Americans for Tax Reform has found 16 separate new taxes, tax increases, and eliminations of tax deductions in the Senate version of the health-care bill.
As Keith Hennessey notes, this bill would violate, again, Barack Obama's promise that he would not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. (He already broke that promise by raising tobacco taxes, but I guess that's the thing about breaking promises — it gets easier with experience.)
A Hilarious Anti-Harry-Reid Ad That Probably Won't Last Long
This ad from Danny Tarkanian, candidate for Senate in Nevada, is hilarious, depicting X-Files' agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully investigating Harry Reid's "missing congressional districts." Go watch it right now, as it will also probably be pulled very quickly, unless Tarkanian obtained the rights to use clips from "The X-Files."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't directly responsible for nonexistent congressional districts cropping up in Recovery.gov, but he certainly did pledge that the government would spend the money wisely and openly with great accountabilty. (HT: Watchdog.org.)
The Senate Ethics Committee has "found that [Illinois Sen. Roland] Burris's sworn affidavit and testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives as to how he was appointed were inconsistent, incomplete and misleading."
Naturally, they have responded to this serious violation — close to perjury, one would think — with a letter of "Qualified Admonition." Apparently they thought a letter of reprimand would be too tough.
We find ourselves dealing with the frightening realization that with the Obama administration, there is no Plan B.
There are a lot of unemployed folks out there. A lot more are worried about their jobs, a lot more are wondering how they're going to pay their mortgages, their rent, their grocery bills. Last year, when people first started to really worry, they elected Barack Obama to the presidency. Not my choice, but I hope he can make the situation better instead of worse.
Obama's first crack at improving the economy was the stimulus, and we’ve lost three million more jobs since it passed. Now he’s announcing a "jobs summit" at the White House, and a "listening tour." You’ve officially run out of good ideas when your plan to help people who can’t find jobs consists of listening to them tell you that they can’t find jobs.
If they had better ideas, the Obama administration would be trying those instead.
Looking back, it suddenly seems clear that Democrats thought we were in a slightly-worse-than-normal recession and that we would have started to see unemployment begin to recede by now. Instead, by most measuring sticks, things are still bad, and perhaps getting worse — the number of people working part-time when they would prefer full-time, the number of long-term unemployed, the number of people who have given up looking for work. Look at the industries that are still reeling from a serious blowup last year — the financial sector, real estate, the auto industry, media, and publishing. I had no idea, until recently, that the Garment District in midtown Manhattan was rapidly disappearing.
On Iran, the Iranians keep making clear that they don't want to talk and make a deal. On Afghanistan, the administration clearly thought the initial increase in troops would be sufficient; we've been in a holding pattern for three months while they rethink a warning from the commander on the ground that the situation will be lost within one year. China is willing to offer photo-ops, but no real concessions.
Polls show the nation evenly divided or worse on the health-care proposal, but the administration pushes forward. The Blue Dogs are nervous, but the response is to figure out how to get that magic 218; to heck with the 30-some Democrats who just can't be persuaded the bill is a good idea and will improve things.
On front after front, Obama's proposals have slammed into the hard concrete of reality, and the response has been . . . keep doing the same thing and wait for things to get better.
Thrown Hats Are Landing in Rings in Iowa, Minnesota, and Connecticut
A few more aspiring Republican congressmen have made their bids official. In Iowa, former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons will run against Democrat Leonard Boswell.
In Minnesota, Allen Quist, a "retired college teacher and rural farm owner — who also served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1982 to 1988 — announced Thursday that he will challenge DFL Rep. Tim Walz for his First District congressional seat."
In Connecticut, "former Bridgeport mayoral hopeful Rick Torres has joined the growing field of Republican contenders hoping to take on freshman Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Himes for his seat in the 4th Congressional District next year."
The New York Times Botches the Facts to Argue Fort Hood Wasn't Terrorism
Robert Mackey of the New York Times, perhaps sensing the political gravity of concluding that we just witnessed the first mass-casualty attack of jihadist terrorists on American soil since 9/11, lays out the reasoning as to why the Fort Hood shooter would not be considered terrrorism:
While there are important differences between the soldiers killed at Fort Hood and the examples Mr. Walzer cited — they were filling out forms at a readiness center in Texas before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they were killed by a member of their own army — it is obviously true that soldiers getting ready to go to a war zone are not civilians or noncombatants.
The New York Times needs to read more about the shootings. One of the victims, Michael Grant Cahill, was a civilian employee, a physician's assistant. Yes, he had served in the Army National Guard before working at Fort Hood. But as a doctor and as a civilian, he fits the definition of "non-combatant" under the Geneva Conventions.
Aside from any other act, Hasan attacked and killed a civilian, making this fit quite easily under most definitions of terrorism.
UPDATE: Readers note that the pregnant soldier offers another case where, in many eyes, Hasan killed an innocent civilian. Of course, to too many folks, that pregnant soldier represents only one casualty.
News Like This Makes One Wonder if We'll See More Incumbent Retirements
Boy, you thought incumbents had a tough economic environment to campaign in this year? Just wait until next year:
More than 14 percent of borrowers were in trouble on their mortgage during the third quarter, a new record, according to an industry survey released Thursday, which also suggests that the foreclosure rate is likely not to peak until next year as unemployment rates continue to rise.
Unemployment remains a big driver of the problem, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, which conducts the survey. Those with delinquent loans now include a growing portion of people traditionally considered creditworthy and people whose mortgages are insured by the Federal Housing Administration.
"The outlook is that delinquency rates and foreclosure rates will continue to worsen before they improve," said Jay Brinkmann, the group's chief economist.
About 9.6 percent of borrowers were delinquent on their mortgage during the third quarter, according to the survey, and another 4.5 percent more were somewhere in the foreclosure process. Overall, about 14 percent of mortgage loans or 7.4 million households were delinquent or in the foreclosure process during the quarter, according to the group.
That is the highest level recorded by the survey, which has been conducted since 1972, and is up from about 10 percent of borrowers who were in trouble during the same period last year.
The article notes that "if unemployment rates peak in the middle of next year, foreclosures could reach their highest levels by the end of next year." Boy, voters will be in a delightful mood come November, huh?
Our old friend David Freddoso notes that members of Congress get astonishingly generous pensions. Retirement is probably look pretty tempting next year, particularly when contrasted with getting thrown out of office by angry voters.
This Thanksgiving, you'll see public-service announcements about the importance of fitness for America's children, featuring NFL stars and a skinny smoker.
Clearly, it never crossed the mind of anyone at the White House that Americans might like a Thanksgiving afternoon of watching the Detroit Lions lose without a 90-second call to go build a new playground from their Dear Leader.
Democrat DeFazio Says It's Time for Geithner to Go
I have a feeling a lot of folks on the right will have a strange new respect for, or at least temporary agreement with, Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio:
Asked if Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio said no.
"Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal and Goldman [Sachs] and others who got their bets paid off in full," he said. "Instead of saying 'you bet, you lost,' they got paid back in full through AIG. We channeled the money through them."
"Geithner would not answer my question when I said, 'Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counterparty?' He said 'I will not answer that question," added DeFazio.
DeFazio said the Congressional Progressive Caucus is considering asking President Obama to remove Geithner.
The president is "being failed by his economic team," he said. "Their total orientation is Wall Street, not Main Street."
Okay, so DeFazio's argument is that the Obama economic plan is failing because Geithner is too oriented towards Wall Street, while those on the right would argue that it's failing because we're not spending money wisely, we're contemplating new taxes on energy, we're contemplating new costs to employers for health insurance, we're contemplating new taxes on income and investment, we're spending money like it's water, etc. But perhaps both sides can agree that there's got to be somebody out there who can do the Treasury job better than Geithner can.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, via Twitter: "If we printed the health care bill in regular size font it would be same legnth [sic] as Sarah Palin's book, but with more meat on the bone."
I guess this is a response to those who argue the bill is a gargantuan monstrosity.
Fine, Palin's book is long, too. But everyone understands it (liberals, insert standard what-grade-reading-level joke here), and if you don't like it, you can ignore it and it will have no impact on your life. The health-care bill is written in legislative bureaucratese that is incomprehensible to most Americans, and the epic length is strongly suspected to be a method of hiding unpopular provisions that would never survive a straight up-or-down vote.
The question is, "What is President Obama's approval rating in the most recent Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, the most recent Rasmussen poll, the most recent Quinnipiac poll, and the most recent Public Policy Polling poll?"
Rudy's Like Duke Ellington: Do Nothing 'Till You Hear From Me
Maria Comella, who was one of Rudy Giuliani's communications strategists during his presidential campaign, sends along the statement:
Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it. When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.
For what it's worth, the New York Daily News says Rudy is running for Senate, with an eye on another presidential run in 2012.
I just did a quick interview with Lou Dobbs on his radio program, discussing yesterday's hearings with Eric Holder.
Hoping to get the host to offer a hint about his future plans, I began by jokingly noting that New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg is looking rather aged; Dobbs noted that the state's other senator, Bob Menendez, isn't looking so great, either.
The 85-year-old Lautenberg is not up for reelection until 2014; Menendez next faces the voters in 2012.
Cook Political Report: Obama Is 'Beyond Radioactive' in Key Democratic Districts
The Cook Political Report lays out what readers of this blog have been hearing a lot lately:
Plenty of veteran Democrats who haven't had to break a campaign sweat this decade are quickly losing their aura of invincibility. Next fall, some in this category are likelier to face tough races than many of the 42 less tenured Democrats who populate the "Frontline" list. As of today, eight House Democrats elected prior to 2006 sit in our "Lean Democratic" and "Toss Up" columns, and another 20 whom we view as potentially vulnerable sit in our "Likely Democratic" column.
This is not to say that highly influential and venerated fixtures such as Reps. Ike Skelton (MO-04), John Spratt (SC-05), Bart Gordon (TN-06), John Tanner (TN-08) and Rick Boucher (VA-09) are goners next year. Their eventual vulnerability is highly dependent on the quality of GOP nominees and the discipline of their "time for change" messages. But if these party elders decide to seek reelection rather than retire, the underlying dynamics of their districts suggest at least several will need to fight to survive.
Many watchers of House politics are tempted to downplay the potential for real races in these districts after taking one look at immediate past election history. How could Republicans possibly threaten the likes of Skelton or Spratt, both of whom won more than 62 percent of the vote in 2008? Or Gordon, Tanner, or Boucher, all of whom were unopposed last year? But that was before they were saddled with a sitting Democratic president who is beyond radioactive in their districts. History is history.
Less than a year out from Election Day, it's time to rethink who the vulnerable Democrats are. And if President Obama is the dominant issue of the 2010 midterms (and rarely has a midterm not been a referendum on the incumbent president), Democrats ought to be seriously concerned about districts where reliable surveys suggest voters are in open revolt against him. Democrats would rather not draw attention to their problems in these districts, but both parties recognize the sea change underway.
Just how unpopular do you have to be, by the way, to be described as "beyond radioactive"?
Where's the Good News for the Obama Administration These Days?
A reader notes, regarding the economy, even where it's not that bad, it's still pretty darn bad, pointing to Utah:
The growing ranks of the unemployed already have drained this year's budget of a state-administered program that provides new-job training to people whose old professions may not return when the recession ends.
Employment counselors at the Utah Department of Workforce Services were informed last week that enrollment in a job-training program funded through the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was being suspended for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2010.
Utah's unemployment rate is 6.2 percent, the fourth-best in the nation.
So, just to refresh, the economy continues to bleed jobs, and Recovery.gov is full of phony statistics about job creation in non-existent congressional districts; the administration's response is that it doesn't really matter. This while government spends money like never before:
The Treasury Department said yesterday that the deficit for October totaled $176.4 billion, the fifth-largest monthly deficit ever and the 13th straight month to show a deficit — another record.
The deficit for the 2009 budget year set an all-time record in dollar terms of $1.42 trillion. That was $958 billion above the 2008 deficit, the previous record.
The administration's plan on health care requires you to believe that unlike so many other programs, this one will cost less than expected.
Our threat of "crippling sanctions" on Iran is kaput, the much-touted deadline amounting to nothing.
The attorney general says that the court that Osama bin Laden would be tried in would depend on a "protocol" that he refuses to spell out.
And we're still waiting for the president's response to a request for additional troops made in Afghanistan.
Yes, Mr. President, you said it accurately: "The American people have gone though a very tough year."
No Rudy Run for Albany in 2010? (UPDATE: Not So Fast, New York Times!)
Rudy Giuliani is not running for governor, the New York Times reports.
UPDATE: One more reason not to trust the New York Times; I am told by a reliable source close to Giuliani that this report about his decision comes as news to him. He is characterized by this reliable source as having not yet made his decision.
Overall 49 percent of voters express approval of Obama’s work with 46 percent disapproving. He has the support of 83 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of independents, and 10 percent of Republicans.
Other results from PPP:
Hurting Obama’s overall reviews is that for the first time in our polling we find a majority of Americans opposed to his health care plan. 40% say they support it with 52% opposed, including 58% of independents.
“This is the first time President Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50% in our polling,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It does seem that the health care issue is hurting him some with independents who voted for him last year.”
The poll also found that 26% of Americans think ACORN stole the election for Obama last year, including 52% of Republicans. Overall 11% view the organization favorably while 53% have a negative opinion of it.
I would note that if you really sat down and asked Republicans about their views, less than 52 percent would say that ACORN is responsible for the 6-percentage-point, 9 million-or-so-vote margin in Obama's election. I suspect that answer is akin to, "they're all a bunch of crooks, and I wouldn't put anything past them."
Fort Hood, First Mass-Casualty Attack by a Jihadist on U.S. Soil Since 9/11
During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing this morning, the RAND Corporation's Brian Jenkins offered a statement as to why the Fort Hood shooting, and the analysis of just what motivated Malik Hasan, weighs so heavily on Washington: “We’ve had eight attempted attacks [in U.S.], plus two successful ones in Arkansas and Fort Hood. Many more than previous years.”
You may be shaking your head upon hearing Fort Hood would be the second jihadist or terrorist attack of the year; Jenkins was including Abdulhakim Muhammad, who is accused of killing Pvt. William Long of and injuring Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula in a shooting outside the Army/Navy recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. He faces 17 felony charges, including capital murder.
The Little Rock recruitment center shooter’s philosophy is, in retrospect, a chilling match to the alleged views of Hasan: “A battlefield is anywhere we see you at. And those people in the Army and those families of the people in the Army and the military and personnel all over the country, if you don't want to die or get shot for this so called war on terrorism, war on Islam, then get out of the Army. Get out of the Army and don't walk, run."
When people hear the word “terrorism,” they usually think of 9/11 or bombs going off like in London or Madrid. A shooting rampage is, fairly or not, considered garden-variety crime or mayhem by the homicidally maniacal. While the aim of the Columbine shooters was to inspire terror, few think of them as terrorists.
So perhaps we should shift to discussing jihadist terrorism, and recognize that it increasingly looks like Hasan was the biggest act of jihadist terrorism on American soil since 9/11, the first mass-casualty event within our borders scored by their side in this war in more than eight years.
I say biggest, but not first. Daniel Pipes coined the term “Sudden Jihad Syndrome,” whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent, and describes other incidents that, due to thankfully low or no fatalities, barely registered in the public consciousness: At UNC-Chapel Hill, an Iranian immigrant drove a sport-utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone; on July 4, 2002 somebody shot up the El Al counter at LAX in an event the FBI helpfully insisted was not terrorism. In January of 2002, some troubled teen crashed a small plane into a Tampa skyscraper, in another event we were reassured wasn't terrorism, even though the teen said he sympathized with Osama bin Laden.
But these events were largely one-day or two-day stories; they generally didn’t inspire a widespread sense of “we’ve been hit again.”
Fort Hood may be different. Retired general John M. Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, casually remarked during the hearing that the “preliminary evidence” was that the motivation was jihadism, not mental illness.
And if the public concludes that Hasan was motivated by the same radical ideology as Mohammed Atta, it means the jihadist threat to Americans at home is still out there, and that our government is not achieving job one: protecting the American people. Health care, stimulus funds, cap-and-trade — none of that means a darn thing if you’re worried that some guy is going to shoot up your workplace, or a shopping mall, or God forbid, some school because he secretly thinks he’s at war with you.
If American had been enduring a “24” scenario of bombs going off in the streets on a regular basis in 2008, Barack Obama would not have become president. He did not campaign as a wartime president. Now that he is in office, we are told by his cabinet that we are in an era of “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations.”
President Obama may have wanted to turn the page on the old era of the war on terror. Too bad the jihadists didn’t agree.
2007 Texas Report: Don't Dismiss Jihad-Style Attackers as Having Mental-Health Issues
Wow. An eerily prescient report, dated from Dec. 6, 2007, from the Texas Public Safety Department's Bureau of Information Analysis:
"Oftentimes, these attackers are dismissed as suffering from mental health issues, but their own words and writings reveal an affiliation with Islamic supremacy or an affinity for Islamic extremism," said the report, which was distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement in Texas. "As a result, law enforcement should not be too quick to judge their attacks as having no nexus to terrorism."
