The labor debate, before the invention of lying

Not long ago, there was a Rickey Gervais movie called "The Invention Of Lying", which took place in an alternate universe in which people were incapable of telling anything but the unvarnished truth.

Let's superimpose that alternate universe on today's debate over public sector unions and their deathgrip on the public fisc. Our intrepid reporter is cruising labor demonstrations, statehouses, and Chicago hotels filled with Democrats subverting the legislative process in their home states.

SCENE: Big labor rally with lots of people dressed in red, waving their fists in the air.

Intrepid Reporter (to stout 40-ish woman): Excuse me, ma'am...are you a public school teacher?

Stout Woman: Yes, indeedy!

IR: And what are you demonstrating about today?

SW: Well, duh! Those terrorist Koch Whores who are trying to destroy our very way of life!

IR: Oh, you mean the Republicans?

SW: Exactly!

IR: And how are they doing that? Destroying our very way of life, that is.

SW: Well, they want us to work and contribute reasonable amounts of money to our medical benefits and retirement plans, without the right to dictate to the taxpayers how much is reasonable.

IR: Just like private sector workers, you mean?

SW: Exactly!

IR: Oh. So tell me...why did you become a teacher?

SW: Pretty obvious, really. I wanted employment for life, a decent salary, and a nice, fat pension when I retire at an absurdly young age.

IR: Just like private sector workers, you mean?

SW: Exa-- aw, I see what you did there! A regular comedian, you are!

SCENE: Cocktail lounge of a Chicago hotel.

IR (to a distinguished-looking 50-ish gentleman): Excuse me sir, but aren't you Senator Fleebagger from Wisconsin?

Sen. Fleebagger (glancing around furtively): Uh, yes...yes I am.

IR: Why are you here in Chicago instead of back in Madison representing your constituents?

SF: If I had any real interest in "representing my constituents", as you so quaintly put it, do you really think I'd be here? I can get martinis every bit as good as this one at home.

IR: Well, if you have no interest in representing your constituents, why did you run for election to the Wisconsin state senate?

SF: Stepping stone. You see where a state senate seat got our current president, don't you?

IR: Uh, OK. But aren't you just the least bit afraid that this stunt might jeopardize your reelection chances for the next term?

SF: Oh, hell no. I'll be running for the US Senate before this term is up, and my ill-informed and short-on-memory electorate won't let me down.

IR: Right, then. So tell me...why are you so strongly opposed to Gov. Walker's proposal to repair the state's budget?

SF: Look, I'm a Democrat, right? We Democrats depend on unions not just for campaign cash but for campaign workers. Without large, powerful unions that are flush with cash we'd never have a chance against Republicans in any election.

IR: So for you and your Democratic colleagues, this has nothing to do with workers' rights, then?

SF: Bwahahahaha! No.

SCENE: Wisconsin State House, hallway.

IR (to attractive, mid-30s woman): Pardon me, Senator Pachyderm...can you take a few questions?

Sen. Pachyderm: Sure, if you make it quick.

IR: What do you make of your Democratic colleagues' absence from debate on the Governor's budget repair bill?

SP: Well, clearly, they're subverting the democratic process for their own political ends.

IR: But don't you think they have the right to make their position known in the most forceful way possible?

SP: Of course, and the place do that is right here, on the senate floor. That's what they were elected to do.

IR: I assume you're in favor of the Governor's bill?

SP: Yes. We simply can't afford the continued high costs of pay and benefits and we have to prevent future extortion by the unions. And if it levels the playing field in the next election, then booyah!

And there you have it...the interviews we'll never see.

I just cut $258 billion from the federal budget...

...and I haven't even touched Defense spending yet.

The first thing I heard on the news this morning when I got up was how gosh-darned hard it would be for Congress and the White House to cut the budget by $100 billion. Given the size of the federal budget, I figured that just had to be a load of crap.

A quick Google search turned up this set of PDFs summarizing the executive branch budget for FY11. Most department and agency budgets break down to discretionary outlays, mandatory outlays and "credit activity", which I take to mean lending programs of various types. When considering an agency or department's total budget, I disregarded the credit activity, so cuts would clearly be even larger if I took those into consideration.

I basically ignored those budgets that were very small (under a billion or so) and looked at these:

• Agriculture
• Commmerce
• Education
• Energy
• Health and Human Services
• Homeland Security
• Housing and Urban Development
• Interior
• Justice
• Labor
• State
• Transportation
• Treasury
• Veteran's Affairs
• Corps of Engineers
• EPA
• National Science Foundation
• NASA
• Small Business Administration
• Social Security

When a corporate CEO is serious about cutting spending, he or she will go to the various business units and direct their respective heads to cut, say, 10% of their budget. In other words, do it or be fired and replaced with someone who will. So, let's do the same with the federal budget. Granted, the exercise would be nowhere near as straight forward as cutting a private sector budget. Those "mandatory outlays" are mandatory because they're required by law, so a process would be needed to fast track legislation to amend public law as needed.

The bottom line is that an across-the-board cut of 10% of the budgets listed above yields a savings of over $258 billion. If one includes the $719B Defense budget, an additional savings of $71B is realized. Note that this doesn't even take into account the budgets for the various intelligence agencies.

No, finding $100 billion to cut from the budget isn't that difficult.

I obviously don't get it

The Daily Caller has an amusing story about a Pennsylvania state house Democratic party primary race in which Gregg Kravitz claims to be bisexual while his opponent, Babette Josephs, counters that Kravitz is a "closeted straight man" trying to curry favor with gay voters.

The part I don't get is a quote from Kravitz:

I want to be completely open with how I am proud of my bisexuality.

Why does one feel the need to express pride in their sexual preference? Isn't that a bit like expressing pride in your preference to, say, brunettes over redheads?

Ideological purity? No thanks. But...

Allahpundit at Hot Air reports on a recent poll which shows that 51% of Republicans would rather lose elections than win with party members who are less than ideological purists. Allah makes the fair point that this thinking could lead to long-term Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches:

The only way the right wins a majority is if the left screws things up so egregiously that even staunch conservatives are apt to beat centrist Democrats head to head. It’s a passive strategy, but it’s a strategy, I guess.

Like I said, it's a fair point. But what good is a Congress ruled by a Republican majority if that Congress is still passing craptastic legislation? Who cares if Republicans have an overwhelming majority if Congress is still pursuing cap & trade, government-run health care and excessive spending?

If one truly believes that conservative/libertarian policies are better for the country, then damn it, support candidates who advance those policies. This was the thrust of a brief exchange last night on Twitter between Allahpundit and Caleb Howe, who kicked it off with this Tweet linking to Allah's post:

Believing in things is stupid and you should stop it right away: http://bit.ly/G3tJz @allahpundit

To which Allah responded via re-tweet:

Lose with honor, conservatives RT @CalebHowe: Believing in things is stupid and you should stop it right away: http://bit.ly/G3tJz

That set Caleb off on this mini rant:

Principles. Petty pride. What's the difference. As long as there are more people with an R than a D, who cares how they vote? @allahpundit

The most important part of a ruling majority is the little letter in parentheses. Consensus on issues is a passé concern. Right, Dede?

Honestly, why do parties go to all this trouble of "planks" and "issues"? It's silly. Obviously the little parenthetical ID is what matters.

Cap and trade? Sure! Obamacare? Fine! Caucus with Dems? No problemo. Could you just use this little R logo? Sweet. We're solid. @allahpundit

My own ideology is closer to Allahpundit's (I think), but I have to agree with Howe on this. It does the "conservatarian" cause - and the country - no good if Republicans hold a majority but push legislation only a Democrat could love.

If we're right, and the Democrats' policies are in fact as bad as we say they are, Democrats will eventually succumb to a sort of political Darwinian process of natural deselection. The big question is what the extent of damage will be in the meantime.

Were elections a referendum on Obama? Kinda

A day after Virginia and (gasp!) New Jersey elected Republican governors, the Obama-loving media is eager to spin the results as being anything but a referendum on Barack Obama. Actually, they were so eager, the spin started the day before the election. CNN.com this morning has an analysis piece by Mark Preston titled "Elections not a referendum on Obama". Well, I guess that settles it. Preston does provide some polling data to support his assertion:

While the economy and jobs were the chief concern for voters in both states, 26 percent of New Jersey residents said property taxes was also a major issue, while another 20 percent mentioned corruption, according to CNN exit polling. In a similar CNN survey taken in Virginia, health care was the most important issue for 24 percent of the voters, while 15 percent named taxes and transportation was mentioned by 7 percent.

Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.

But who does Preston quote when it comes time to lay out a winning 2010 strategy for Democrats? Veteran political mastermind Former movie producer and far-left blogger Jane Hamsher.

"I would suggest that appealing to Republican interests is not the best way to turn out Democrats," Hamsher said. "It is just a fact of life. They have to turn out Democrats."

Wow, thanks for the keen insight, Jane.

I'm in no way a political strategist, but I know a thing or two about human nature. The average voter - that is to say the non-partisan who doesn't spend every waking hour consuming political news and tends to vote from the gut - isn't happy. At an emotional, adolescent level he still might be infatuated with Barack Obama, but on a less conscious (and perhaps more intellectual level) he knows Democratic policies are not improving things and may in fact be making things worse.

Young voters turned out overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. But as Preston notes:

On Tuesday, the Obama magic did not rub off on Corzine or Deeds.

In New Jersey, while Corzine overwhelmingly won among African-Americans, only 14 percent of the vote was black; young people, age 18 to 29, made up 9 percent of the vote and 36 percent of them backed Republican Chris Christie. Meanwhile, 60 percent of independents supported Christie as well.

The numbers were worse for Deeds in Virginia. Ten percent of the electorate was age 18 to 29 and Republican Bob McDonnell captured 54 percent of this voting bloc. Deeds overwhelmingly carried the African-American vote that made up16 percent of people who turned out on Tuesday, while 66 percent of voters who identified themselves as independents backed McDonnell.

The black vote might be lost in perpetuity to the GOP, but young voters can often swing either way. In New Jersey, they simply failed to show up in enough numbers to change the outcome. In Virginia, they also failed to show up in significant numbers, but those that did voted heavily for McDonnell. That does not bode well for Virginia Democrats in 2010.

So while Obama may not have been a specific target for voter backlash, he's losing his influence over a key voting bloc...he's losing his mojo. And even if last night's elections weren't specifically a referendum on Obama, they might have been more generally a referendum on Democratic policies.

The odd outcome of this is that if the trend continues into the 2010 mid-term elections and Democrats lose the significant majority they now hold in Congress, Democratic policies will either be tabled or seriously diluted going forward. That could set the stage for another Obama win in 2012 if a more sound fiscal policy returns to Washington.

I see defeat in her future

Rob Wittman, Republican representing Virginia's 1st Congressional district, is up for reelection next year, and a young, 27-year-old Democrat may be his challenger:

The 2010 congressional races are 18 months away, but Krystal Ball, who recently kicked off her challenge to Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Westmoreland, doesn't think she's starting her campaign too early.

As a young mother who has never run for office before, and as a Democrat in the Republican-leaning 1st District, Ball said she needs that year and a half to introduce herself to voters and raise money.

[ ... ]

A King George County native, Ball, 27, said she has always been interested in politics, particularly economics and foreign affairs. But she didn't plan to get personally involved until the birth of her daughter, Ella, now 15 months old.

I say "may" be his challenger because it's likely she'll have to contend with another Democrat in a primary, and 1st District Democrats may want someone a bit more battle-hardened:

Once she decided to get involved in politics, Ball set her sights on federal office because, she said, that's where her interests and experience lie. An economics major who recently passed her CPA exam, Ball has worked for federal contractor CGI. Now she and her husband work from home designing educational software, which Ball said entails much international travel; they were in Jordan for three months, including during last fall's presidential election and President Barack Obama's inauguration in January.

In any event, it's not likely that the 1st District will elect a Democrat any time soon, and - petty though this might sound - probably not one named "Krystal Ball".

Caught in the act!

This stunning photo shows Illinois senate nominee Roland Burris taking a cashier's check from his pocket to hand to Gov. Rod Blagojevich in payment for appointing him to Barack Obama's senate seat.

Shocking!

Blago & Burris

To be honest, I've only been half-following the whole Rod Blagojevich story, including the latest with his nomination of Roland Burris to take Barack Obama's vacated senate seat.

It seems the Senate Democratic leadership is freaking out about the Burris nomination, not so much over Burris himself but over Blago's appointment of anyone to the seat. If I understand things correctly, Democrats are worried that anyone appointed by Blagojevich will be so tainted that they'd have no chance to keep the seat in Democrat hands in the 2010 election.

So once again with the Democrats, it's a matter of party over principle. Blagojevich remains Governor of Illinois. He's been charged with crimes, but as yet remains not only unconvicted but unindicted. And Patrick Fitzgerald - the federal prosecutor investigating Blago - has just requested a 90 day extension on the deadline for filing an indictment with a grand jury. As Governor, Blago still has duties to discharge, and one of those duties is to appoint a replacement to congress in the event of death or resignation of one of his state's representatives or senators.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to deny Burris' seating under Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution, which reads:

Section 5: Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

It's the bolded part that leads Harry Reid to believe he can keep Blago's appointee out of the senate. But here's what the constitution says about senate qualifications:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Now I've got nowhere near enough self-loathing to be a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me that Roland Burris meets the constitutional definition of qualification. But that doesn't matter to Democrats who'll engage in any kind of chicanery necessary to keep a senate seat in the hands of the Democrats.

Update: A couple of law professors say the senate can refuse to seat Burris on the basis of judging the "returns" laid out in Article 1, Section 5 if they can legitimately say they believe he was selected under dubious circumstances.

'We must refight the battles of the 1970s'

As I read this opinion piece in the Telegraph, I was struck by how easily it could have appeared in any US paper...just swap "Labour" for "Democrat" and "Conservative" for "Republican".

The Left sees capitalism gasping for breath, and hopes a well-aimed blow could do mortal damage. Invigorated by the market's collapse, socialists are on the march. No more talk about a third way. No more twaddle like the Blairite "what matters is what works". Pulsating with core belief and conviction, the Left are preaching "the state can save us".

Belief and conviction. Where does this leave the Conservatives? Having worked with David Cameron, I can vouch for his strong Conservative beliefs, as well as his cool head in a crisis. The task that befalls him and his team is to spell out those convictions, loud and clear, and to join battle with the Left. Britain needs a clarion cry for a just cause, a noble object, something [that] appeals not just to the head, but also the heart and makes people understand that, unless we have a change of government and direction, we will all go the way of Woolies.

What is that noble object? Not a policy, but a call to arms. "We want to work with the grain of human nature, helping people to help themselves – and others. This is the way to restore that self-reliance and self-confidence which are the basis of personal responsibility and national success. Attempting to do too much, politicians have failed to do those things that should be done. This has damaged the country and the authority of government. The balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the state at the expense of individual freedom. This election may be the last chance we have to reverse that process, to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war."

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

White House calls bullshit on New York Times

The New York Times published a hit piece on George Bush today, saying the sub-prime mortgage crisis was a mess of his making and laying blame for the ensuing economic meltdown at his feet, and the White House wasted no time in calling bullshit on the Times.

The response accused the nation's largest Sunday paper of "gross negligence."

"The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in an e-mailed statement.

[ ... ]

"The Times story frequently repeats a charge by the Administration's critics: a 'laissez faire' attitude toward regulation. We make no apology for understanding the concept of regulatory balance. That is, regulation should be stringent enough to protect the greater public good and safety but not overly strong so that it unnecessarily inhibits innovation, creativity and productivity gains that are the sole source of increasing Americans' standards of living. But while repeating this charge, the reporters gave glancing attention to the fact that it was this Administration that pushed for strengthened regulation and oversight, greater transparency, and housing reform.

"The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market -- even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials -- in particular the chairmen of the banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the president in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Actually, I think the White House went easy on the Times, and on members of Congress like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama by not calling them by name in their response.

Here's a link to the full text of the response.

Update: The White House must have been really pissed. Here's another link to the White House web site in which they engage in a righteous Fisking of the NYT piece, and they do name names.

Too bad not to link

This clip has already been linked all over the 'net, but what the hell...here it is again. I'd have had it up Monday, but I'm traveling this week so time is scarce.

The video is from these guys, and even at nearly 10 minutes in length, it's well worth the time. Watch it and recall what I said about "idjit voters".

The only stupid thing here was Palin-Alaska-Russia quote thing. Pointing to that as an example of voters getting their information from SNL is weak.

Noted Democrat party hack to run for governor in Virgina

May as well pile it on. It looks like former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe will be running next year for governor of our increasingly blue state of Virginia.

McAuliffe could be a canary in the coal mine for the 2010 mid-term elections, at least as far as our fair commonwealth is concerned. If the inevitable disillusionment with Obama has already started to set in McAuliffe may be in for a rough ride. If, however, things are still looking hopey and changey, he'll take it in a landslide.

Val Kilmer for governor of New Mexico?

You're fucking kidding me, right?

"There's sort of a rumor around that I'm maybe thinking about running to be governor of New Mexico?" the paper's Cindy Adams says he told her by cell phone from Bulgaria. "Well, it's sort of true. It's been my home 25 years. I really love my state."

I guess in Obama Nation we've shown not only that race no longer matters, neither does experience or qualifications. I just hope this doesn't signal a trend of more actors seeking elected office. I shudder to think what a Senator Sean Penn or Congressman George Clooney might be like.