The Republicans are jubilant in their recent victories; Conservatives and Tea Party people see a new dawn. Democrats are morose. Sounds like a mirror image of two years ago. Things can change quickly.
The Democrats blew it by doing what Obama said they would do all along - redistribute income. The question now is whether the Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party people can do or at least try to do what they were elected to do. The indications are that they will not be able to do anything. That is not surprising given they only hold one house and the other guys hold the other house and the veto pen. But can they convince the American people that the steps that the current Administration are taking on the economy are the wrong ones and that the cutting taxes and spending are the right ones? The indications look like the answer is they won't even be trying.
Winning elections is more one of public perception than having great public policy. For better or worse, the last Presidential election was run with a guy who promoted Hope and Change against a guy who was closely associated with a very unpopular President. The recent Congressional elections were a mirror image. An unpopular President’s party got “shellacked” based upon their policies. That is good for the Republicans if they use it. But…
1. Republican leadership Senators have come out in favor of earmarks. The public perception of the Republican policy is that when the other guy has the gavel, earmarks are wrong but when Republicans have the gavel we really need them. This despite the fact that recent election used earmarks as a platform to spank the Democratic candidates and energize their faithful. Bad start Mitch. Another step back but this can be a big PR gain if they do it right.
2. Committee Chair Appointments. This will be a big one. Some of the people at the top of the list for key positions don’t get it. If leadership just follows the “oldest guy wins” philosophy, most of this will be for naught. The majority of the public will not make a distinction between the “good” Republicans that are trying and the old boys who want to keep the sugar flowing. All Republicans will lose – for the second time and we are in a two strikes and you’re out situation. If they blow it again, it will take a real calamity by the Dems before they get another chance. An avoidable disaster but we shall see.
3. Talk Radio. Much of what these guys say is sound economics; they are also equally adept at saying dopey things. Look at Hannity. He likes to preach to the choir (killing talking to Ida from South Carolina about how they are both “Great Americans”) and has programmed reactions. The “Blue Ribboned Panel” recommended cutting almost everything to balance the budget. Hannity immediately takes any cuts to the Defense budget off the table. Apparently, there is not one military base – foreign or domestic – that has one marching band that could do with one less tuba player. On the larger scale, whether there are opportunities in the huge Defense budget to cut obsolete, useless or bloated programs is not to be considered in Hannity's world. There is a difference between sound defense and unlimited spending. He needs an about face here.
4. Joe Miller in Alaska is contesting an election he appears to have lost. The Republicans lost the PR battle in the Florida “hanging chad” election. Whether they were right or not, that is what happened in the media. Miller is reinforcing that image to the public that the Republican plan is to steal elections. Unless he can better demonstrate a case, even if he wins, the Republicans get hurt. Time to give up Joe. Over all, a step backward for the Republicans no matter what.
5. The Social Conservatives will get restless. The election had nothing to do with “social values”. Whether Frank marries George and/or the both serve in the military has no effect upon jobs being created. The new guys will pick a fight over this one and the Republicans will alienate a few more percent of the people. Another lost PR opportunity.
6. Goals. The NYS conservative Party ran a poll asking what the first thing the newly elected representative should vote on. Repealing the Health Care bill took first with 38%; second was decreasing spending at 30%. The Republican Party stood by while the media and the First Dope branded them as the Party of NO. So after winning 60+ seats their first goals will be to say no again. Who the hell does there PR? How about a goal of REPLACING ObamaCare?
7. Goals II. Hannity again. He starts his show everyday announcing that the Stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid Express has come to a halt and the next step is to see that Obama is a one term president. That most certainly is not the next step. The thing to do is to continue to expand the percentage of the voting population that understand that A) Democratic policies and wrong for the economy and that B) Republicans have sensible, workable and historically successful solutions to the problems that plague us. If those two things are accomplished, the next election will take care of itself.
8. Hannity Redux. Not to pick on him (he deserves it) but one that is personally annoying is that he spent a good part of Election Day – while polls were still open in NY and everywhere else – trumpeting a huge Republican victory. Think about that. Someone you follow says that your candidate has already won. Do you get off your butt and go vote or stay on the couch? He contributed to lowering the Republican tally. Good job, Sean. You are marching the wrong way.
9. There will be more
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Judicial Insanity
Last year, a Riverhead judge decided to eliminate the mortgage debt of an East Patchogue couple - all of it principal, years unpaid interest, fees, charges everything. He completely discharged the debt and gave them clear title to the house that was security for the loan that they did not repay. There were no allegations that the lenders did anything illegal, only that they were aggressive in collecting on a valid debt and recovering the security that was pledged on a the loan. Three things are clear: the couple owed the money; they had not paid it back; and the lender wanted their money to be paid back or wanted their security (the house). The judge's decision to void the loan was based upon his perception that the lender imposed "mortifying abuse against Defendant" - they were were mean.
Fortunately, a higher court reversed this madness noting that it was not based upon anything.
The newspaper article announcing the reversal mentioned only a Riverhead judge and avoided any mention of the idiot’s name. But his name is something that everyone should know. His name is Jeffrey A. Spinner and claims to be a registered Conservative. What is worse, he had the Conservative line last time he ran.
Fortunately, a higher court reversed this madness noting that it was not based upon anything.
The newspaper article announcing the reversal mentioned only a Riverhead judge and avoided any mention of the idiot’s name. But his name is something that everyone should know. His name is Jeffrey A. Spinner and claims to be a registered Conservative. What is worse, he had the Conservative line last time he ran.
Economic Insanity
A woman wrote into the paper with a two part solution to all our economic problems. Her first step is for everyone to stop buying things (she singles out video stuff and make-up)that she considers a waste of money. Her plan is for reinvigorating a consumer economy is for consumers to stop consuming! People should spend within their means but to stop spending on entire industries will: put those industries out of business, make thousands more people unemployed, and remove more people from the tax rolls. The second part of her plan assumes that all this money that would not be spent by consumers on what they want to buy should be sent to the government to use as they see fit. Brilliant! It is a large part of the problem that this dope is allowed to vote.
This level of economic analysis is equivalent to suggesting that the minimum wage be raised to $100 an hour so that everyone makes over $200,000 a year.
This level of economic analysis is equivalent to suggesting that the minimum wage be raised to $100 an hour so that everyone makes over $200,000 a year.
Paying for Health insurance
The Obamoids have announced that 85% of health insurance premiums have to be spent on health services. The other 15% can be used to cover those pesky things like Rent, salaries and benefits to employees, electricity, heat, marketing/advertising, general administrative costs, and the twin evils of “executive bonuses” and profits. This comes from a group of people who have no experience running a company, meeting a payroll, or dealing with revenues that are dependent upon market forces. When they run out of money their plan is to print more. The result of this effort will be to put private companies out of business so that the government is the font of all health services. You will be going to the guys who run the Post Office to fund your knee replacement. That will work well.
Unemployment benefits
Last week’s vote against extending benefits without funding it was the right vote for the Republicans but another step along their road to becoming a permanent minority party. Pelosi brought a bill to the floor to vote for extending benefits – no conditions. She put the Republicans in a position where they could not get any reduction in other spending to “pay” for it. Good politics by her - everything happened according to her plan. The Republicans come off like the Grinch; the Democrats are the friends of the (non)-working man. Wanting to fund the extension by not spending (wasting?) money elsewhere was the right thing to do. The Republicans problem is that they do the right thing and stop. No campaign to announce why they took the position; no effort to publicize Pelosi’s political machinations. They didn’t even make the point of their support for the extension. Marketing is not their strong point.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Senior Bankruptcy
Newsday guy wrote an article about all the poor seniors who are filing bankruptcy because they have excessive credit card debt. No sympathy here.
Apparently, 67 percent of the senior bankruptcy filings are citing problems tied to credit cards. What could those problems be? The news flash is that they borrowed more money than they could afford to pay back. The Newsday defense is that they were “deluged with applications in the mail, and cards are [were?] easy to get” is a joke. This defense was once simply dismissed by mothers all over the country with the observation that just because the other guy jumps off the bridge you should not do it too. But now more specifics are required. Neither the Banks, BMW, Lexus, nor any one else has the power to make American citizens buy anything against their will. (Excepting of course President Obama’s requirement that everyone must buy medical insurance.) Marketing pitches for a variety of products are a part of every day life for all of us. People who bought more stuff than they could afford and borrowed money to do so, simply did a stupid thing. But their problems are not mine or anyone else’s who has people managed to reach “seniorhood” while living within their not very munificent means. To single out seniors like this is condesending. It can reasonably be assumed that bankruptcy filings are up for every demographic group. For the most part, the reasons are the same - people voluntarily entered into more debt than they could pay back. You could have written exactly the same piece using race in lieu of age and you would have been castigated severely. But you generated this puff piece to rail at banks that lent people money and actually want it back with the agreed to interest. Waste of ink.
.
Apparently, 67 percent of the senior bankruptcy filings are citing problems tied to credit cards. What could those problems be? The news flash is that they borrowed more money than they could afford to pay back. The Newsday defense is that they were “deluged with applications in the mail, and cards are [were?] easy to get” is a joke. This defense was once simply dismissed by mothers all over the country with the observation that just because the other guy jumps off the bridge you should not do it too. But now more specifics are required. Neither the Banks, BMW, Lexus, nor any one else has the power to make American citizens buy anything against their will. (Excepting of course President Obama’s requirement that everyone must buy medical insurance.) Marketing pitches for a variety of products are a part of every day life for all of us. People who bought more stuff than they could afford and borrowed money to do so, simply did a stupid thing. But their problems are not mine or anyone else’s who has people managed to reach “seniorhood” while living within their not very munificent means. To single out seniors like this is condesending. It can reasonably be assumed that bankruptcy filings are up for every demographic group. For the most part, the reasons are the same - people voluntarily entered into more debt than they could pay back. You could have written exactly the same piece using race in lieu of age and you would have been castigated severely. But you generated this puff piece to rail at banks that lent people money and actually want it back with the agreed to interest. Waste of ink.
.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Earmarks
The earmark defenders are trying to convince everyone that earmarks only account for about $9 billion in spending. That depends. Earmarks are bribes. The system works like this: I’ll put your earmarks in my bill if you vote for it. Then, you put my earmarks in your bill and I’ll vote for that. They both get their earmarks and the taxpayer pays for A.) the bribes (earmarks) necessary to collect votes for these bills, and B.) for the bills that wouldn’t have passed without bribes. Think the total is still $9 billion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
