About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Democracy Is Hard

Obama: Hey, let’s bypass the Senate on treaty ratifications

Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold?  Isn’t it 60?  If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification?  The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated.

Well, that is, if the deal actually does put in place an effective verification system and doesn’t amount to a de facto unilateral disarmament.  With exactly five months to win Senate approval, the effort by the Obama White House in floating this idea now makes it sound like Obama wants to give away the store in order to score some points with his 1980s no-nukes agenda.  And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not A Chance

  • By-the-mile road tax Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:33:09 PM
    From the Kansas City Star: The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on ...

  • Waxman-Markey lays groundwork for electric vehicle mandate Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:24:51 AM
    The Waxman-Markey climate bill prepares America for an electric vehicle mandate. Sec. 121 of the bill mandates that electric ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Way It Is

In Washington, conservatives are never really “in power”

As these numbers illustrate, it is the career civil servants who pull the millions of levers of power, not the few political appointees at the top of every agency. It is very difficult for the appointees to even keep track of the policies being implemented by the career staff, much less change them.

This would not be a problem if the career ranks were really filled with nonpartisan individuals (as the New York Times unwaveringly claims) who impartially carried out the policies of the president. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. From the State Department, to the Central Intelligence Agency, to the Department of Justice, and every agency in between, career employees are overwhelmingly partisan liberals, just like in the media and academic worlds. As Richard Perle has eloquently said, when George Bush tried to pull the levers of government, he never realized that they were disconnected from the machinery and the exertion was largely futile. The bureaucracies of these agencies have their own policies and they largely ignored President Bush’s directives and his political appointees, a problem President Obama will not have.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Porkulus Plotz

Unemployment creeps up to 9.5%

The nation’s unemployment woes continued in June as the rate moved up a tenth of a percentage point to 9.5%.  The US lost jobs across all sectors, with the exception of public employment in government, education, and health industries.  Long-term unemployment increased to 30% of the total

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Only An Invasion Will Bring Back Zelaya

Honduras to OAS: Pound sand

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Showdown

McCain-Feingold in the crosshairs?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oops!

SCOTUS overrules Sotomayor on Ricci

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Learn The Lesson

CanadaCare sends baby to US for treatment

. . . Because Canada does not have the capacity to deal with the demand for neo-natal intensive care for premature births, the single-payer system sent the critically ill child to the United States for treatment. . . .

. . . it’s impossible to look at this situation without seeing the relative merits of the American and Canadian systems.  First, the child would have gotten care in the US, too, regardless of insurance status.  People get emergency care regardless in this country.  There is a difference between health insurance and access to care that some people elide for purposes of political argument.  No one gets turned away from emergency care for lack of ability to pay.

But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada?  The government of Canada won’t pay for more.  They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism.  In a free-market system, supply expands to meet demand, which is why Canada could subcontract out to a US hospital for capacity.  Michael writes that paragraph as if it was mere luck that an NICU bed happened to be open in the US, but that’s a function of the system, and not luck.  These parents are separated from their child at the moment through the fault of Canada’s government and not the US.

. . . When we handle our health-care system like Canada, where will Canadians send the next NICU case they can’t handle?  And where will America send ours?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Was In Charge?

Hoyer trots out the “Bush deficit” lie again

Democrats have pressed hard for “pay-go” rules on budgeting, mainly as a way to justify tax hikes as they expand federal spending by an order of magnitude.  In order to convince young voters of the necessity of “pay-go”, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told an audience at the University of Virginia that George Bush left Barack Obama with a $1.3 trillion deficit, and that pay-go would have stopped it.  Hopefully, a few poli-sci majors will point out to their classmates the obvious factual deficiencies in this argument (h/t: Bad Outlaw)

Where to start with this foolishness?  First, a civics lesson.  In fact, Congress appropriates federal spending, not the President, in our system of government.  The President can propose spending, but Congress makes the final decisions on appropriations and spending levels.

Now, a history lesson.  Which party was in charge of Congress the last two years of the Bush administration?  Why, yes, it was the Democrats.  I have no problem blaming Republicans for runaway spending between 2001-6, but 2007-8 belongs to the Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, one of that party’s leaders.  For that matter, it also includes then-Senator Barack Obama.  Deficits in that period are on their hands.

That’s especially true for the final deficit number.  Anticipating a Barack Obama victory in the presidential campaign, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid never presented George Bush with a budget for FY2009.  Congress passed continuing resolutions that funded federal agencies at the FY2008 level until Obama took office in January, and then handed him an omnibus spending plan that boosted federal spending for the remainder of FY2009 — and expanded the deficit.  That final deficit number belongs more to Obama than it normally would have in a transition year.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

O-rrogance

White House: Cairo speech inspired the Iran uprising

This is the most despicable, self-serving, and arrogant spin I’ve seen yet from this White House, and that’s saying something.  Obama gave a speech, and suddenly the people of Iran discovered that they’re being ruled by tyrants?  Never mind that two weeks passed between the speech and the uprising, and that the very obvious trigger for the unrest was the incompetent manner in which the mullahs rigged the election for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Never mind the fact that this President took a full week to even sound like a watered-down Nicolas Sarkozy, let alone the leader of the free world.

Update II: Jim Geraghty makes a great point:

Remember how it was important to recognize that these protests in Iran were triggered by ordinary Iranians’ response to the election, and it was important for the U.S. government to be quiet, soft-spoken, and understated in its response to evolving events? Remember when the most important thing was that the Iranians, and the world, conclude that this uprising was generated entirely by internal sources?

Yeah, apparently that’s no longer the case.

So now can we get a full-throated cry of support for freedom and liberty from the supposed leader of the Free World?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Fools These People Be

Uh oh: 72% support a government-backed health-care plan

The NYT/CBS poll is junk - and bad news for Obamacare

Bruce Kesler points out that — in traditional NYT/CBS fashion — the sample is badly skewed:

According to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain.

This is a good example of why reading a poll is as much art as science, because the first problem is the percentage who say they voted in the 2008 election. In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote… or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789104344Next »