I was reading something on Ricochet yesterday on American exceptionalism (and would link to it but their "search function" at Ricochet can't find an article with that term in it and I have to peck this out and get working) about which the comments veered into a discussion of why Conservatives cry about curtailed Liberty when they really mean we don't like taxes. The commenter (again, sorry I can't link to the idiots at Ricochet) went on to deride the conservative position on over-regulation, minimizing it as a "little red tape."
And all this got me thinking -- which is the real point of the geniuses who started Ricochet -- about how many Americans never try to start a business in this hostile environment (I live in California) or are aware of just how encroaching the administrative state really is. And I'm not blaming Obama for things that came before him, but he has taken this tendency of the state to administer business to death to a whole new level. And he has strong allies in this with unions, both public and private.
Maybe like most Americans, you are not aware that Obama's recess-appointed majority on the NLRB has stepped in to tell Boeing where they can and can't do business now. Maybe you didn't know that the Feds are killing the fishing industry in this country. But it is happening, the same way Obama is strangling the last vestiges of oil exploration and recovery in the USA -- even after a federal judge declared his moratorium illegal. (His contempt of court decisions is a rips subject for an intrepid reporter who wants to write real news.)
His contempt for free market principles is what most disturbs me about Obama. But what is harming America is this administrations all-out fealty to Big Labor -- which ain't so big anymore. At the behest of 7% of the work force, Obama is enforcing directives and stifling business. A small, nefarious minority of working Americans many of whom were coerced into joining their union, are wreaking havoc on the rest of us.
This tyranny of the minority cannot stand, and the majority will eventually vote out politicians who hew to the same line as president Obama.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Friday, September 3, 2010
October Surprise
So Hugh Hewitt asked for our best ideas about October Surpises that the Obama administration may attempt, in an effort to affect the election this November. Hugh mentioned this in the coarse of reading a Jim Geraghty post from Obi Wan Kenobi.
Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.
ADVANTAGES
The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.
Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.
ADVANTAGES
- BHO can finally finally do something that isn't radical far left in nature thereby distancing himself from the Harry & Nancy Show on the Hill
- As in item above, he finally does something to help the economy instead of damage it
- It could be highly beneficial for the economy, freeing up income that could be spent on things people have been putting off
- People who work would realize gain immediately, on their next paycheck
- Politically it frees Barry up to ignore the looming expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as people would have an immediate "tax cut" in their hand
- It would serve to assuage the horrific changes (higher deductibles, higher employee contributions, higher co-pays) that people will begin hearing about very soon as "open enrollment" season opens
- It will come too late to help Democrats this cycle (but then does BHO really care about them anyway?)
- People may squirrel the savings away, continuing behavior noticed throughout the last 18 months, which would reduce the consumer effect such a move would "normally" result in
- Public reaction might not credit Obama with much, because of the looming medical insurance changes noted under Advantages above
- Public reaction would likely include, "See how reducing taxes helps? Now make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you idiot!"
The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The President has a Math Problem
One thing Obama said in his ginormous health care reform speech stuck in my mind. Without getting into who is lying, or misrepresenting, or generally not playing nice on health care, I can say for certain that the President is WAY off on his math.
At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?
One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or
.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000
X = $400,000,000,000,000
Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.
Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"
Times change, Baby!
At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?
One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or
.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000
X = $400,000,000,000,000
Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.
Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"
Times change, Baby!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The 3 Lies in Every Story on Health Care Reform
Every current article on health care reform (or "health insurance reform") contains at least three lies that the media repeats time after time. Of course, some articles have more than three, but that number seems to be the minimum daily requirement for the MSM. For convenience I'll use my local paper, The Riverside Press-Enterprise, which ran an article this morning by their Washington Bureau guy, Ben Goad. But you can have fun by applying the "3 Lie Test" to any article by a MSM source.
Obama's health care plan
The first line of the story contains the phrase "President Barack Obama's health care plan," which is a false premise. Obama has pointedly made clear in multiple interviews that he has not put forth a plan, nor has he given many specifics as to what a plan should include to get his signature. You can believe the Obama of 2003 and 2007 if you like the single payer plan, or you can believe President Obama who now says the current plans under consideration are in no way a "trojan horse" for a single payer system. What you cannot believe is that Obama has A Plan he provided to the public or to Congress. Such a thing does not exist.
In fact, this is a problem Obama has inflicted on himself twice this year, first with the stimulus bill that he outsourced to the two people with the lowest approval ratings in the country, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Of course, they larded it up with crap that can't and won't stimulate the economy, but are long-held wishes of the Left.
Public Undecided
The fourth paragraph of the story leads off with the phrase "Polls show the public is torn over Obama's vision for reform" and is but one variation of the "undecided meme" playing out in the media. And it is a bold-faced lie, one often paired with the "two sides in the debate break mostly along party lines" lie. The truth is more than three quarters of Americans polled are very concerned about the shape of the plans in Congress, and those in favor are dropping below "Elvis is alive" numbers. In fact, the most recent poll finds Americans are overwhelmingly happy -- 80% of them -- with the insurance they have and are worried that Congress will blow it up to make their universal health care plan viable. Nothing that has those kind of numbers can be a one party vs. the other debate. If you have a slice of America 80% wide, then you have what used to be called "bipartisan" support.
Which brings us the the third of the must-have lies for every article on health care:
Sales Job
Coming in the fifth paragraph of the story but widely reported everywhere, is the Big Sales Job lie. As evidence by my local paper's story this morning, and various videos burning up Youtube the real mission is by Democrats is to avoid public discussion at all, if possible, and if a debate must be joined to lie about what's in the bill or feign (let's hope) ignorance. I leave open the possibility that there could be real ignorance in Congress and the Executive Branch, of course. But the sales job meme is just another continuance of a theme the MSM hammered during the campaign, when it seemed that Barack could do no wrong, and words slipped off his silvery tongue to wild applause. Let's face it, unless he's selling Barack he can't sell worth squat!
This has become all too apparent as he holds press conference after prime time snoozer after on-site droning. The man is the best argument against health care reform every time he opens his mouth. The idea that he is any kind of a salesman is an insult to real sales professionals. The hallmark of a good salesman is the ability to provide value through solutions, typified by the well-worn car sales line, "What do I need to do to put you in this car today?" Have you ever heard Obama consider what the public would like to know about "health care reform" in order to make a wise decision? No! He doesn't care what you think, as long as you don't think too long or too hard about what Congress is doing.
The other trait common to good sales professionals is product knowledge, the ability to clearly communicate features and benefits of the service or widget they sell. The public is well aware that every "news conference" he's held on the subject has been famously devoid of actual facts about the bills under construction. Not only is he ignorant of the particulars, he is quick to give off the slimy vibe of someone trying to pull the wool over their customer's eyes. The media can say he is doing a bang-up sales job, but it is so patently false that fewer Americans are buying, and that is why there is such a rush to get a bill -- any bill --signed into law before the popular uprising leaves a permanent taint on the President.
This little post has gone on so long, I don't have time right now to expound on the various "lies of omission" that would round out my take on the article in question. But go ahead, test these lies against your local paper's story on health care reform today. Then ask yourself, "What are they not telling me?" (Hint: tax increases and budget deficits.)
[Edited for spelling and syntax about one hour after original post. Content is the same, just clearer now, I hope.]
Obama's health care plan
The first line of the story contains the phrase "President Barack Obama's health care plan," which is a false premise. Obama has pointedly made clear in multiple interviews that he has not put forth a plan, nor has he given many specifics as to what a plan should include to get his signature. You can believe the Obama of 2003 and 2007 if you like the single payer plan, or you can believe President Obama who now says the current plans under consideration are in no way a "trojan horse" for a single payer system. What you cannot believe is that Obama has A Plan he provided to the public or to Congress. Such a thing does not exist.
In fact, this is a problem Obama has inflicted on himself twice this year, first with the stimulus bill that he outsourced to the two people with the lowest approval ratings in the country, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Of course, they larded it up with crap that can't and won't stimulate the economy, but are long-held wishes of the Left.
Public Undecided
The fourth paragraph of the story leads off with the phrase "Polls show the public is torn over Obama's vision for reform" and is but one variation of the "undecided meme" playing out in the media. And it is a bold-faced lie, one often paired with the "two sides in the debate break mostly along party lines" lie. The truth is more than three quarters of Americans polled are very concerned about the shape of the plans in Congress, and those in favor are dropping below "Elvis is alive" numbers. In fact, the most recent poll finds Americans are overwhelmingly happy -- 80% of them -- with the insurance they have and are worried that Congress will blow it up to make their universal health care plan viable. Nothing that has those kind of numbers can be a one party vs. the other debate. If you have a slice of America 80% wide, then you have what used to be called "bipartisan" support.
Which brings us the the third of the must-have lies for every article on health care:
Sales Job
Coming in the fifth paragraph of the story but widely reported everywhere, is the Big Sales Job lie. As evidence by my local paper's story this morning, and various videos burning up Youtube the real mission is by Democrats is to avoid public discussion at all, if possible, and if a debate must be joined to lie about what's in the bill or feign (let's hope) ignorance. I leave open the possibility that there could be real ignorance in Congress and the Executive Branch, of course. But the sales job meme is just another continuance of a theme the MSM hammered during the campaign, when it seemed that Barack could do no wrong, and words slipped off his silvery tongue to wild applause. Let's face it, unless he's selling Barack he can't sell worth squat!
This has become all too apparent as he holds press conference after prime time snoozer after on-site droning. The man is the best argument against health care reform every time he opens his mouth. The idea that he is any kind of a salesman is an insult to real sales professionals. The hallmark of a good salesman is the ability to provide value through solutions, typified by the well-worn car sales line, "What do I need to do to put you in this car today?" Have you ever heard Obama consider what the public would like to know about "health care reform" in order to make a wise decision? No! He doesn't care what you think, as long as you don't think too long or too hard about what Congress is doing.
The other trait common to good sales professionals is product knowledge, the ability to clearly communicate features and benefits of the service or widget they sell. The public is well aware that every "news conference" he's held on the subject has been famously devoid of actual facts about the bills under construction. Not only is he ignorant of the particulars, he is quick to give off the slimy vibe of someone trying to pull the wool over their customer's eyes. The media can say he is doing a bang-up sales job, but it is so patently false that fewer Americans are buying, and that is why there is such a rush to get a bill -- any bill --signed into law before the popular uprising leaves a permanent taint on the President.
This little post has gone on so long, I don't have time right now to expound on the various "lies of omission" that would round out my take on the article in question. But go ahead, test these lies against your local paper's story on health care reform today. Then ask yourself, "What are they not telling me?" (Hint: tax increases and budget deficits.)
[Edited for spelling and syntax about one hour after original post. Content is the same, just clearer now, I hope.]
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama Rhetoric vs. Blago's Style
Listening to Blago defend himself live on the radio just now, I was struck by the great communication ability he displayed (I couldn't see it, obviously, but it sounded extemporaneous). It was simple and direct, although not the least believeable, he made it all sound so plausible. This is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama, who I consider a very poor deliverer of speeches and a horrendous creater of off-the-cuff remarks.
Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.
His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.
Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.
Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.
His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.
Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)