On saying one thing, and doing another...

Investor's Business Daily:

Fiscal Policy: The Senate's new $3 trillion budget for 2009 is big, but it fails to do something vital to the U.S. economy: extend President Bush's tax cuts. If this isn't fixed, we'll soon face the largest tax hike in our history.

The Senate's action on Wednesday to approve the spending plan came on a 48-45 vote over Republican objections. The House is also expected to pass the measure this week.

Democrats sounded almost giddy. The budget "will strengthen the economy and create jobs," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat. "It will provide tax cuts for the middle class, and it will restore fiscal responsibility by balancing the books by 2012 and maintaining balance in 2013."

Fine-sounding sentiments all. But parse those words for a moment. Virtually everything Conrad says is false, and in no small way.

Read it all.

Incidentally, budgeting like this is exactly what we will get, and worse under an Obama Administration.

Viva la Regulacion?

Many of my musings over the last several months (again sorry for that brief hiatus) concerns attempts to legislate our way out of the Credit Crisis. Since I rarely attempt to match wits with someone that has an British accent, I defer to an article in this week's Economist, which succinctly argues the success of the current financial system and the danger of the alternatives.

Here are few of the highlights:

As this week's special report on international banking makes clear, the main structural causes of trouble—the collective misjudgment of risk; a zealous search for yield; and the failure of oversight—are deep-seated. In financial history they crop up time after time. Financiers are rightly rewarded for taking risks, which by their nature cannot be entirely managed away or anticipated. The tendency for success to breed complacency and recklessness is as ingrained in financial markets as it is in any other walk of life. However bankers are paid, they cannot just sit out a credit boom; they have to keep dancing. Regulators lack the knowledge, the clout (and often the talent) to keep up with the banks' next brilliant scheme.

That reads like an indictment, until you consider the alternatives. Western finance, to paraphrase Churchill, is the worst way to allocate capital, except for all those other forms. It is obviously better than the waste and dysfunction in China, where centrally planned capital is dished out to the well-connected. But it is also better than the financial system the West used to have. Thanks to the astonishing innovation of the past few decades, derivatives can help firms and investors to hedge risks (there are plenty of Chinese manufacturers who would be grateful for an easy way to soften the impact of exchange-rate shifts). Securitisation widens access to capital for borrowers and to assets for investors: it can finance everything from water utilities to film studios. Leverage brings more lazy companies within reach of determined investors and more homes within reach of poorer consumers.

It is true that financiers have enjoyed vast profits—and the vast salaries that go along with them (pay at American investment banks has been nearly ten times the national average). But the collapse of the credit bubble will bring that down. And despite all the disasters, there are signs of finance's resilience. In the past few months the banks have commanded enough confidence to raise $200 billion in new capital from investors. Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were calamities, but rare ones, because the vast overall losses were spread far and wide. This time, there has been no industry-wide government recapitalisation. After 20 years of growth, the flaws of modern finance are painfully clear. Do not forget its strengths.

Millenials going for Obama

More on a trend that we have observed here before:

Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man.

He's a born-again Christian with two family members in the military. He grew up in the Bible Belt, where almost everyone he knew was Republican. But this fall, he's breaking a handful of stereotypes: He plans to vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

"I think a lot of Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for," said Dudley, 20, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University.

Dudley's disenchantment with the GOP isn't unique among young, devoutly Christian voters. According to a September 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 15 percent of white evangelicals between 18 and 29, a group traditionally a shoo-in for the GOP, say they no longer identify with the Republican Party. Older evangelicals are also questioning their traditional allegiance, but not at the same rate.

Read it all.

Republicans and Crime

William Stuntz has posted some interesting data he uncovered during his research into the growth in prison populations that has occurred in the U.S. over the last thirty-five years. Contrary to type, Democratic governors tend to oversee disproportionately large (relative to national averages during the same time periods) increases in prison populations, while Republican governors tend to preside over disproportionately small increases or even decreases. Stuntz concludes that the common explanation for the putative over-population of America's prisons -- it's the fault of evil conservatives -- is wrong. Stuntz allows that he has not completed his research and that additional data might turn out to run contrary to this trend.

(Stuntz begins his post with the assertion, "Pretty much everyone—Republican or Democrat, right or left—familiar with America’s criminal justice system agrees that our prison population is far too large." That assertion simply is not true. Perhaps Stuntz means to say that everyone in his elite circle of acquaintance who is familiar the criminal justice system agrees with that proposition.)

The data is not self-explanatory, and causation in this case is necessarily a matter of speculation. Stuntz offers his own explanation. He posits that Democrats hoping to appeal to swing voters, who are mostly white and working-class, must appear tough on criminals, and black criminals in particular, and so must put more blacks in prison. Meanwhile Republicans, who are reputed to be tough on crime, must merely pay lip service to law enforcement.

This explanation rests in part on the supposition that at least some, if not most, imprisoned persons do not belong in prison. Stuntz, like many liberals, seems to assume that some large portion of prison residents in the United States are not at all culpable. This is unlikely, to say the least.

Another intepretation of Stuntz's data, at least equally as reasonable, is that Democratic policies result in higher crime, and therefore result in higher prison populations. This interpretation is consistent with studies that demonstrate links between welfare dependency and crime, fatherlessness and crime, and divorce and crime. Democrats are the champions of welfare entitlements, higher tax burdens, and regulations that retard economic development. And they are doing everything in their power to undermine the traditional family, advocating for same-sex marriage and no-fault divorce, and opposing parental consent prerequisites to abortion.

In any event, kudos to Stuntz for conducting this research, which is sure to rub many in the academy the wrong way.

Will this ever end?

2008 should be known as the Year of the Bailout. The Wall Street Journal explains the latest:

Guess who's asking Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for a bailout now? Hint: They are members of an exclusive club who bet wrong on the credit markets last fall. No, it's not a cabal of Wall Streeters, but Democrats in Congress.

We're referring to the "student loan crisis" now appearing in a media outlet near you. In September, Congress vowed to make education more affordable by passing the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act." The law reduced the interest rates borrowers pay on federally insured student loans. Backed by the Federal Family Education Loan Program, these loans account for more than 70% of education lending. Taxpayers will fork over $7 billion by 2012 to pay for the rate cuts.

Senate Dems opposing Papal resolution

A resolution honoring the Pope on his visit to America is being held by Senate Democrats. The resolution had been expected to pass by unanimous consent, but someone in the Democrat Party has a problem with the following language:

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life.

Yes of course...how dare somebody speak out for the value of every life. What a quaint notion...

Amanda Carpenter has the scoop.

UPDATE: This has now passed the Senate. Apparently Barbara Boxer -- surprise surprise -- was the one holding it up. Much to my disappointment, Senator Brownback was negotiating with Boxer and agreed to water down the life language.

Dems planning to hold war funding hostage for liberal spending

Congressional Democrats have been buzzing incessantly of late about a second "stimulus" package in the wake of Bush's package past last month. The Bush economic stimulus bill, which conservatives rightly criticized, has given Democrats license to spend like the drunken sailors they are. Despite the fact that the checks for the first stimulus have not even been printed, Americans are about to be saddled with more deficit spending.

This time though, it will be tied to funding for the Iraq war and it will be directed to liberal spending priorities rather than direct tax rebates. The NY Times reports on the high-stakes game of political chicken:

It is not easy to draw a straight line from the slumping economy to the war in Iraq and a trade deal with Colombia, but Democrats are trying to connect those dots.

Party strategists say that President Bush’s opposition to additional economic recovery proposals and his strong support of the trade pact provide an opportunity to portray Mr. Bush and his Republican allies, notably Senator John McCain, as being insensitive to the economic struggles of Americans while spending billions each month on Iraq.

“There is an economic argument to be made,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “This administration has not done what it should for the middle class.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he was preparing to link the war spending directly to the economy at home by using a pending bill to finance combat in Iraq as a proxy for a second stimulus measure. He plans to try to attach to the Iraq money Democratic favorites like an extension of unemployment benefits, a summer jobs program and perhaps local building projects.

“That will be war,” promised Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina.

As it should be.

All the way to the convention!

As the Dem on Dem violence increases, conservatives begin to wonder just how far these guys will take this. Is the liberal death wish stronger than the liberal desire to retake the White House? I think Newt is right...it will only get worse. The Clintons are pulling out all the stops and deploying rhetorical daisy cutters:



"I think she could end up beating Senator Obama by a surprisingly big margin in Pennsylvania."

Break out the popcorn and settle in...this will be fun to watch.

UPDATE: Tony Snow analyzes the Obama-Clinton death match:

Race, identity politics ripping apart Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is flailing. What once looked to be a sure thing -- a Dem win in November -- now could be in doubt as the Party wrangles with the issue of race. A Pew Research media study shows that the race issue has dominated the headlines recently. Bizarrely, Spitzer's "Client 9" prostitution scandal has been the Democrats' only saving grace as it competed for national media attention with the race issue.

Even coverage of election results was racially tinged last week. A Chicago Tribune analysis of Obama's Mississippi victory, posted on Google News, noted that exit polls in that state revealed a "race-based resistance" to Obama, with "white Democrats there rejecting his candidacy 70 percent to 26 percent, while 9 of 10 blacks voted for him. It's a dramatic reflection of a recurrent pattern most pronounced in the South," The Tribune reported. Noting concerns that black voters were offended by Clinton's suggestion that Obama be her vice president, the March 13 Los Angeles Times reported on warnings that African-Americans could stay at home in November if Clinton won the nomination.

Against that backdrop came the Ferraro and Wright flare ups, which simmered for days. By mid-week, Clinton had repudiated Ferraro's remarks in front of a group of black newspaper publishers and had her surrogates spreading the message as well. During an Oct. 13 appearance on MSNBC, Congressman Gregory Meeks, an African-American Clinton supporter, told Tucker Carlson that "clearly the statements that Geraldine Ferraro made [are] a distraction and should not have been made. They're inaccurate."

Before the dust had settled came the Wright brouhaha. On March 14, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes aired video of Wright sermons that included remarks harshly critical of the U.S. and its treatment of blacks. (At one point, he described the country as "the U.S. of K.K.K.A..") Fox then aired an interview in which Obama said he had not been aware of many of those statements, and added that "I reject them completely. They are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals."

The study goes on to cite a NY Times story last week that highlights the growing anxiety of the Party's power brokers. "Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict," writes the Times.

The Democrat chickens are coming home to roost. After decades of playing the race card, the gender card and identity politics Democrats are getting a taste of their own medicine. And it is bitter indeed.

The politics of Spitzer

NY Governor Elliot Spitzer's cataclysmic fall from grace has been astounding. Like so many moralizing politicians, he failed to live up to the standards he set for others.

Townhall's Matt Lewis points out that Senators Vitter and Craig are still in office after their sex scandals. He wonders if Spitzer might also be able to survive. The answer seems to be no. But take this to the bank, shortly after Spitzer resigns, Democrat talking heads will point out that their party policed their own. That talking point will resonate with mainstream press who love to stick it to Republicans (look for Chris Matthews to take this meme on as a personal crusade), but upon further examination it rings hollow coming from the Party of Bill Clinton and Barney Frank.

Sadly, no Party in Washington is clean.

Immanentizing the Eschaton

As the Democrats bare more teeth and become more candid in their surprisingly close-run primary, I am becoming increasingly sanguine about McCain's chances in November. It's not just the candidates themselves but also their spouses. Bill Clinton has significantly damaged his party in recent weeks. And Jim Geraghty offers some intriguing reasons why it might be fun (and politically expedient) to have Michelle Obama on the national stage for a few more months.

Conservatives for Hillary

Four different states will decide Hillary Clinton's fate today. If Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont all cast their votes for Obama, Hillary will look silly not to leave (my guess is if she wins only one state, she stays in). Fortunately for her, and to the joy of many conservatives, the late breaking polls are showing a shift away from The Messiah.

Throw in the fact that Rush Limbaugh is urging listeners to cross over and vote for Hillary in Texas and we may see some interesting results. Rush's reasoning is quite simple: the GOP has its nominee settled (despite the Huckster's continued machinations). The Dems are locked in a bloody intra-party dispute that could go all the way to the election. Historically, the convention that is most peaceful politically produces the next nominee.

Here is something else to consider; what if Hillary does really well today and begins a real comeback? Is it possible that the Chosen One's shiny veneer is fading? We know the emperor has no clothes, but do the Omamabots?

Democrats sell our national security

Congressional Democrats have decided to let a vital intelligence law expire at the stoke of midnight tonight. They could have prevented this from happening but chose not to. In his weekly radio address, the President summed up the case for action.

At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad...

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.

Unfortunately, Democrats are too busy doing the work of their campaign contributors who are suing American phone companies for helping our government protect us. Amanda Carpenter writes at Townhall.com that "the 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiff s in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democrat senators."

Democrats know that if the FISA bill is passed, the phone companies will be protected from litigation and the trial lawyers will lose. In blocking this vital legislation, Democrats have put our national security up for sale. They apparently care more about making money for their campaign donors than actually saving American lives.

Good 'ol Jack!

The New York Times Editorial page slams Jack Murtha:

The new earmark disclosure rules put into effect by Congress confirm the pre-eminence of Representative John Murtha at procuring eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pa. The Pennsylvania Democrat, a power player on defense appropriations, exudes pride, not embarrassment, for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in largesse to district beneficiaries. They, in turn, requite with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.

Read it all here. This is one of those rare occasions where the NY Times hits the nail squarely on the head. Their conclusion that "the Murtha operation — which has become a model for other entrepreneurial lawmakers — is a gross example of quid pro quo Washington," is impossible to disagree with when you look at the evidence.

The House of Representatives returns from their holiday recess this week, the Senate next week. Don't expect lawmakers to be clamoring for too much reform on this, as many of them are in neck deep in the pig pit.

UPDATE: President Bush may have the last laugh with the porkers in Congress.