One of These Things Is Not Like the Other

MC has recently returned from the Antarctic, where he tells weird tales of finding a ruined city of giants, with enormous penguins, strange carvings on the wall hinting at terrible events in our ancient past, as well as a Caribou Coffee. He also has a question.

Dread, awful, tax-subsidy-lovin' Czar,

At the risk of a definitely messy, probably painful, and possibly deserved decapitation, can I get a fuller take on why you believe providing film subsidies to producers is a good thing, while (and I'm making an assumption here) providing subsidies and tax breaks for ethanol production or some other favored group is not?

I wish I had time to expound on this, but my fundamental point is that tax breaks for any too-specific purpose is not really conservative despite any observed benefits. Lower all the taxes, and make 'em as broad and even as possible. No favors.

Welcome back, MC! The Czar is happy to explain.

The simplest explanation is that not all tax subsidies are created equal. There are two variations:

• Net Present Value. This is typically the movie industry subsidy, which can consist of lower tax rates, tax breaks, or even financial investment in the production. Basically, the NPV looks at the future cash flow that can be affected by the movie filming locally. For example, in Amazed’s case, the current value was $4.26 per resident; the NPV suggests that future revenue produced by the initial tax break is positive, and over time the $4.26 dwindles to less and less and maybe, if the movie generates tourism dollars over some time—like The Bridges of Madison County—the locals benefit from an investment the state or municipality could have made, but not on their own.
• Annual Flow is the method to which you object: each year, the energy industry gets a chunk of money back from the government that they otherwise would have to pay as income tax; in exchange, they reinvest that money in research and development. The objectionable fallacy with this idea is that (a) it subverts free markets, (b) it lowers energy prices by raising taxes for a net gain of nothing, and (c) it puts the government in charge of picking which industries benefit and which ones do not. There is no NPV for these, necessarily, unless the government becomes a full-fledged investor which, by rights, they ought never to do for a variety of ethical reasons as well as practical reasons.

Big difference, as we see it.

Plus, look at it like this. The movie crew can damn well film anywhere. Heck, New York City can be so unfriendly to the movie industry that many New York scenes are shot in Chicago, Cleveland, and Vancouver. When Chicago dabbled with ending film subsidies, the film crews went to Vancouver. The point is, they don’t need the location as much as the location needs them.

So then the film crews arrive, book all the hotels for weeks straight, rent properties, buy local meals for hundreds of people three times a day, use local actors, pay home owners a stipend in some cases for using their homes’ exteriors, buy hardware, supplies, paper products, and so forth for consumable props, and on and on. This becomes a pretty big chunk of change, rather quick. If the movie generates later tourism dollars, this is where the NPV formula takes effect.

On the other hand, the energy industry is going to have to build their plants and offices somewhere, and many cases this is interchangeable. TIFs can help lure employers to a location—that’s a very different argument. But your issue is that no matter where they build, the government refunds their tax dollars back to them whether or not they build in your area, whether or not they produce a profit, and whether or not they lower costs for consumers.

Errr...does this help?

It's Grammar Humor...

Krugman's Keynesian Knucklehead-ery

'Puter's no economist, thank goodness. It's not called the dismal science for nothing, and 'Puter has enough dismal-ness to deal with in the maw of Upstate's wintery, dead gray.

And, to be fair to real science, economics like many other social "sciences" isn't really scientific at all. Real science permits of experiments to verify or falsify hypotheses, usually involving controls and rigorous standards. Real science permits of duplicable results. Real science encourages publication so skeptical colleagues may do their level best to disprove or falsify another scientist's results.

Near as 'Puter can tell from his observation of Paul Krugman, economics consists of making wild-assed conjectures about a global economic system so complex and intertwined that no being short of God could possibly determine with any accuracy the effect of tinkering with any single (or multiple, for that matter) input. We, the unwashed and semi-literate, are expected to accept Mr. Krugman's (and his like-minded solons') conclusions with unswerving faith. Questioning one so learned and beneficent is intolerable, and to be met with a deserved hail of Mr. Krugman's wrath and fury. Mr. Krugman need not show his work! He is a Nobel Laureate! Asshat.

'Puter read Mr. Krugman's column in the New York Times yesterday, in which Mr. Krugman belittled England's austerity program, otherwise known to we simple folk as "living within one's means." Mr. Krugman claims that cutting government spending in the midst of economic turmoil would plunge the country back into recession.

Before addressing Mr. Krugman's core contention, please bear with 'Puter as he offers Mr. Krugman and his editors some much-needed advice. Please do not waste 'Puter's time in penning the first three paragraphs of your opinion piece, only to disavow everything you've just said in the fourth paragraph.

In his first three paragraphs, Mr. Krugman finds it telling that in this recession, England has not regained its economic footing as quickly as it did in the Great Depression. Mr. Krugman in the next paragraphs expands his premise to include the rest of Europe, then to America.

"Holy cow! We're worse off than we were in the Great Depression! We're screwed! Noted economist, Nobel Laureate and catamite of the leftie talk show circuit Paul Krugman says so!", you scream as you tear around your house preparing for the forthcoming apocalypse.

Nope. Mr. Krugman bails on his conclusion so totally in the fourth paragraph, his lack of awareness of his duplicity stunned even 'Puter. Mr. Krugman notes:

O.K., about those caveats: On one side, British unemployment was much higher in
the 1930s than it is now, because the British economy was depressed — mainly
thanks to an ill-advised return to the gold standard — even before the
Depression struck.

Oh. OK. So, if we use data and assumptions that are inapplicable to the current state of affairs to generate the results we want, that's just dandy, so long as we note that the opening of our piece has been an out-and-out lie. 'Puter assumes this is so because it comports with the Great Unifying Liberal Principle. That is, liberals can make crap up so long as it advances the correct (read: leftist) ideas, and no one is permitted to point out their dishonesty.

Well, enough said about Mr. Krugman's patent intellectual dishonesty in service of his failing and flailing ideological agenda. On to the fun.

'Puter's assailing Mr. Krugman because: (1) he's been overdue for a good beat down and (2) his column misses the elephant in the room. That is, America is in an ongoing recession and must cut spending precisely because of Mr. Krugman's preferred policy views. Krugman's Keynesian prescription is the cause of America's difficulties, not their cure.

Keynesian economics holds that government should spend lavishly into the teeth of a recession in order to stimulate demand and increase employment, even when such government spending is debt financed. What Mr. Krugman chooses to ignore is that Keynes also believed a government's debt financing should be retired once the recession's danger has passed, from the theoretical rising tax receipts.

When, during the 1990s, did you hear Mr. Krugman bashing the Clinton Administration for not paying down the national debt? 'Puter thought as much.

For the moment, let's play along with Mr. Krugman. Let's assume Keynesian economics were the right path for America during the Great Depression (1929-1939). According to the Treasury Department, the United States increased its debt from approximately $17 billion in 1929 to $40 billion in 1939, more than doubling. Lots of spending. And hey! Guess what? America's out of the Great Depression! So far, so good.

Let's look at America's paydown of debt that, according to Mr. Krugman and his fellow Keynesians, most certainly followed. Um, not so much with the debt paydown, its seems.

Due to World War II, the United States' debt skyrocketed to $270 billion by 1946. But certainly Krugman's Keynesians would have paid off the debt, or at least significantly paid it down, after the national crisis passed. Again, not so much with the paydown. Spending feels so much nicer than responsible debt management, after all.

National debt did decline slightly to about $252 billion in 1948. However, since 1948, our national debt has risen each and every year, through both Democrat and Republican Administrations alike, to its current horrific $15.3 trillion. In fact, if you add America's current debt to the difference between America's future "obligations" and America's expected future income, the actual national debt is closer to $211 trillion. But let's cut Mr. Krugman a break today, and stick to our current debt, and not pretend as he does that we can in any manner accurately predict America's economic fortunes decades into the future.

In hindsight, maybe Mr. Krugman has a point when he says Keynesian economics hasn't failed because they've never been tried. But not quite in the way Mr. Krugman would have us believe. Keynesian economics has never been tried not because America hasn't spent borrowed funds like drunken Amish teenagers on Rumspringa, but rather because America has never tried to repay what it borrowed.

'Puter finds it more likely that we are in a current economic torpor because we've pulled future year revenue forward to current years and spent it all. America spent and spent and spent, never once worrying about the consequences. Surely, Future America would pay off our insane borrowing, and, just as certainly, Future America would never arrive while we were alive. After all, it's Future America. You know. America, but in the future. Not now. Because that would just be crazy. Can't have future in the present, now can you?

Well guess what, spendthrifts? Future America has arrived, and it's broke. Enjoy the logical outcome of your selfishness. Enjoy reduced or nonexistent Social Security and Medicare. Enjoy diminished social welfare. Enjoy economic stagnation as America's government and citizens deleverage. Enjoy America's declining standard of living.

'Puter'll try really, really hard not to say he told you so.

Was It A Real Steal?

Amazed writes in:

re: Your post of 1/29/12 about seeing Real Steel.

Answer: You’re welcome. My share of the $18.3 million dollar subsidy the gazillionaire producers got in taxpayer money for filming Real Steel for 2 weeks in my old home town of Mason, MI, is $4.26. And I can’t even get a rebate on the movie ticket, let alone be able to claim them as dependents. Now if I could claim Hugh Jackman as a dependent it might be worth it............

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/15817

(Bastards come in all parties)

Anyway, you’re welcome.

Dear Amazed,

This might surprise you, but the Czar does not take your side on this one. It is cool that you knew some of the locations used in the movie; actually, the Czar is more impressed that our reach extends so far that we have fans originally from Mason, Michigan! Welcome.

But to the Czar’s point, he is unsympathetic. The Czar has been inconvenienced, taxed, rerouted, and once even prevented from walking down his own street by the filming of dozens of Hollywood movies in and around the Chicago area. And these are very likely movies you saw and liked, so you’re welcome (although, to be frank, one was a Larry the Cable Guy movie, so we apologize). The Czar would be out a lot more than $4.26 for the inconveniences of all these films, which got massive tax breaks to film here.

The counterargument is that film subsidies are an opportunity cost: you pay a little bit in tax breaks for Hollywood, but you theoretically gain that back not just from the largely freeloading extras and film crew, but there is a long-standing Hollywood tradition of using local businesses to furnish and install props, supply catering, use of home exteriors, and so on. All that money stays in your community. And does tourism add dollars? Sometimes: a movie can increase tourism or lose a community money—but that is the nature of investment risk.

Did the State of Michigan turn a profit on their $18.3 million investment? Probably not yet. Probably not even close. But your links indicate that this was not the only film shot on location in Michigan; those were probably not as costly to taxpayers, and were far more likely to turn a profit (Iron Man 3, anyone?). The more films that do film in Michigan, the more likely taxpayers will see that money return.

Look at it as opportunity cost, aggregated over all the movies that shoot there, and suddenly maybe you’re out only $2. In five years, probably less than that. The reason governments keep giving tax breaks to film studios is because ultimately this is profitable. Look at Vancouver, which has the most generous policies. When the City of Chicago briefly toyed with ending these breaks, they discovered to their horror that people stopped filming movies there. And a real loss was recognized!

So the Czar begs your forgiveness, but thinks that a lot more financial analysis needs to be done before Michiganders go berserk over $4.26. You might be right, of course—it is your money—but long-term it tends to work in your favor.

The Clock is Ticking for Holder

Wow. As people (but not the media) start to go through the latest released information (and there is a lot) on Fast and Furious, the reality is becoming clear: Eric Holder is doomed as Attorney General.

Not only has the President distanced himself over the last few months, but the White House itself released the information most damning to AG Holder. You can bet the White House knows exactly what’s in that batch of materials. And the AG should realize the truth: even the President wants him gone and out. That racist president, no doubt, as AG Holder is wont to accuse critics.

Prediction: Holder will resign in disgrace before the election, and the Media will wonder why. Second prediction: the GOP, handed a perfect opportunity to expose the liberal excesses in the Obama administration, will do little or nothing with this. Third prediction: the Obama campaign will scapegoat Eric Holder to dodge the few criticisms from the GOP.

Mailbag

GorT got two messages over the weekend, I was having too much fun to work on them until today so here we go. First up is from operative KH:

Estimable GorTechie,

The only way I would go along with point eight in the referenced post is to point out that Obama isn't doing anything right with respect to the housing market, either. The pre-Obama median value was fairy dust floating on artificially cheap credit.

Granted, as I said above, Obama won't make it any better, and might even make it worse.

Estimable? Estimatable, maybe.  Yes, the pre-Obama median value was already artificially high.  But it's been growing that way for over a decade.  But the closing statement is accurate - the Obama Administration has been meandering around taking stabs at various "solutions" to the problem.  Many of these proposals failed or were hung up with...wait for it....regulations and policy issues.   Even Timmy Geithner thought that some of the proposals would be more damaging to the economy than an aid.

The second communique comes in from the Royal Mathematician Dr. (KN)J who kindly took some time away from working out faster fourier transforms on his abacus to write:

O Automaton Most Shiny :

I realize that this wasn't really your point at all, but allowing credit to be given to our current President for *any* stock rally is dubious at best. The media narrative, of course, is that the slumping economy caused Obama to take the lead over McCain in the fall of 2008. Certainly that is *part* of a feedback loop that helped propel us to where we are today.

However, I would argue that a portion of the massive stock market crash of the fall of 2008 was an attempt to "price in" the effects of a possible/likely Obama presidency - that is, Obama's ascendancy produced part of the crash, rather than exclusively the other way around.

Consider these dates:
September 24 - Obama takes statistically significant lead in Gallup; Dow stands at 10825.17
(Note that this is down a modest 14.2% from the pre-crash summer peak of 12604.45 on June 5 - not even a traditionally-defined "bear market" by this point).

November 4 - Election Day, the Dow closes at 9625.28 (now 24% down from the summer peak), a stratospheric height that it would not reach again for almost a year (not until September 21, 2009).

November 5 - First trading day after election, the Dow drops another 500 points.

January 20 - Inauguration Day - Dow closes at 7949.03 (now 37% down from summer), having dropped 300 points during the day. 

If you measure from Inauguration Day, then Obama gets "credit" for a rise from 7949 to 12708 (60% rise) in 3 years. On the other hand, if you observe that pretty much every time he opens his mouth, the markets tank, you might think that a more accurate result would be obtained by taking that 3 year
period from the point of his election (9625 to 11983, or 24% over 3 years - reasonable, but not spectacular) or from the point of his taking the polling lead (10825 to 11153, or 3% over 3 years - truly anemic). Say what you will about the markets, they *do* try to factor in all available data.

I would also point out that the fiscal and energy policies of this administration are those that tend to favor inflation (though their regulatory policies generally favor deflation) and in those circumstances,
the most rational investments tend to be non-consumable commodities and equities, both of which have certainly increased in price more rapidly than the general inflation rate during this administration. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends, I suppose, on whether one is, say,
running for reelection or not.

--Dr. (KN)J,
Royal Mathematician to the Gormogons

Spot on.  It is an interesting look at the numbers.  I tend to believe as well that the markets react to all the information and even the possibilities that we, as a country, will face.

Mass Psychogenic Illness? Almost Certainly

The Czar hopes he is right about this. But this weird story about 14 girls and 1 boy in LeRoy, New York, who have developed nervous tics and so-called verbal outbursts. The kids&146;s parents have engaged Erin Brockovich to investigate whether contaminated ground water would suddenly strike a small subset of children forty years after the fact.

Like some of the doctors being interviewed for this, the Czar suspects mass psychogenic illness. A psychogenic illness is not strictly psychological: hence, they will pass physical medical inspections (at least one child has been tagged with a conversion disorder, which is a poite way of saying what was in your head is now in your body).

Here is what the media are not asking or telling, which is quite revealing. Have children in other years exhibited these symptoms? Are these children more or less confined to one small area of the school? Are these kids in physical or frequent social contact? Why does it take 40 years for a contaminant to affect children? How can symptoms associated with a neurological disorder manifest themselves in different ways in such short order?

See where we are going? Stories like this are actually quite common, if anyone in the media would care to do their job and research: a maintenance crew uses a new cleaner, the smell wafts up the stairwell, and suddenly kids are vomiting, dizzy, and passing out. The new cleaner? A perfectly safe off-the-shelf brand that the kids have in their own homes. But due to psychogenic hysteria, one kids acts weird and they all act weird, eventually developing measurable physical symptoms.

The Czar does not expect you to sit through all the video, but some interesting pieces emerge. One student seems to be at the heart of this, in terms of spreading the news, contacting Ms. Brockavich, and taking an entire month off school because of her twitching right arm. She has suffered bruises on her face from fainting and hitting herself, allegedly, with her own cell phone. The bruise is massive and about the size of her own fist. The Czar is most skeptical that this latter bruise is on her left cheek: most right handed people are not going to whap themselves on the left cheek with a phone, especially if the right arm is as uncontrollable as demonstrated in the video.

Is she faking? Well, not really. She certainly has trouble controlling her one arm, and her symptoms are measurably neurological—but the Czar suspects they would be this way if she were a student in Mentor, Ohio, or Fort Collins, Colorado, or Jupiter, Florida. The media has not interviewed any of the other kids, which tells you quite a bit as well.

No, the kids really do think they have something; but the media could establish whether there was a real threat within an hour of basic journalism science. They just don’t want to.

Hope and Change

GorT and family attended the Saturday 5:30 Mass yesterday since today is jam packed with various kids events.  At the end of the Mass (GorT only remembered two of the four "et cum spiritu tuo" responses), the priest asked the congregation to be seated for two short announcements.  The first was a quick blurb for the annual Archdiocese of Washington Cardinal's Appeal made by one of the parish finance council members.  The second was made by the priest and it entailed reading excerpts from a letter from our Cardinal (Cardinal Wuerl) to the parish priests concerning the HHS mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage.  The excerpts pointed out (and they were outlined in an insert to the weekly bulletin) the flaws of the mandate, which Dr. J has covered well in the past week or so here.  There is one point that I'd like to highlight:  The Institute of Medicine committee that compiled the "preventive services for women" list for HHS said in its report that unintended pregnancy is "a condition for which safe and effective prevention and treatment" need to be more widely available.  The Conference of Catholic Bishops point out that women who suffer from infertility which really could be considered a condition to be treated were ignored by this mandate.

A common argument for the HHS mandate is that this is part of the Obama Administration's effort to have access to health care more broadly available.  However, the net result will be that people will not be able to keep their coverages with respect to their convictions.  Organizations will have to meet the narrow criteria or cease to provide health benefits for their employees.  And resources currently being applied in health coverages towards basic health care to the uninsured will now facilitate birth control, "morning after" pills and the like for those who already had ample coverage.

Most impressive was that the Cardinal and our priest closed by stating the following with no equivocation: religious freedom in this country is under attack and in jeopardy if we sit idly by watching.  This is after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama Administration's EEOC who tried to interfere with the administrative practices of religious organizations.  The Court’s decision called the EEOC’s view of the ministerial exception “untenable,” “extreme,” and “remarkable,” according to religious organizations no greater rights than those enjoyed by “a labor union, or a social club.”  The 9-0 ruling amounted to a “very emphatic rejection of this administration’s very narrow view of religious liberty,” Mark Rienzi, an attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said.

I'm glad that the Catholic Church (and others as illustrated by the Supreme Court case participants) are standing up to the Obama Administration.  This isn't getting a lot of press but it should.  This is a basic tenant of this country's foundations and I'll let our readers decide: either the administration are idiots and don't know what ramifications their policies and mandates have or they are actively working to interfere with the religious freedom in this country.  Incompetent or evil?  or ad GorT would summarize: evily incompetent.

Bibles in Public Schools?!?!!??!?

An Arizona legislator introduced a bill this week attempting to get the state to allow public high schools to offer an elective class on GASP! the Bible. The idea behind the bill is that the misguided mindset behind banning the Bible from public education is just that, misguided. If you are going to understand art, literature, and history, a foundation in knowing what is in that book, called the Bible is critical.

Not only that, understanding the differences between a Catholic and Protestant Bible can be handy. Dr. J. almost came to blows with a classmate in 11th Grade as we were reading an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story called Absolution. His character, Rudolph, is afraid of being overheard discussing his violation of the 6th and 9th commandments at confession. In the Catholic Church, and the following paragraph, this refers to committing adultery and coveting your neighbor's wife. In Protestant teaching 6 and 9 are committing murder and bearing false witness. As the character is going to confession, one would think the former is the case. That didn't stop Dr. J.'s smokin' hot Lutheran crush from putting her spin on the tale (as a lot of Minnesotans, where F. Scott grew up, were Lutheran, she felt the need to make the Lutheran case regarding what was otherwise a rather Popish story). 

Dr. J. went to an independent school so he learned the Bible as history in 5th grade. He learned all about how it applied in English class in 9th grade. (Never learned the its/it's thing, though), and when it came up in History or English class, we discussed it (literary allusions and such). 

That's what this legislator wants to happen, as the Bible is a critical body of work for understanding our history, our literature and our culture, in addition to being a Holy Book for many. Dr. J. and his classmates were good at compartmentalizing our faith, and honestly, it didn't come up in class. 

By way of contrast, in a Greek Philosophers class, Dr. J. had an annoying classmate who kept comparing everything to Hinduism. Usually he couldn't even get that right.

Now obviously, there are opponents. All we need to do is go to the Puffington Host article on the topic to find one.

Critics are troubled by the bills, arguing that teaching religion and the Bible is tricky -- and teachers are often not sufficiently or properly trained to teach the subject effectively. It's also difficult to teach a Bible course without imposing religious views, even inadvertently, Victoria Lopez, a program director with the Arizona office of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Associated Press. 

"It's very easy for teachers to cross the line and violate students' religious rights," Lopez told AP. "There's a lot of room here for those violations to take place."

Leave it to the Progressives to block teaching a critical part of the Western Canon because they think the teachers and students are incapable of separating Sunday from the rest of the week.

Is it any wonder our public education program is in shambles?

Real Steel? Actually, Real Good!

The Czar had heard good things about Dreamworks’ Real Steel, and was more than okay with the kids renting it this weekend. You probably heard too that it was better than it looked.

Wow. This was, seriously, one of the best boxing movies ever made. And the Czar has seen plenty.

The film takes place in the near future, where humans have been regulated out of combat sports entirely to protect them. By the way, the world has not improved very much as a result. To take the place of humans, robots (ever more ridiculous) have been built to fight in rings, with massive wagers and promotions and blackmarket activities surrounding it all. The Czar thought this realistic—you regulate the unsavory stuff out of anything, and it comes right back in an even worse form.

Hugh Jackman is a busted down former boxer who got pulled into this world of outrageous robots doing implausible things to each other in the ring. When his estranged wife dies, he is awarded temporary custody of his 11-year-old foul-mouthed punk, whom he takes on the circuit with him. The only warning for parents, really, is that this film had Steven Spielberg as an executive producer, meaning you get just enough of the kid’s potty talk to get to the coveted PG-13 rating.

Bottom line, the kid finds an abandoned robot that can mimic human actions; Jackman’s character realizes that it has no weaponry, no outlandish gadgets, and no exotic silly features, but its ability to mimic is so good that he decides, in a flash of ingenuity, to teach it old-fashioned boxing.

You can guess what happens if you know anything about the Sweet Science: put a good boxer against the most outrageous spectacle-fighter, and guess what happens. Yeah, better than Million Dollar Baby. The boxing is good enough that even the Царица herself really got into it. And both kids had to be tied down: the cinematography, camera work, and general flow of the bouts puts you in the ring.

Flaws? Plenty—some blatant silliness, impractical plot twists, and a needlessly racist character (in case you forgot he was a bad guy) create some eye rolls for parents; but the film makes up for it every time the robot fights, and there’s a ton of it to keep you impressed. Sugar Ray Leonard himself was the fight consultant, and this movie reminds you how good he was: Jackman himself looks very credible as a boxer.

Finally, the Czar was dimly aware from the promotional stuff that the kid teaches the robot to dance with some hip hop moves. Braced for it, the Czar was relieved that the whole bit was carefully threaded into the plot and wound up, incredibly, making sense: Jackman encourages it because crowds love stupid stuff, and they love kids doing it. His character is absolutely right: a kid dancing with a robot as part of the pre-fight showboating is believable and elevated the kid to pop culture icon, and they treat it quite authentically in that regard.

Even if you hate hate hate fight movies, you will get caught up in this one. Rent it, kick back, and enjoy.

Sometimes They Just Don't Get It

A failing or flailing economy is a powerful thing for a candidate to use against an incumbent opponent.  Remember, "It's the Economy, Stupid" ?  Or jump back just a few years and look at the "Hope and Change" campaign and how it leveraged the economic problems.  Democrats realize this and are starting to get worried about 2012.  That, even with the three ring circus that is the GOP primary, a non-incumbent could easily attack Obama on the state of the economy.  It gets worse when you start looking at the administration's record.

Before we get into this, let me be clear - conservatives do not want the economy to fail.  This is a popular line that liberals will drop in this argument but it makes no sense.  First, conservatives want a strong economy - we believe that wealth as a whole is generated through a strong economy.  Second, it demonstrates the shallow thinking of liberals if they truly believe this.  Conservatives believe that Obama's policies economic have, are and will fail.  This is distinctly different from wanting the economy to fail.

The easy place to start is the Stimulus and the administration's "Summer of Recovery" and "Summer of Recovery II".  Neither the summer of 2009 nor the summer of 2010 proved out to be a period of recovery for the U.S. economy but the President and his administration, including VP Biden, touted it. 

Next, we can look at some fact-based statistics (courtesy of the House Ways & Means Chairman):

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

	Before	Now	Change
Number of Unemployed1	12.0 Million	13.1 Million	+9%
Long-Term Unemployed2	2.7 Million	5.6 Million	+107%
Unemployment Rate3	7.8%	8.5%	+9%
“High Unemployment” States4	22	43	+95%
Misery Index5	7.83	11.46	+46%
Price of Gas6	$1.85	$3.39	+83%
“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7	$974	$1,013	+4%
Median Value of Single-Family Home8	$196,600	$169,100	-14%
Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9	6.62%	10.23%	+55%
U.S. National Debt10	$10.6 Trillion	$15.2 Trillion	+43%

But liberals will point out that under Obama, the Dow Jones index rose 50% in his first three years in office and is only one of five presidents under whom that has happened.  Ok, great, start the ticker tape parade, sound the horns, strike up the band.  Economists remain cautious of the future of the economy as many of the root problems have yet to be addressed.

Instead, the liberals you meet will likely try to take a few tacts in a debate:  (1) blame Bush - of course, the logical response is to ask at what point is the economy President Obama's?  After we wait and see how it turns out?  Only the good parts?  (2) blame Congress - well, Congress is in charge of the national purse strings (a point often overlooked by liberals since the Democrats have largely been in charge of Congress for decades, minus a brief stint under Clinton when...what?...yes, we had serious economic growth.   I'm ok with levying some of the blame there.  The Federal Budget issue is just plain ridiculous.  There is no reason why Congress should be allowed to get away with not passing a budget.  (3) post some silly photoshopped or comically captioned image of a GOP candidate for 2012.  Yep, classic distraction and mockery technique.  A clear sign they are nervous about the issue and won't address it head on so instead, they try to make the opponents look silly, ridiculous or mean in order to dissuade voters.


¹ Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.

² “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.

³ Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.

⁴ “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.

⁵ The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.

⁶ Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.

⁷ U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.

⁸ U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.

⁹ Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.

¹⁰ Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np.

Rock, Paper, Scissors, PRIMARY!

Gentle Readers,

Dr. J. and Mrs. Dr. J. were having their morning at 0:Dark:45 yesterday morning, enjoying a little Fox and Friends before waking the Lil Resident and Lil Med Student for classes at the New Atlantis Jedi Academy. Rick Santorum was being interviewed and Mrs. Dr. J. commented that Rick reminded her of the prototypic Jedi Academy dad.

This got Dr. J. thinking. If Rick Santorum reminded her of a Jedi Academy dad, were Mitt and Newt analogous to other New Atlantean private school dads?

New Atlantis, by the way, has a number of excellent private schools. The public school system has a few very good elementary schools and magnet middle and high schools,but other than that forget it. After thinking about it, Mitt reminded Dr. J. of a prototypic pop from the New Atlantis School for Atlantian Aristocracy (NASAA). Now NASAA is actually a wonderful school but there are a number of old money New Atlantian families who have 3rd generation kids there. Newt, is reminiscent of the typical New Atlantis Ivory Tower Academy, or New Atlantis Magnet Pop (where many NAITU faculty send their kids), because he is so professorial in his demeanor (or a know-it-all, depending on who you ask). Ron Paul, he's the homeschooling dad. (No offense home-schoolers). He just wants his kids off the grid.

Thinking this through further, Dr. J. realized that this analogy falls apart because in New Atlantis, there is too much crosstalk. There are Mitt-like dads, Rick-like dads and Newt-like dads at every school.

Furthermore, Mitt, Rick and Newt all have their pros and cons, and each of them appeals and is repulsive to a different facet of Dr. J.'s personality.

Dr. J. - Country Club Republican -  likes Mitt because you don't have to worry about Mitt. He's loaded, so you don't have to worry about him being bought or over indulging in the trappings of the office. He's polite and well mannered, so you know he won't offend anyone. He's worked for a living, so you know politics aren't his end all, be all.

Rick on the other hand, is too blue collar. It makes Dr. J. worry he can't actually raise enough funds to stay in the general election race against Obama who has a $1B head start. If he did win, you worry about him using the wrong fork at the state dinner, or wearing the sweater-vest with the tux. And Newt, he's' great for the first Jack and Coke, but he keeps talking through the second, and Dr. J. would have to order a third before Newt might say, "So, what do you think?"

Dr. J. - Religious Conservative -  likes Rick. He's Roman Catholic, and probably doesn't say the Our Father in the 'Orans' position. He is what folks in New Atlantis call a 'Cradle Catholic.' So culturally, he and Dr. J. get each other. He reminds Dr. J. of the dad manning the grill at the Church carnival, or passing the collection basket at mass. He's clearly Pro-life, has his conservative bona fides, but as a good Catholic, he has compassion for the poor. Dr. J. worries that this element of his personality may translate into squishiness on entitlements when the left screams !!1!!1!! ELEVENTY!!!!!!!!! when it comes time to tackle entitlement reform.

Mitt doesn't go to Church with Dr. J. so while Dr. J. admires his spirituality, there's not the same connection. Newt...he's the guy that did RCIA and converted three years ago and can tell you all the corporal and spiritual works of mercy by rote, and he IS the guy who wants to hold your hand during the Our Father.

Dr. J. - The Ivory Tower George Will/Charles Krauthammer Republican - of course, likes Newt. Newt is a policy nerd, just like Dr. J. is a medical wonk. That aspect of Newt's personality that can discuss an issue in profound detail, and describe the history of the issue appeals to Dr. J. because he's exactly the same way with medicine. He can wear you out not just about how to manage a heart attack, or heart failure, but also explain how we got to where we are now from where we were then. This is the guy that Dr. J. wants to have a latte with in the faculty lounge, rather than be productive on a Friday afternoon. The only drawback to this is that occasionally Newt can turn people off by talking too much, or sometimes not see the forest for the trees.

Mitt can tell you what's going on right now and give you his plan, however he can't look back within his own history and convince Dr. J. how he got from point A to point B. Specifically why Romneycare is not bad, while Obamacare clearly is. He's the legacy kid. Rick, well, Rick reminds you of the guy who worked his way through a respectable, but not caché college, the one that the Ivory Tower types look down on, but despite that, he was Magna Cum Laude there, so he gets his props.

Conclusion - So as you can see, each of these candidates has their appeal, but also their un-peal to Dr. J. It reminds Dr. J. of playing Rock Paper Scissors. Santorum beats Gingrich, Gingrich Beats Mitt, and Mitt beats Santorum.

Because Rock Paper Scissors, like this campaign, can become tiring, folk expanded it, adding a lizard and Spock. In our case whoever comes out of the campaign will be beating the lizard.

Let's just hope that the GOP will pick the right one, the one who in November can beat Spock.

ABC News Favorite Color is Yellow

ABC News is terrified to report... deep breath... Romney Failed to Disclose Swiss Bank Account Income!!!!!!!11!!!$!!!ELEVENTY!!!! !!1 !!

The horror, the horror. Allow the Czar to summarize this horrible, horrible story, paragraph by paragraph. You might want to cushion yourselves with a couple eleventies, because it is truly that bad. Ready?

1. Romney needs to amend his published tax forms because he did not acknowledge income from a Swiss bank account.


2. So he is going to do that.


3. Romney’s campaign explained that the tax document in question is really complicated and lengthy, so that slipped by them.


4. The account was overlooked because it was closed out in 2010.


5. The interest earned on it was $1,700. They discovered it, so they are correcting it.


6. Also, Newt Gingrich missed about a quarter million in earnings.


7. The Gingrich camp spotted the error themselves, and are already correcting it.


8. Romney’s finances are confusing to journalists.


9. A liberal watchdog thinks these sorts of problems do not help voters.


10. Another “non-partisan” (i.e.,very liberal) group (CREW) spokeswoman thinks this is really bad for Gingrich.


11. She reminds people that Gingrich was once sanctioned.


12. ABC News reminds people that Swiss accounts are often used by wealthy people to hide stuff from the government.


13. The first liberal person interviewed thinks Romney was probably doing just that, although there is no evidence.


14. However, he admits no wrongdoing actually happened, since the report is being corrected.


15. And he thinks that this is bad, because Romney won’t be punished for doing something that isn’t wrong.

Allow the Czar to tell the whole story in a very different way. Mitt Romney (and Newt Gingrich) provided the public information on their taxes, but each camp made a minor error in their respective releases. Although the taxes were paid properly, and the information was not withheld from their tax forms (only the public releases), both candidates are correcting the oversight in the interest of complete transparency. Again, nothing illegal or unethical transpired.

The Czar, as a supporter of Republicans generally, is completely non-partisan.

The story is a complete non-story, written with as many negatives as possible to paint the Republicans in a bad light. Quoting CREW, especially citing them as non-partisan, is a juvenile farce.

The saddest part is that the very existence this anti-Republican quasi-hit piece on both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, written solely to tarnish the candidates for the benefit of Barack Obama, is not surprising to any of us.

It’s just stupid.

Move this...

From realpolitics.com

"On Tuesday at the State of the Union, I laid out my vision for how we move forward," President Obama said at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Nevada. "I laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation. Where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere."

Mr. President, making, moving, and selling requires something called energy. You use it to do work. The cheaper the energy is, the easier it will be for America to get back to work. Feel free to call Dr. J. if you have any questions on the relationship between economic policy. His number is 1-800-Cas-Gorm, ext. 1977, and leave a message with 2-1B. We'll have the Lil Resident call you back since she's learning all simple machines and qualitative physics this π'th grade at the Jedi Academy...

Musings on Campaign Directions

It will be interesting to see followup polls from the debate.

Romney definitely put himself ahead of Gingrich. But did Santorum lift himself higher than Gingrich as well? The Czar is not making a prediction, but advises you not be surprised if Santorum went into second place nationally, if not just Florida alone.

There seems to be some merit to the analyses that suggest Gingrich voters will almost certainly flock en masse to Santorum if the former drops out of the race; this would put Santorum ahead of Romney, and we would expect to see many Romney supporters defect to Santorum merely because he would represent a valid alternative. This alone could put Santorum ahead of Romney as well.

The Mandarin said it at lunch yesterday: Rick Santorum is running a heckuva good, smart campaign. Not that Romney will sit back and let it all happen: this promises to get even better.

Newt Doesn't Care for 3 on 1

Wow, thank goodness for audience participation. CNN allowed the crowd to jump in, and it was awesome when (a) Ron Paul led them in a call-response with “Bicycle Built For Two,” and (b) Rick Santorum had them conjugate amō, amās, amat, amāmus, amātis, amant several times while (c) Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney did full contact MMA-fighting in a fully fenced-in octagon.

Wolf Blitzer, whom the Цесаревич referred to as Wolf Schneiser, asked a mix of good and really painful questions. We should probably get onto that.

Not a great night for Newt Gingrich. If you like Newt, you will note he answered with his usual confidence and sound byte stingers. If you do not like Newt, you will agree he got hit from all three sides. The Czar thinks this was Gingrich’s weakest debate by far. He mustered much applause, but not as much as he has been getting. And he was clearly flummoxed when Ron Paul (no, seriously) said that he researched Gingrich’s claim about balancing the budget four times, and found that was never strictly true, but only technically true if you changed the definition of budget to exclude social security. Santorum hit Gingrich very hard on cap and trade and global warming (less effectively on healthcare, largely because Gingrich suddenly pivoted and announced Ron Paul had a better position). Romney jumped on Gingrich repeatedly over erratic and inflammatory language used in interviews. Overall, Newt Gingrich came off looking pretty well worn.

Gingrich’s absolute worst moment was when Santorum and Romney tag-teamed with a terrible knockout blow—Gingrich has consistently walked into every primary state and delivered a different, ridiculous multi-billion-dollar promise to those voters. Santorum said that if you add those up, there is no way he can avoid a massive government debt pileup; Romney said that this shows Gingrich simply makes stuff up to win voters, and has no sensible message to conservatives. Gingrich had no clear response other than to shrug and say he thought it was a candidate’s job to build big ideas and provide vision. This defense provoked little applause.

And who is this new Mitt Romney? His new debate coach is working, because Romney looked tougher by far, and much less willing to bend backwards. Unfortunately, he channeled this tough guy persona into some solid hits on Newt Gingrich, and was more than unprepared for another onslaught from Rick Santorum about Romneycare. The Czar thought for a moment that, when Santorum cited a study that one out of five residents of Massachusetts are receiving inadequate levels of healthcare due to costs, Romney was )this close( to saying “That’ bullshit!” He almost did, but checked himself at the b. Unfortunately, just as he did before, Santorum used Romney’s refutation to dump even more egregious examples of RomneyCare’s failings on the audience. The more Rick Santorum hit Mitt Romney, too, the more the audience applauded.

Santorum’s finest moment was when he tore a page out of Newt Gingrich’s playbook, and fired a cannon at Wolf Schneiser Blitzer. Wow, the Czar really mixed metaphors there. The point is that Rick Santorum lost his temper in a highly productive way.

For about ten solid minutes, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney badgered each other, back and forth, about each other’s finances. Gingrich hit Romney on his offshore accounts, while Mitt Romney peppered Gingrich with chides about his Freddie Mac consulting work really being lobbying. Blitzer asked Santorum what he thought, and Santorum said, in essence, (a) Newt Gingrich is an expert at Congressional politics, and took a paying job to provide them advice, which he was uniquely suited to do, (b) Mitt Romney is a legitimate success who earned his money legally, ethically, and paid all his taxes and donates a hell of a lot to charity, so (c) drop it already. Get to the questions that matter! Americans do not care about either story. Huge applause, and Gingrich delivered a visible thank you. Best line of the night, bar none.

Second best line was an insightful joke by Ron Paul. The question was what each candidate would say if he received a phone call from Raul Castro of Cuba; what would you tell him? Ron Paul had a quzzical look on his face and asked “Why would he be calling me?” In those six words, he took all the air out of a dumb question.

Worst question: should Puerto Rico become the 51st state? Santorum got to go first, and shut it right down. He explained that isn’t the President’s decision at all. In fact, there is a whole process carefully spelled out about how states join the union, starting right with whether Puerto Ricans want statehood. Then it goes from there. A ridiculous question, probably insulting to the thousands of other questions Puerto Ricans want answered first, because the President is the last step in the process, and in most ways the least critical.

All four of the candidates had their absolute best moment in an off-the-wall question about why each of their respective wives would make a good First Lady. Ron Paul treated the question with humor, and seemed exactly like the grandfather who makes a stunningly sweet and sensitive speech at an anniversary dinner. Mitt Romney described his wife with such pride over her triumphs over adversity that you saw there really is someone in Mitt’s world more important than him. Gingrich politely (but a bit awkardly given his history) stated that he is impressed by all of the candidates’ wives, but wrapped up with a very nice description of how much class his wife radiates. She looked stunning, by the way. And Rick Santorum, whose wife was at home with the kids, delivered a choked-up speech about how strong his wife was with all their kids, including the death of little Gabriel as well as the tribulations their daughter Bella is working through. The question was dumb, but the answers totally humanized each of these guys in a different way.

Winner? Hard to say: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum had outstanding nights; Mitt Romney looked very different, and very aggressive—too bad he squandered it playing verbal grab-ass with Newt Gingrich. And Gingrich, as we said, probably had his worst debate night so far. Too many of his oddball claims, promises, and on-the-record quips are coming up to haunt him, and both Romney and Santorum seem to know exactly how to throw him to the floor.

The next debate, which will probably be in ten more minutes the way they’ve been scheduling them, ought to be even more interesting.

Things 'Puter Learned During His Hiatus

As all 4.3 billion readers of this site and all two of 'Puter's fans have surely noticed, 'Puter's been absent of late, except for the odd Twitter posting. 'Puter's been working on negotiating, papering and closing the sale of a portfolio of sub and non-performing loans.

In the course of the transaction, 'Puter had to interact with seller's counsel and purchaser's counsel, as well as with the business principals on both sides.

Seller's counsel is a contemporary of 'Puter's, born and raised south of the Mason-Dixon line. 'Puter's worked both with this specific counsel and her firm before. She is a savvy and pragmatic attorney who has also cut her teeth on these sorts of transactions. She has a thick Virginia accent, which is, for those not in the know, quite pleasant.

Purchaser's counsel is about 7 years younger than 'Puter, a Chicago native who left the cozy confines to move to New York City and work for a glamorous bit-named firm for large dollars. Her expertise is in papering collateralized mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") transactions. If CMBS sounds familiar, it's because those are the instruments Wall Street created to leverage your mortgage, slicing and dicing it into ever-smaller portions and selling the subprime instruments as "A" paper. Not that disguising riskier paper as gilt-edged would contribute to anything negative, like a massive housing bubble and subsequent nationwide economic coronary or anything. Purchaser's counsel had never papered a deal like this before, but she assumed it would be no different from her big city, high powered CMBS securitizations.

Wrong.

And from there, hilarity ensues. Watch for tomorrow's exciting installment, now with more banking regulation induced insanity! Also, 'Puter uses swear words he didn't know he even knew!

Need More Mailbag

When you have readers such as the ones we have, it does make our work a bit easier.  Operative BG writes in with the following after toweling off having been slimed by the slippery lies:

Last year, President Obama spoke at George Washington University, and said, in part, "We believe, in the words of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves."

Then in his SOTU address this week, he paraphrased Lincoln again: " I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more."

There's a subtle but important change in what he's saying there, which I'll get to shortly.

1) In the George Washington University speech, he doesn't say government should just do what individuals, groups, or businesses can't do at all; he's saying government should do things that it can do better. And how do you find out whether government can do better? You start a little program, then when it doesn't work as well as the private sector, you claim that it just needs more funding. And more funding. And more funding. All government programs need more funding, in the liberals' eyes (except for national defense, of course, which always needs less). Eventually, your little government program has grown to monstrous size with monstrous consequences. The KKK could not have come up with a better plan to destroy the black family than our welfare system, which was somehow supposed to be better than private charity.

2) Here's what Lincoln actually said: "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." (emphasis mine)

Note Lincoln's restrictions: First, that it has to be something we actually need to have done, and second, it has to be something that people can't do as well as government. In both speeches, Obama dispenses entirely with the first requirement, and in the SOTU address, he raises the bar for the people by requiring that they be able to do better than government, rather than just as well. In other words, as far as Obama is concerned, government should do anything that government thinks it can do just as well as individuals, whereas Lincoln said that if the people individually can do just as well by themselves, government should butt out. Lincoln was stating how government should be restricted; Obama twists what Lincoln said into a justification for more government.

It's a slippery lie, but that's one thing Obama excels at.

It is a slippery lie but here's the twist - Obama and other liberals will pass judgment as to what a person can and can't do well for themselves and what we need and don't need. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives truly believe in the power of the individual (or groups of individuals - in other words, companies). It is what made America great.  Thanks, BG!

First Drafts Reveal So Much

Your Czarness,

Greetings from your Bongburgher.

I have a contact on Capitol Hill which has provided me with an early draft of the President's SOTU. I submit it to you via passenger pigeon as part of the historical record. It is, I fear, the only copy in existence.

Good hunting,

B.B.
-------

The State of the Union, as prepared: (draft)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. For the first time in more than nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. Let me juxtapose this with the fact that, for the first time in more than nine years, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country, even though I have long maintained that there is absolutely no connection between the service of our brave fighting men and women in Iraq and the fact that the Taliban’s momentum has been broken.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed my very low expectations. They’re not consumed with personal vanity. They don’t obsess over their differences in race, religion, social or economic standing. They focus on the mission at hand, not content to give a flowery speech while letting their dwindling number of congressional allies do the heavy lifting.

Imagine what I could do if I followed their example. Unfortunately, I must spend too much of my valuable personal time promoting our nation’s golf courses, tourist attractions, and soda fountains.

My grandfather, then an honorably discharged veteran of Patton’s Army, in a story that will never appear in a history book, personally liberated Auschwitz by clinging to his guns, religion, and a handcrafted mess kit made from organic materials manufactured on an assembly line by my grandmother in a union shop using green energy.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of ivy league graduates do really well, or we can restore an economy where everyone plays by the same rules. Because the goal of the progressive vision now is to restore America to the world of the 1950s – an America that promised if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and let someone else take care of your retirement.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, and thus totally unconnected from it, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. More recently, technology made businesses more efficient and made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before. So these three things: Technology, Efficiency, and Rising Incomes are to blame for our recession. QED.

In 2008, a year that I will never forget, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who could not afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets with other people’s money, knowing they were too big to fail and that, provided they were well connected with political leaders, regulators would look the other way.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And to make sure that it never happens in exactly the same way again, I have made many of those responsible my most trusted advisers and confidants, while the rest I have pilloried publicly, holding them accountable for the poor decisions of others.

In one period of time four million jobs were lost. In another period of time four million jobs were lost. Those are some facts. So are these: Two plus Two is Four. Pluto is not a planet. American manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together manufacturers and I have agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 million. And we have put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable to federal regulators.

The 57 states of our union are getting stronger. And we have traveled too far down the road I have led you to turn back. As long as I am President, I will work with anyone who agrees with me. But I will fight obstruction with extra-constitutional action. And I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No longer will Americans fear the specters of Technology, Efficiency, and Rising Incomes.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other cities. It could happen in Milwaukee or Pittsburgh or Raleigh. [Srsly, should we be holding Detroit up as our model of the future? Oh, screw it. No one is paying attention, just include some shout-outs to purple states –Ed.]

Hello Cleveland!

Hello Kitty!

My message to business leaders is simple. Ask yourselves what you can do for the AFL-CIO, or I will seize your assets, defraud your bondholders, and cast you as villains.

We should start with our tax code. It is incredibly complicated, so complicated, in fact, that my own secretary of the Treasury could not figure it out despite the best software available on the open market. It is even more complicated for businesses and manufacturers who can, with the help of an army of accountants and lawyers, position themselves to take advantage of deductions, exemptions and tax shelters. Therefore, tonight I propose a new set of deductions, exemptions, and tax shelters that will cure the problems caused by the ones that already exist.

We are also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the planet. I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products – especially if it is a warm and sunny location. But if Norway needs butter, I will sell it to them myself. If Iran wants centrifuges and mass spectrometers for medicinal purposes, I will hand deliver them. If North Korea’s new leader wants to supplement his late father’s movie collection, I will send him the latest releases in the digital or analog format of his choice. And if Pakistan wants the latest military helicopter or drone with stealth technology, I will send them one on spec.

America’s future lies in manufacturing tires and antagonizing our existing trading partners.

Tonight I am announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit whose sole function is to remind China of the humiliation that nation suffered as a result of the Opium Wars. Here’s what they will do: they will investigate unfair trade practices in China, prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from China from crossing our borders, and they will open new markets in China for American goods and services by dividing China into ‘spheres of influence’ so that American manufacturers can compete on a level playing field in China. To sum up, we will address the problems of the 21st century by using the methods that failed so horribly in the 19th.

Our workers are the most productive on Earth.

There is no possible way to segue to my next point, but here goes: Many business leaders in the United States can’t find workers with the right skills.

Growing industries have more job openings than those in decline. Think about that – industry, which, you know, produces the goods and services that make up our economy, is constantly adjusting and adapting to change.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Here is an anecdote in which an evil corporation got so fed up with the educational system that it took over the apparatus of a community college in order to train a worker, thus ensuring that she has the necessary skills and aptitude before giving her a paycheck.

This is what I like to call “a solution in need of a problem”. Since these and like partnerships exist and seem to function perfectly well, we must pour federal money into our community colleges, thus restoring them to their rightful place – career centers for paper shuffling administrators living off the public trough, exploiters of adjunct instructors and occupiers of valuable real estate.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people have only one place to go for all the information and help they need. Because if there’s one thing the federal government is good at, it’s making one-size-fits-all databases and putting them up on the web. Just ask my good friend Joe Biden, here, about his work with recovery.org.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them. And since knowing is half the battle, we’re already halfway there.

I believe as strongly as I ever have that we should take on illegal immigration. The fact that there are fewer illegal crossings today than four years ago has nothing at all to do with our nation’s economic downturn. And my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. [OMG!!! Do you think anyone will get the Boot Hill ref? LOL!!! – Ed.]

Red tape is bad. So, when I get back from my next vacation, I will sign an Executive Order banning the use of red tape in all construction projects. The bridge to America’s future will be held together not with red tape but by American-made duct tape!

Remember how I talked about banks selling people mortgages that they couldn’t understand? And how they took big bets with other people’s money? And how regulators looked the other way? No? Good. Now listen here:

I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives homeowners a chance to save $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates that I heard about on a radio ad. No red tape. No questions asked. I will demand that banks give you free money, then pay for this by assessing them a fee which in no way could possibly be passed on to you. And, unlike my “Making Home Affordable” program, this one will be heavily advertised on television with a catchy theme song and images of people who look just like people who might need help.

We’ve already paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, so this time we should be able to get them for free, or at least a steep discount.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on working Americans while the economy is still fragile. Because I recognize that failing to extend a tax cut is the same as a tax hike. Right now, we are poised to spend nearly $1 trillion on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for people who make more than me. Let me be perfectly clear: Refusing to extend a tax cut is not the same as a tax hike.

Jimmy Buffett rules!

All government spending is an investment. But when a wealthy individual invests his or her own money, that can be problematic. That kind of investment might result in the person becoming wealthier, setting up a cycle in which the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. I think we can all agree that we would feel better off if the wealthiest Americans just poured their money into a big hole and then covered it up with dirt. This would also create jobs.

I’m a Democrat. So when you hear me say that my education plan offers more competition and local control, you know I’m not really serious. But my Republican friends who complain about Government spending, like my best buddy Tom Coburn, are hypocrites, because they drive on federally financed roads and hold federal office.

So there it is. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. No credit should be given to those who came before us, and no quarter should be granted to those who refuse to get with the program.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Four More Years of This?

Arizona governor Jan Brewer, whom the media will remind you is a Republican governor, had an interesting thing happen to her on the way to the airport. She went to the airport to meet the President, who was arriving on a visit.

Shortly after leaving the plane, the President allegedly lit up into her about some comments she made in a book, in which she described him as patronizing and dismissive. The President, as we keep hearing from different sources on both sides of the aisle, apparently is a big freaking crybaby about everything, and scolded her right on the tarmac about what she wrote.

The MSM generally reconstructs the confrontation with the President giving her an earful, because as you know, he is all-powerful and paternal, whereas she is just some dumb Republican woman. But the photos (one is provided above) show a very different bit of body language.

Perhaps the Governor is reminding the President that, thanks to that pesky Constitution, she does not report to him, and he does not have the right to treat her with disrespect in her own state in front of her own staff. Perhaps she reminded him that Arizona is a perfect example of his failed policies, and that his visit here is partially because of the massive screw up he caused on his inane and absent immigration enforcement policies.

The Governor said that the exchange ended well, with her inviting him for a return visit in which he can actually see the tragedy happening on the border, as well as have a nice lunch to talk about things in an adult manner. The President’s staff is not describing the incident in any on-the-record detail, which unfortunately shows who really won any contest between them.

Mailbag: Folks Cater to the Czar's Whims

As the Czar predicted (some might say begged for), emails have been flooding in (some might say two arrived) about the Czar’s tribute to Kolchak: The Night Stalker television series.

ScottO, the @AgStateSense, writes in:

O Great and All-Knowing Czar,

Not wishing to disappoint Your Czarness, I just had to tell you I also loved Kolchak: The Night Stalker. I was about the age of the Цесаревич when it aired, and my dad was almost as cool as you, so I got to stay up and watch it every week. I was also very sad when I learned it was no longer being aired.

Since then, anytime I saw that Darren McGavin was in something, I'd watch if I could. Boy, was I glad of that when A Christmas Story came on! I was devastated when I heard he'd died.

Your uncreeped minion,
ScottO
@AgStateSense

Thanks! The Czar pointed out to ScottO that everyone the Czar met who loved the television series always remembers one or two specific scenes from it, usually in considerable detail. We asked ScottO what his were, and of course, he said he couldn’t remember a single one. There is one in every crowd.

And Dr. J puts forth an interoffice memo (you can tell the interoffice ones: more blood stains because we tend to reuse paper):

I couldn't hold out the email any longer.

Loved that show too. I was introduced to it when The Night Stalker and The Night Strangler were broadcast on UHF one October Saturday afternoon when I was in late Junior High or early High School. Darren McGavin will always be one of my favorite character actors. I will definitely tap into You Tube tv and such as our Blu-rays and AppleTV are linked.

Thanks for awakening some dusty neurons today.

P.S. You owe me two dollars for the Predators victory the other night.

Now don’t get us wrong: The X-Files was a very successful show, and its creator worshipped Kolchak: The Night Stalker as its inspiration. But the two shows were very different in execution, style, theme, and atmosphere. Kolchak: The Night Stalker was fun and satirical; The X-Files seemed overly staged and too into itself, even though Darren McGavin was brought back late into the show’s demise to pick up its ratings.

Mailbag - Arizona Popery Edition

Operative ME writes in regarding Dr. J.'s post on the new HHS policies yesterday. 

Dear Dr. J., 

Excellent post on Catholicism, conscience and contraception. When I first heard of Secretary Sibelius's proposal to bring to deny religious-affiliated organizations such as Catholic schools an opt-out on the mandatory contraception coverage because they weren't religious enough I was puzzled because I have been told these many years that Catholic schools were denied access to public dollars because they were too religious. 

Where I come from we call that being whip-sawed and it's a most uncivil action. 

Back in my home state of Arizona, there has been a real effort by the Diocese of Phoenix to ensure that Catholic organization espouse Catholic values and it has come with some real costs. The Bishop has recently stripped the largest Catholic hospital in the state of its Catholic affiliation for failure to adhere to Catholic values; back in my family's parish the the pastor fired the principal of the nationally recognized parish school for inattention in teaching Catholic dogma. However adherence to religious values does not fall under the Obama Administration's criteria; the only way for Catholic schools and hospitals to meet them is to close their doors to outsiders, to essentially withdraw from the public square. 

Beyond the immediate affront to religious values, the real danger from the Obama Administration is its assault on civil society. While we have a national identity, our society is composed of a mosaic of what Burke called "the little platoons." In our vast country most every one can find a place and fellowship that meets their values and goals, where they can be left alone from the larger tyrannies of life. To establish mandatory national norms for coverage is at best an enroachment of government on that civil society; to include in those norms items which are offensive to the deepest values of millions of Americans is nothing but a deliberate assault. 

You know for all those years, the progressive left has been pushing the concept of American multiculturalism and a national mosaic, all pretty words, but when the same people actually get some power in their hands the mask drops and they try and break parts of that cultural mosaic to their vision. The cost of the their mad dreams will be to rip civil society asunder and history teaches us where that leads. 

These contraception proposals are the fire bell in the night of what is to come if these people are allowed to remain in government for it will only get worse. 

The other week the Gormogons had a debate on whether Obama was incompetent or evil. For me, this action has settled the debate for nothing but a heart of malice would have even conceived of the idea. 

Best Wishes, 

Operative ME

Dr. J. couldn't have said it better himself.

Club Gormogon — The @MBernadetteE Edition

Chanticleer — Ave Maria/Angelus (Franz Biebl, arr.)



Robert Preston — Marian the Librarian



Lyle Lovett — Penguins

(Sorry, no embedding the last one. Worth the click through, though…)

Déjà vu All Over Again

Great bit by the RNC - amazing, one would think that the President hasn't moved anything forward in the last year (and in some examples two years).  Oh wait....



Hat tip to Jonathan Last. Good stuff!

VDH watched the SOTU so Dr. J. didn't have to...

Dr. J. would like to thank Victor David Hanson for his brutally honest appraisal of Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address.

Dr. J. avoided the actual address because the President's speeches make his diastolic blood pressure shoot through the roof. Not good for Dr. J. in the slightest...

The full smackdown can be read here.

Here is a sweet delicious taste:

Given soaring gasoline prices and Solyndra, green was sorta then, and natural gas is sorta now. So Obama takes credit for oil and gas production, but to do so shamelessly must tell untruths: Gas production is up only because of someone else’s private genius utilizing fracking and horizontal drilling — in spite of Obama’s cutting back on 40 percent of federal leases, EPA bullying, cap-and-trade utopianism, and his administration’s canceling things like Keystone — and gasoline demand is down because his economy has been so bad the last three years.

Now go and read the rest of his piece by piece (and perhaps the whole SOTU seminar) smackdown, not that anything he says wasn't running through your mind during the address. After all, we have you well trained....