SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alan Smithee who wrote (38236)11/4/2009 1:59:22 PM
From: Geoff Altman  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Oh, and O'Reilly is also a pompous gasbag.

He is pretty gaseous...... I understand that he has to cut off some of his liberal guests, if he didn't they'd ramble on forever, but if Orielly interrupts his guest Brit Hume one more time I'll have to send him a nasty gram....<g>

I wish they'd move Beck to primetime, they could replace any of the other pt shows....except Special Report (best news on tv) and I wouldn't miss anything.....



To: Alan Smithee who wrote (38236)11/5/2009 12:32:04 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Tuesday's Biggest Loser: the Union Agenda
The GOP victories reveal fissures in the coalition that elected Barack Obama.
NOVEMBER 4, 2009, 7:05 P.M. ET.

By MICHAEL BARONE
If you were watching television on Tuesday night as the election returns came in showing Republicans capturing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, you probably missed seeing the biggest losers of the evening. You may have caught the concession speech of Creigh Deeds, who ran 12% behind Barack Obama's winning percentage of the vote in Virginia, and that of Jon Corzine who, after spending over $100 million of his own money on three campaigns, ran 13% behind Obama's winning percentage in New Jersey and got evicted from Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion in Princeton.

But you missed seeing the guy who may have been the biggest loser of all—a man who according to recently released White House logs has been a guest in the White House 22 times since Barack Obama became president, more than any other single individual.

That man is Andy Stern, who has boasted that the Service Employees International Union, which he heads, ponied up something like $60 million for Barack Obama and other Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Altogether, Mr. Stern and other labor union leaders reportedly gave Democrats some $400 million last year.

This was, to borrow a word from Mr. Obama, an audacious gamble. Unions these days represent only 8% of private-sector employees (and that's counting General Motors and Chrysler as private sector) and some unions went into debt to make these contributions. Public employee unions of course are financed by taxpayers, who pay the salaries from which dues are extracted, but even so their resources are ultimately limited.

What have the unions gotten in return? Some not insignificant things. The Obama administration bludgeoned General Motors and Chrysler bondholders, in what I called an episode of "gangster government," and effectively turned over the two auto companies to the United Auto Workers. The building trades got project labor agreements—i.e., plenty of dues money flowing to their coffers—in the $787 billion stimulus package.

A lot of that stimulus money went as well to state and local governments. The goal was to spare public employee union members from the vicissitudes of the recession to which the rest of us are subject—and to keep that dues money flowing in.

But the union leaders have been frustrated on their No. 1 goal, the card check bill that would effectively abolish the secret ballot in unionization elections. A couple of bulky guys in varsity jackets visit your home and, um, persuade you to sign a card, and later the union—with the help of a mandatory arbitration clause—impose contracts on employees and rake in the dues money.

Just about every House Democrat voted for the misleadingly titled "Employee Free Choice Act," and every Senate Democrat cosponsored it when George W. Bush was president and it had no chance of becoming law. As Barack Obama was inaugurated, Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder was speculating on how many Republicans would come on board.

Instead, support evaporated as Democrats from places as dissimilar as Arkansas and California thought hard about what life would be like with card check. Today the bill looks dead no matter how many Democrats are elected to Congress.

And after Tuesday's elections, it looks like fewer Democrats will be elected to Congress in 2010 than in 2008. In the election results and the exit polls there are clear signs that the Obama majority coalition has splintered.

Mr. Obama benefited last year from a big turnout of young voters, who backed him by a 66% to 32% margin. This year young voters formed only about half as large a percentage of the electorate in Virginia and New Jersey as they did in 2008, and in Virginia they voted about as Republican as their elders.

The big-government programs of Obama Democrats evidently have less appeal than those trendy posters and inspiring rallies and cries of "We are the change we are seeking." I have yet to see survey research showing that young Americans want to work under union contracts, with their 5,000 pages of work rules and rigid seniority systems. That doesn't sound like a tune that appeals to the iPod generation.

Economically, the Obama majority was a top-and-bottom coalition. The Democratic ticket carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and over $200,000, and lost those in between. As the shrewd liberal analyst Thomas Edsall has noted, there's a tension between what these groups want. High earners in non-Southern suburbs have been voting Democratic since the mid-1990s largely because of their liberal views on cultural issues; low earners vote Democratic because they want more government money shoveled their way.

Tuesday's elections suggest those whose money gets shoveled are having second thoughts about this odd-couple coalition. In Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell carried affluent and immigrant-heavy Fairfax County, which Barack Obama carried by 21%. In New Jersey, Republican Christopher Christie cut Democrat Jon Corzine's margin in demographically similar Bergen County from 16% in 2005 to 1%. A Republican was elected county executive in Westchester County, New York, and the Republican candidate for state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania carried the four-county suburban Philadelphia area—turf that voted 57% for Barack Obama in 2008.

A health-care bill financed by either higher taxes on high earners or on those with generous, employer-provided health insurance, looks like a hard sell in high-earner constituencies. It looks politically risky especially for newly elected Democrats.

Mr. McDonnell carried nine of Virginia's 11 congressional districts, and the three districts that Democrats captured from Republicans last year voted 62%, 61% and 55% for the Republican this time. No wonder Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking about postponing health-care votes until next year.

The unions' unprecedented political push in 2008 has not been unnoticed by the voters. Mr. Corzine's cozy relationship with public employee union heads proved a liability in New Jersey, and in Virginia Mr. McDonnell campaigned hard against card check and the Obama agenda. The Gallup organization reports that Americans are less pro-union than they have been at any time since it first started asking the question in 1936. Maybe around the country union members will start asking their leaders what they have gotten for all the money they've spent on politics.

Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and co-author of "The Almanac of American Politics 2010" (National Journal).

online.wsj.com



To: Alan Smithee who wrote (38236)12/28/2009 10:51:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Looking Ahead to 2010
by Dan Holler

12/28/2009

As we turn the page on 2009, it’s tempting to bemoan all that went wrong this year. The year brought 10 percent unemployment, a $1.4 trllion budget deficit and a dramatic increase in the role (if not effectiveness) of government. At his inauguration less than a year ago President Obama said:

Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Many Americans argue we haven’t lived up to that vision. 2010 can – and must -- be different if our children’s children are to take pride in our actions. With that in mind, we should turn a hopeful eye toward 2010 and identify five key policy changes that would strengthen America.


Economy

Job creation is the most pressing priority. Last January, the unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent. Now it’s 10 percent. Misguided “stimulus” spending in the last year highlights the importance of federal policy, something the President seems to have finally realized earlier this month. At his second jobs summit of his tenure, Obama “ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.” “It is only when the private sector starts to reinvest again,” he added, “that we’re going to have the kind of economy that we want.”

Unfortunately, the President and Congress have shown little desire to create the climate which would foster investment. As a result, job creation has been noticeably and understandably absent during this recession. As my colleague James Sherk writes, businesses are not only responding to the recession, but they “have also grown wary about the future of the economy, especially in light of the many new threats emanating from the White House and the Congress.”

There must be a focus on private sector (not government) job creation, part of which is removing the threats (higher taxes, increased government intervention and unnecessary regulations). The other is promoting pro-growth policies in the area of taxes, trade and financial services.

Health Care

Over the past year, the number of people who consider health care reform a top priority has more than tripled. However, the public doesn’t support the various proposals outlined by the President and liberals in Congress. A Rasmussen poll found that “only 16 percent now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs.” It should come as no surprise that the American people are skeptical of government’s ability to reduce the cost of anything. Obamacare aside, policymakers should focus on keys such as tax equity, state-based reforms and sound financing.

Protecting America

Above all else, our government has the responsibility to provide for the common defense. Winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is essential, and announcing an exit strategy based on political timetables instead of victory -- as the President did -- isn’t helpful to those efforts. However, there is more to protecting America. Conservatives should commit to ensuring our military is properly funded, we must pay for current operations and also modernize our forces to ensure a free and prosperous world.

Generational Theft

One out of every six Americans now say that the federal budget deficit is the most important issue facing our country. If spending -- both discretionary and mandatory -- isn’t reduced, we may be placing a crushing and immoral burden on our children’s children. There’s no silver bullet, but there are any number of critical steps that could be taken, including an entitlement commission, budget process reforms and various transparency mechanisms.

Energy and Environment

The supposed threat of global warming isn’t the top environmental priority of most Americans, let alone their top domestic policy priority. Public opinion, combined with Climategate and the economic implications of taxing energy, should lead policymakers to scrap the whole notion of limiting carbon emissions via legislation and, simultaneously, deny the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate greenhouse gases.

Having stopped the assault on our economy in the name global warming, their attention could turn to producing the energy necessary to drive economic growth. That means moving forward with exploration for carbon-based fuels such as oil and natural gas, both on- and offshore. America must also seek a fundamentally different approach to nuclear energy by fixing the problem of waste and the outdated and ineffective process for licensing new plants.

Reasons for Hope

Conservatives who are disheartened after a year of government expansion should take comfort in realizing that only 1 in 5 Americans consider themselves liberals. The townhall meetings in August, the tea party rallies around the country and the marches on the Capitol are not an aberration. They are a sign of something much more significant. Americans are energized and eager for conservative principles and policies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Holler is deputy director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
humanevents.com