtually nothing to our long term debt and deficits. In other words, it’s being pushed only to advance the left’s “pro-middle-class” agenda. It has nothing to do with improving anything, however, which is why I’m glad the “Tea Party” members of the House shot Boehner’s proposal down.
Poorly thought-out, agenda-driven legislation is a bad idea. Want proof? Let’s look at budgetary black-hole California, where major cities are going bankrupt, and the Dems running the state have absolutely no idea what they’re doing because their ideology doesn’t match up with reality. As you may or may not know, Californians voted to raise the state sales tax and to raise state income taxes on “wealthy” people. The presumed purpose of the proposition was to reduce California’s massive debt. Contrary to popular belief, however, raising taxes doesn’t always result in raising revenues, especially when the people you’re raising taxes on are already paying more than they should be, and have the resources to flee to greener pastures.
According to the report, personal income tax revenues were ‘$827 million below the month’s forecast of $4.387 billion.’ Sales and use tax receipts ‘were $9 million below the month’s forecast of $1.601 billion’ and the year-to-date sales tax revenue was $8 million below forecast.
Not surprisingly, corporate tax revenues were also down, $175 million below the month’s estimate and year-to-date corporate tax revenues were $441 below estimate.
It’s examples like this that convince me we won’t actually begin solving our fiscal problems until we hit rock bottom. After all, it wasn’t the California state govt. that voted to raise taxes; it was the friggin’ people. In other words, there is a large group of people out there who believe we should be raising taxes, despite the ample evidence that doing so will actually make things worse. Maybe it will take another round of massive lay-offs and a recession to wake people up. Maybe even that won’t be enough. The older I get the more convinced I am that there are huge swaths of unemployed people that, despite their protestations to the contrary, are perfectly happy living in card board boxes as long as they have cable, cigarettes, and Wild Turkey. I don’t get it, but it’s clear that I’m in the minority. At least there’s still a few House Republicans who refuse to vote for legislation that they know won’t work.
Lobbyist: “Hey Mr. Legislator, I have a good buddy who has a computer-modeling business and he could use some work. You know, the economy and stuff. Any suggestions?”
Legislator: “Computer-modeling huh? Those models don’t seem to be very accurate…the whole global warming thing. People are beginning to think we’re making this stuff up.”
Lobbyist: “I know, I know. But this guy’s good. And he told me he’d figure out how to fit global warming into it somewhere.”
Legislator: “Well, o.k. But I can’t give him much…not during this election cycle anyway. Can he get by on $700,000?”
Lobbyist: “I guess it’ll have to do.”
Legislator: “So, what’s the modeling going to be for anyway?”
Lobbyist: “Something about monitoring gas emissions from cows. Pretty important stuff.”
In its continuing effort to see how much money it can spend on computer modeling, our guv’ment has given the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to monitor the emission of greenhouse gases on organic dairy farms. Now, I’m not sure how many organic dairy farms there are out there, but I do know that Ben & Jerry’s gets all their milk from organic dairy farms and they make ice cream, which I like to eat. Thus, by making an entirely
illogical leap, the $700,000 is money well spent.
But I digress. As stated, the purpose of the modeling is to figure out how to help organic dairy farmers cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Nitrogen- and carbon-based greenhouse gases are produced via a complicated system at dairy farms that is affected by everything from the weather to the soil to the feed to cow burps, among other things.
There are many ways to cut how much gas is produced, such as leaving manure out rather than putting it in water, Salas said. The question is how to do it best at an organic dairy. What works for one dairy may not work for another, he said.
I, for one, am very interested in how leaving manure out can be best accomplished at an organic dairy. Wait, what? You say non-organic dairy farms have cows that spontaneously produce manure too? “Nitrogen- and carbon-based greenhouse gases are produced via a complicated system” at all farms you say? Then why is this grant only being used to study organic dairy farms? Oh wait, there’s a little bit left at the bottom of the page,
The grant will also be used to create programs meant to improve the competitiveness of organic livestock and crops, which tend to be significantly more expensive.
Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner. I wonder how much of the grant is actually going to be used to help the little organic dairy farmer compete with the great big evil hormone-injecting mega-dairy farmer? I’m guessing most of it. All I know is, when it’s all done, the American people had better get a totally kick-ass Power Point presentation about how Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food can be made in a more environmentally friendly manner.
Well, it’s all come down to this. One day before the big election. It appears that the
good better guys are set to take over the House, and make some big gains in the Senate. Also, it looks like the Repubs are set to take over a large number of governorships. So, what’s the cause of this “wave” that’s apparently on its way? Well, if you ask the “party of the people,” it’s that the people are all idiots. We simply don’t understand all of the great things that our government has done for us in the past two years. The latest, and potentially greatest, source of liberal condescension? None other than John “I’ll raise your taxes but will park my boat elsewhere” Kerry:
‘It’s absurd. We’ve lost our minds,’ Kerry said. ‘We’re in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don’t weigh in. It’s all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap-seat politics.’
“Truth and science and facts.” Well, I, for one, don’t ever want to be accussed of being part of that crowd know-nothingism (which I didn’t even know was a word until John “my wife is billionaire and paid for my Senate campaigns” Kerry made it so), so let’s drop some truth and science and facts before we all go to the polls:
Areas of the country where severe building restrictions (courtesy of liberals) made building new homes almost impossible (see California, for example), made affordable housing (required by the Community Reinvestment Act) even more impossible.
Banks and lenders, as a result of the requirements of the C.R.A. needed to find ways to get lower-income people into the aforementioned expensive housing. They did so by creating devices like adjustable rate mortgages which had low rates initially, and then rose after a couple of years.
Many other companies, like AIG, as well as semi-government entities Fannie and Freddie, purchased these securities, knowing that if they failed, the federal government would bail them out.
Once interest rates began to rise, those people that purchased homes on no-down, adjustable rate mortgages, couldn’t afford the higher payments, and mass foreclosures ensued (primarily in California, Nevada, and Florida). Because these securities were packaged and sold to investors around the world, however, everyone was affected.
Result: economic collapse. Original cause: liberalism.
Oh yeah. Contrary to popular meme, there was no “de-regulation” that contributed to the collapse…unless you want to point to law signed off on by Slick Willy.
American people told stimulus is necessary to keep unemployment from going over 8%. After billions spent, current umemployment rate: 9.5%. Reason: Most of the money went to government entities that don’t know how to create jobs.
Obamacare. American people told it was necessary to curb costs. American people told forcing 30 million people to get health insurance, regardless of health, while not allowing insurance companies to react accordingly, would somehow save us money. Result: Costs still going up, but more this time, and premiums set to skyrocket in January 2011.
Annual deficit went from $400 billion in 2009 fiscal year to $1.42 trillion in 2010 fiscal year. Reason: big government.
Recipients of almost 100% of tax-payer money: social security, medicare and medicaid. Who enacted these entitlements: liberals. Who refuses to fix: liberals.
Jobs continue to get outsourced. Reason: Multiple. One current reason: EPA‘s new carbon emissions make current factories too expensive to run and new factories impossible to build. Reason for EPA creating carbon emission standards: Liberal cap and trade bill, which would have done same thing, failed in Senate.
How to cut unemployment: Create jobs. How are jobs created? By people spending money. How can government give people more money? Cut their taxes. Liberals unwilling to extend Bush tax cuts for everyone unless they can increase taxes on wealthy.
I could go on, but you get the point. The foregoing are all examples of actual truth, science, and facts. Wait, I forgot the science.
In order to prove global warming is both occurring and man-made (and allow for larger government), liberals need to use, at least in part, doctored studies, while ignorning contradictory information.
There’s your “science.”
Who denies all of the foregoing? Liberals like John Kerry. Simply put, it’s not the gun-toting, Bible-thumping, red-necks who reside in the Middle that are idiots. In fact, we have our truth, science, and facts well at hand. Instead, it has been, and always will be, liberals who are the condescending, no-nothing, lunatics.
Look, I don’t know if the pundits are right about the coming Republican wave, and for that reason I will certainly be voting tomorrow, and hopefully seeing a different Congress come Wednesday.
P.S. This is for you Christine O’Donnell (and the liberals that laughed at you). You were correct during your recent debate with Chris Coons when you said there is no “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. There isn’t; it’s a Supreme Court concoction. But I wouldn’t have expected a liberal to know what the Constitution actually says.
You hear it everyday, primarily from liberals: “America just doesn’t make stuff anymore.” This is often stated in a wistful manner that harkens back to days gone by, when one’s father would grab his metal lunch box, kiss his wife, and walk to his job at the widget factory. After hearing such a statement, the uninformed listener may inquire into the reason why America doesn’t make stuff anymore. At this point, the listener would be bludgeoned with the following (or its equivalent): “It’s those greedy factory owners who only care about profit.” There can be little doubt that the factory owner cares about profit; that’s why he’s in business after all. If it wasn’t about profit, then he’d be running a charity like that great humanitarian Bono (oh wait, bad example).
Yes, the owner cares about profit (for those of you who dislike profit…it’s difficult to pay employees without money). But where did the factory go? Probably to another country. Why? The answer is simple: liberals. Case in point, the new EPA rules on carbon emissions that the left has been pushing hard for. Hot Air has provided a nice summary of the soon to be released Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority report, which provides a picture of the damage the EPA’s new regulations will do to this country’s already anemic manufacturing industry:
- New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;
- The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.
- New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;
- The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation;
How bad is it? It’s so bad that the freakin’ Steel Workers Union is complaining about it. And with good reason…the EPA’s standards are so ridiculously strict, there isn’t a boiler in the country that would comply. What does that mean? It means a whole bunch of factories will close, many for good.
It’s examples like this that compel me to conclude that Michael Savage is right: liberalism is a mental disorder. How can you complain about manufacturing jobs leaving when you’re the reason they’re leaving? Even more perplexing: Why the hell would any union member support a democrat? Can anyone explain this to me? Democrats are the reason union jobs are going to China.
And make no mistake, the EPA’s regs have Obama’s fingerprints all over them. It’s the current Administration that has been pushing for the EPA to regulate carbon emissions because it couldn’t get cap-n-trade through the Senate. Simply put, the “working man” needs to wake up. There’s a reason those factories Springsteen always sings about are closed, and it ain’t the greedy factory owner.
In their continuing effort to make sure you die penniless, the libs are targeting yet another response to their incompentence: gold.
A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner’s Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Commerce Committee) will focus on ‘legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who’s [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.’
That’s right. One of the most liberal Reps. in the House, he of the last name that makes fourth-graders giggle, is going to do his very best to make sure no one can calm their fears with gold. Why you ask? According the press release, it’s because he cares…
‘”Goldline employs several conservative pundits to act as shills for its’ [sic] precious metal business, including Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Thompson. By drumming up public fears during financially uncertain times, conservative pundits are able to drive a false narrative. Glenn Beck for example has dedicated entire segments of his program to explaining why the U.S. money supply is destined for hyperinflation with Barack Obama as president.’
…or not. I feel like the libs may have jumped the shark with this one. Do we really want our elected officials holding hearings on the sale of stuff because the talking heads advertise the stuff? More importantly, why isn’t the government holding committee hearings on fried beer? I’ve committed an entire post to the culinary concoction yesterday, and I’m (obviously) a ridiculously influential talking head.
All jokes aside though, this is yet another recent example of the far left wingers revealing their dictatorial colors. Rep. Weiner doesn’t even try placing some window-dressing on the desired legislation by arguing that people are being duped or something. Instead, he simply states gold companies may need to be regulated because too many people are buying gold.
Of course, it isn’t really about the gold…it’s about the motive behind its purchase. People are buying gold because they’re worried about inflation. Why are they worried about inflation? Because the geniuses running this country, i.e. Democrats like Rep. Weiner, have run up a deficit that will inevitably be paid for by printing more money, thereby causing inflation.
Look, will owning gold protect investors from inflation? I have no idea. But I know this: calling for an investigation into gold companies simply because people are buying gold as a result of their reasonable concerns about inflation smacks of Stalin. And in case your forgot, Stalin was a jerk.
It is truly difficult to imagine a more incompentent set of government officials than those running the city of Los Angeles…and that’s saying something now days. L.A. received $111 million in stimulus funds to create jobs. Well, how’d they do? Jobs created or saved: 55. No, that’s not a type. 55 jobs, at an approximate cost of $2 million apiece! Holy crap!
So, why did it take $111 million of tax-payer money to save/create 55 jobs you ask:
The audit says the numbers were disappointing due to bureaucratic red tape, absence of competitive bidding for projects in private sectors, inappropriate tracking of stimulus money and a laxity in bringing out timely job reports.
In other words, the problem was government.
‘While it doesn’t appear that any of the ARRA funds were misspent, the City needs to do a better job expediting the process and creating jobs….’
Only in an absurdly liberal and backward city like L.A. could spending $2 million of taxpayer money per job not equate to funds being misspent. Apparently the only way to misspend taxpayer money in L.A. would be doing someting like wall-papering government offices with it, or simply giving it back to the tax-payers.
L.A. is a joke, and an embarrassment to America. Not only can it only figure out how to save/create 55 jobs with $111 million of taxpayer money, it also built a $578 million public school. L.A. is liberalism on steroids. Its local unemployment rate is over 12%, but yet it continues to tax the crap out of its residents (well, those that pay taxes anyway). In other words, L.A. is a microcosm of America under Obama. Government can’t create jobs, it can only destroy them. Government can’t produce wealth, it can only steal it.
The question is: how long will it take America to realize that liberalism is literally destroying this country? Hopefully soon.
I’ve written about the Ground Zero mosque before. I’ve given my opinion on it before. I see no need for it and I’ve heard no justification for it. It’s not a constitutional issue…it’s a zoning issue. It’s not about whether it can be built; but should it be built. Well, the Imam behind the mosque gave an interview to CNN yesterday, and provided some interesting insight into the building of the mosque (this from the live blog),
Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he ‘never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.’
The only way you wouldn’t have known this would stir controversy is if you were mentally ill; and maybe you are. But now you know that your monument to tolerance will do nothing more than make a lot of people angry. So, you’ll move it, right?
However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because ‘our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.’
By that, he said, he means that if the controversy forces a move, ‘it means the radicals … will shape the discourse on both sides.’
Of course he won’t move it. And the reason is national security? National security because the radicals will get mad if it’s moved? Newsflash: the radicals were mad on 9/11, when there was no mosque at Ground Zero, and there were lots of practicing muslims in New York. Oh yeah, about that,
O’Brien asked about [the Imam’s] interview with CBS’s ’60 Minutes,’ shortly after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said the United States’ policies ‘were an accessory to the crime.’
O’Brien asked twice, but Rauf deflected the question.
‘The work we have to do now is not about pointing fingers,’ he said, as part of his response.
Apparently he still thinks we were at fault for 9/11. So there’s that.
My issue with the mosque has always been a very practical one: why build it there? The Imam was actually asked that question during his interview:
Asked why he wanted to build the center on the planned spot, Rauf noted he’s already run a mosque about 10 blocks from ground zero for many years.
When asked about the feelings of families of 9/11 victims – such as those who might claim that their relative’s remains have yet to be found at the site, Rauf said: ‘This is not that spot. This is not ground zero proper. No one’s body is in that location.’
‘I’m very sensitive to those feelings,’ he said. ‘As an imam – as any religious person does – we have to minister to the pain and hurt … in our communities. This is part of our intention.’
He said he intends to put a 9/11 memorial in the center.
“No one’s body is in that location” and “I’m very sensitive to those feelings.” About as sensitive as a kick to the groin…of a man. The Imam’s answer says two things. First, it doesn’t actually answer the question, other than to vaguely reference serving the community (that doesn’t want it). The second thing the answer says: screw you and your feelings America.
The fact is, the reason for building the mosque in its current location is becoming increasingly clear; and increasingly dark. If I’m wrong about his motives, then why does the Imam continue to either provide non-answers or simply lie about what the mosque is and why it’s being built in that specific location?
He concludes the interview by calling the Cordoba House a “multifaith center.” Sweet! Does that mean, in addition to a mosque, there will also be a Christian Church and a Jewish Temple available for use by the community? I’m not holding my breath.
And of course, while all of this is going on, we have the pastor in Florida who wants to burn some Qurans. Everyone is up in arms about it. Why? Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to do it? Isn’t that all that matters? The liberal left says “but it’s not about whether he can do it, but whether he should he do it.” O.k, but shouldn’t we be attempting to understand why the pastor wants to burn Qurans and try to help him, instead of simply attacking him? The left says no; he’s only doing it to be devisive. In a surprising turn of events, the left is right. It isn’t about whether the church can do it, but should it? The obvious answer is no. We already know that the only conceivable reason why the pastor would want to burn Qurans is to be divisive.
See, if anyone viewed both of the aforementioned events honestly, they would realize that both are identical. In both cases, we have people using religion to do nothing more than stick their finger in America’s collective eye. The only reason for either the mosque being built at Ground Zero or the church burning Qurans is divisiveness. Of course, while everyone finds the Quran burning to be assinine, the liberal left actually finds the mosque building to be a great thing; a monument to tolerance. Don’t worry though…the contradiction will be lost on them.