Recently in Congressional Shenanigans Category

The Democrats talk a pretty good game about jobs and how they're so supportive of labor. Unfortunately what they don't tell is that their 'support' usually ends up causing labor to lose jobs. And while the Democrats blast the Republicans as being pro-business, it is those businesses that provide jobs for labor, something often overlooked or purposely ignored by them.

Here's an interesting graphic that shows an interesting correlation between which party was the majority in Congress and job growth, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Skip at Granite Grok.

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

December auto sales showed that while GM and Chrysler sales fell, Ford sale increased 33%.

The difference between GM/Chrysler and Ford? That's easy: Ford didn't require any bailout money and therefore, is still a publicly owned and traded company with little debt and independent of the Feds. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are partially owned by the Feds, having received billions in bailout funds, stiffing the bond holders in the process, and handing a portion of GM over to the UAW.

I've been a Mopar man all my life, having owned a number of great Chrysler Corporation cars and trucks, including my present 2000 Dodge Intrepid. But sadly, that love affair has ended. I have a feeling my next car will likely be a Ford, or maybe a Toyota if I can't find a Ford I like (which is unlikely).

It doesn't help either GM or Chrysler that a number of their better performing dealerships were closed at government insistence. If the allegations are true, most of the closed dealership were owned by Republicans (a little payback from the Obama Administration, perhaps?), and some of the surviving dealerships weren't all that good - not having the sales or the good reputation the closed dealerships enjoyed - or in locations that weren't convenient for potential customers.

A comment to a related post over at the Volokh Conspiracy says it all:

I was in a Ford dealership last week, and saw a car on display with a big "NO BAILOUT NEEDED" sign in the windshield. Sounds like they realize it resonates well with customers.

(H/T Instapundit)

First, it was the now-heating-up race for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. Then Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announces he wouldn't be seeking re-election (no doubt because he knew he was going to get his head handed to him in the general election). And now it's Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) pulling the plug as well.

Dems must know it's getting bad when even the Boston Globe is dissing Democrat Senate contender Martha Coakley. GOP candidate Scott Brown's campaign is picking up steam and momentum, closing the gap while Coakley seems content to keep her campaign "in the station". If Brown wins the January 19th special election in Massachusetts, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will have lost his filibuster proof majority and gained yet another senator hostile to ObamaCare. Seeing as Brown has first hand knowledge of the abomination that is MassCare (call it ObamaCare Lite), there's no way he would support a national version of that program.

Even in state government Dems are seeing a fall off. The latest? Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) is ending his re-election campaign. Like Senator Dodd, it appears he realized he would get clobbered in the general election this coming November.

How many others Democrats will decide not to run for re-election by November, knowing they're likely to take a drubbing in the polls?

Only time will tell.

It has become quite apparent that our so-called representatives in both chambers of Congress have ceased to represent us and instead have gone off in a radical direction that will, in the end, cripple America with crushing debt, destroy an imperfect but working health care system that rivals that of any place else on the planet, erode even more of our rights, and create economic roadblocks that will do nothing but further weaken our ability to compete in the world's marketplace. It is the nightmare of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged come to life. With all of this in mind, is it any surprise a large majority of Americans are so angry with Congress and their Leftist Overlord?

We're trying in every way legally and officially possible to make clear that we don't want the radical meal we're being forced to eat. We fervently do not want to "fundamentally transform" America. But there is such a huge disconnect from our world to our representatives'. It's as if we are ghosts whom they can't see or hear! When someone refuses to listen, going so far as to ignore you, don't you shout louder? Doesn't it anger you? When you're attacked and belittled because you have to shout to be heard and you're still ignored, doesn't that infuriate you? These people miss that we passionately don't want what they want. The more they refuse to hear us, the more we try to make them. We are not going away.

We're justly and increasingly angry because our reps not only refuse to hear us, but they also chastise us for wanting to be heard. How else would they expect us to react when we feel so helpless and hopeless? No matter what we want, say, or do, our government is going to force us to eat a meal we never ordered. In addition, we keep saying, "no, we don't want this," but they keep putting affirmations in our mouths and proceeding with their radical agenda anyway. We are not enjoying the governmental rape of our country. We said "no," and "no" means "no" in every language. Why doesn't this matter? Every poll reflects the president's rapidly declining approval rating -- for good reason. And still, Robert Gibbs flippantly dismisses it. How are "we the people" supposed to feel? Certainly we do not feel happy, or even just mildly upset, about being disregarded. Far-left ideologues who supposedly espouse "compassionate" causes have no compassion for how we feel, nor do they have a clue that we are an angry mob of their own creation.

I certainly feel angry, particularly with my Congressional Representative, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), who has shown a penchant for dismissing any of her 'constituents' who do not ascribe to her particular political beliefs. On more than one occasion she is alleged to have referred to those of us non-Democrats living in her Congressional District as not being her constituents. That's funny as I thought everyone living in her district was her constituent, whether we agreed with her politics or not. So much for being our representative. Instead she represents only her own points of view and the hell with the rest of us. (I have a feeling Ms. Shea-Porter will have a very rude awakening come next November when she's booted, bag and baggage, from her seat.)

Obama's falling poll numbers certainly indicate a lot of our anger, particularly when his approval rating after a little over 11 months in office is worse than George W. Bush's after eight years.

Yet there's another twist that might make we angry Americans even angrier: Pelosi and Reid's move to short-circuit the normal conference process, where differences between House and Senate versions of a given bill are hammered out. Instead, reconciling the differences between the two health care reform bills will likely be done behind closed doors, out of the public eye, with little input from members of either house. In other words, the fix will be in.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

Is there any wonder why things like the TEA party movement have been growing? Is there any wonder why confrontations between members of Congress and the public have been becoming more heated and less polite? Why are the Democrats so surprised when far too many of them have been ignoring their constituents back home, ignoring their wishes, ignoring their phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, neither of whom has the best interests of the American people at heart. Instead they have their own Leftist Utopia-driven agenda that has nothing to do with what the American people want or need.

And the anger grows.....

As the picture in this post says, "Do you miss me yet?"

I thought this quote was pretty good:

"I think the point of the comparison is this: Bush endured 8 years of wall-to-wall, 24/7 liberal bashing from multiple networks. Meanwhile, Obama was coronated and has enjoyed wall-to-wall adoration from the same multiple networks. If Obama's numbers, 11 months in, already approach Bush's after EIGHT years, then, baby, you've got serious problems."

Obama's tumbling poll numbers certainly aren't helping his administration, particularly when Democrats are saying they miss Bush.

This does not bode well for the Teleprompter/Teleologist/Apologist-In-Chief.

Could the falling poll numbers be one of the reasons Pelosi and Reid are trying so hard to ram through legislation a majority of Americans don't need, don't want, and don't have the means to pay for?

Is it possible that the much hated Sarbox (Sarbanes-Oxley) law will be struck down by the US Supreme Court? Let's hope so.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was brought in 2006 by Brad Beckstead, whose small Nevada accounting firm endured a costly examination under Sarbox rules. At issue is whether the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which supervises compliance with the law, violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Under the Appointments Clause, all "officers" of the United States must be appointed by the President and accountable to him--a condition PCAOB members do not meet.

(emphasis added - ed.)

--snip--

The PCAOB has indeed grown as a politically unaccountable entity with vast power to regulate business. Texas Senator Phil Gramm warned at its creation that Congress was setting up a board with "massive unchecked power" to "make decisions that affect all accountants and everybody they work for, which directly or indirectly is every breathing person in the country."

Massive is the right word. The accounting board's wide-open mandate--to make whatever rules "may be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors"--has cost the economy nearly $1 trillion, according to a study by AEI and the Brookings Institution. The benefit is supposed to be investor protection. But despite these costs, the law did nothing to warn about the meltdown of mortgage-backed securities, much less expose Bernie Madoff or other fraudsters.

A hastily put together bill created an unsupervised and unchecked regulatory organ with little or no Congressional or Executive oversight with questionable efficacy as well as problematic constitutionality pulling almost $1 trillion out of the economy and we're just supposed to take it?

I don't think so.

Hopefully the Supremes will pull the rug out from underneath Sarbox, a bill that actually did little to 'protect the investor' but added one hell of a burden on to American businesses.

It's time for Sarbox to die.

I have to agree with Eric the Viking on this one: Who's writing Nancy Pelosi's material these days?

"The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it. ... If somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what our national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now -- and their neighbors and their children -- will have jobs, I think they could absorb that, and then we ride it out and bring money in," she said.

She's kidding, right? (Unfortunately, she's not.)

This statement and the others in Eric's post and link shows me three things about our Speaker of the House:

a) She really has little understanding of economics.

b) She really has no idea what motivates average Americans, particularly when it comes to matters economic.

c) She really doesn't care because she knows better than everyone else in the nation, including the very folks she claims she wants to 'help'.

The angry American taxpayers don't want Congress to spend even more money we don't have on more stimulus, health care reform that will reform nothing, or any other dubious and expensive government programs.

Sucking over $1.4 trillion out of the economy (the present budget deficit figure) is not helping the economy in any way, shape, or form. Pulling even more out of the economy with higher deficits and higher taxes in a second effort to 'stimulate' the economy will only make the recession worse. This is something Pelosi, as well as Reid and Obama, do not understand. I find that difficult to believe considering there's plenty of history to show previous attempts to do just that have failed miserably and, in fact, made things worse.

From a comment to this post on Moonbattery:

An Open Letter to "Aye" Voting Senators & Specifically, Kay Hagan - NC

============

With Saturday's vote, you have threatened the ability of every small business in America to maintain their current employment level.

============

The vote was a dishonest cram-down against our need for lower cost & more competitive health insurance, and a lower tax burden to help keep our doors open. A tax credit is of no use, when we are counting our sales each day and each week during the month to meet expenses.

============

Politicians need to understand that we can't print money, we can't ignore expenses and financial obligations, and we don't have access to credit - ANY credit. So while Washington - and Democrats specifically, are BURNING cash with excessive spending, driving down the value of the US dollar, quadrupling the national debt in the first 4 months of this year... Small Business USA, is dying.

============

We are trying to take care of our employees and their families. Your vote,in the name of party unity, for some 1930's goal, was a betrayal of us all.

============

If you wanted ANY public or republican input, it would have been in conference and in deliberations, and there would be PLENTY OF TIME to analyze and refine any bill - in advance, and without any gimmicks.

============

But no, it had to be done in secret. It had to be released at the last minute, with a rushed vote - just like the destructive 'stimulus' bill - on a Saturday night with a minimum of publicity.

============

Don't think you can vote "NO" later and have political coverage. Come January, my employee's health insurance premiums are going to go up, my business and personal taxes are going to go up, and my business, as an ongoing concern, remains uncertain.

============

The healthcare bill should have been fully discussed and deliberated by BOTH democrats and republicans BEFORE it came to a cloture vote. You made my decision tonight.

============

I am either going to have to try to get my employees to voluntarily reduce their hours to 32 per week so they can retain their full time benefits, or I am going to have to let some of them go. I am sick to my stomach.

============

My business is carrying over $ 2.5M in debt and we are struggling to survive. I can't handle any more expense - regardless of your good intentions.

============

For the first time in 8 years, we will not be having an office Christmas lunch. We moved it to Thanksgiving in appreciation of each other and in consolation for the difficulties ahead. It feels like a 'Last Supper', in that we may not be around by next November.

============

Do NOT be surprised when our unemployment rate in North Carolina exceeds 20%. It's nearly there in some counties. Forget about SPENDING and TAXING. The political class is robbing us of our hopes and dreams, and the future looks bleak.

============

All of us EXISTING small business owners IN EVERY COMMUNITY, need a means to refinance our debt with extended terms and/or a lower interest rate AND lower tax burdens. We need to lower our operating costs so we could stretch our sales dollars a little further and maintain the security of our employees.

============

Instead ... we got 2,100 pages of MANDATES, ADDITIONAL TAXES, worthless PROMISES of less spending in the future, MORE bureaucracy and regulations, and a (wink, wink) "debate" to make it better. I can hardly wait. Maybe an additional 1,000 pages will make it better ...

============

Your vote betrayed us all. Want to try for 30% unemployment with Cap n' Trade ???

The only changes made to the comment were for formatting and spelling errors.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

It appears the budget deficit is going to be bigger than either the White House or the Congressional Budget Office had predicted.

That's not surprising considering federal revenues were 18% below projections. At least it didn't surprise me considering Congress and the White House ignored the Law of Diminishing Returns: Once you raise taxes and fees above a certain point the amount of revenue you collect will fall. It's a perfect example of the Laffer Curve in action.

On the other hand government spending hasn't dropped off nearly enough (only about 3%) to make up for the revenue shortfall. I have no doubt Congress will act to correct the problem...by raising more taxes and fees. This will have the effect of causing an even greater falloff in revenue. Congress shouldn't be raising taxes during a deep recession. They also shouldn't be spending money we don't have, either. But I don't expect Congress or the White House to do the necessary things to stem this flood of red ink.

Here in New Hampshire the state is seeing a similar falloff in revenues, being short about $38 million so far. A number of people within the New Hampshire legislature warned that revenue projections were unrealistic, particularly in light of the hefty increase in taxes and fees. This is the second budget cycle where the Democrat dominated legislature overestimated revenues and used those projected revenue figures to increase state spending by amounts that far exceeded the inflation rate. Over four years state spending has increased by 30%, but revenues haven't come anywhere near to covering the larger expenditures.

The state ended it's last budget cycle (New Hampshire has a two-year budget) over $100 million in the red. The legislature still has that budget gap to fill and has been trying to do so by raiding $110 million in surplus insurance premiums being held by the state chartered Joint Underwriting Association, a private organization created by the state to ensure doctors, medical practices, hospitals, and other medical facilities and personnel could get malpractice insurance. So far the state has failed in its attempts to confiscate those funds. A Belknap County judge ruled in a suit filed by the JUA that the state had no rights to those funds because the law that set up the Association states surplus funds must be returned to the policy holders, past and present. The judge also ruled the state had no other claims to the funds because the JUA is a private entity, particularly in light of the fact that no state funds or state personnel are used to administer the Association. The state disagreed and has taken the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

You know it's getting bad when the state legislature figures it can raid private funds to plug a budget gap. I believe that's called theft. Of course the Democrats in the legislature see it as monies being withheld from them by greedy doctors when the state can make far better use of that money. Never mind that state law says otherwise. Never mind that the money isn't theirs to begin with.

It's going to be interesting (in the old Chinese curse definition) to see how the financial situation at the federal and state level will play out.

Update: A number of states are looking at growing revenue shortfalls, with some heading towards bankruptcy because of pension funding obligations and state union contracts that leave them with little wiggle room.

While I'm at it, I might as well add insult to injury in regards to the the recently passed Pelosi Health Care Destruction bill.

While she has crowed her success into forcing the passage of an onerous and deceptive bill the American people don't want, at least one liberal has the courage to state exactly what Pelosi's health care reform legislation is really all about: making the American people more dependent on the US Government against their will...and not for their own good.

[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

"Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?

The answer to this last question is 'no', for Obama's equality has nothing to do with equality of opportunity and everything to do with outcome. We've seen such equality many times, both in the past and present, and it's nothing anyone should aspire to because all it really means is equality of misery.

Everyone will be equal...except of course the ruling elite. Nothing will be denied to them because, after all, they are more equal than the rest of us.

In making health care reform a misplaced priority, he and Pelosi and Reid have shown us what it is they really want to do is to make sure we are all good little proles on the hook to the 'benevolent' dictatorship that is The State. They have come to believe they know what's good for the masses better than we do, therefore they must control every aspect of our lives. Such is their arrogance. But like all statists their beliefs have one major flaw: they are no better at running our lives than they are their own. In fact, they are totally incapable of making our lives better by the means they have been pushing for all these decades. [/rant]

As more than one commenter to the Cassidy piece noted, the last thing we want to do is to be like everyone else.

We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?

Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.

We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?

Here's yet another story about how great ObamaCare/PelosiCare will be for the average American:


Some may say that this example and the one I posted yesterday are atypical of what occurs under Canada's socialized medical care system. But I know far too many friends north of the border that tell me it is all too typical. I've heard the same thing from friends in the UK about the NHS as well.

(H/T Instapundit)

Gateway Pundit quotes Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn):

This 2,000-page bill goes in exactly the wrong direction: it means higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, more debt & huge new health-care costs for state taxpayers. Instead we should start over and go step by step. Specifically, we could start with small business health care plans that would lower premiums, cover up to 1 million new small business employees, and reduce spending on Medicaid.

God help us. My children are inheriting a worse country than I did. I think I may apologize to them like Dennis Prager did to his children in the wake of the LA riots.

From the November 5th issue of Machine Design comes this eye opening observation about our economy, specifically in regards to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

As the official unemployment rate tops 10% in more than one quarter of all states, the hot topic of the day increasingly moves toward how to stimulate more hiring. This is particularly true in states hit the hardest in the economic downturn.

With this in mind, consider the annual trade show put on by the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute last month. Despite the punk economy, show attendance was healthy. Many exhibitors reported a lot of interest in the packaging and food-processing equipment they had on the show floor.

One might wonder why, with manufacturing companies in such terrible shape, makers of food-processing and food-packaging equipment seemed to be doing relatively well. Part of the answer, according to a longtime PMMI board member, is that makers of automation equipment for the food industry are being helped along by recent legislation, but not in the way you might think.

This board member, who has held management positions in the foodprocessing- equipment industry for many years, wasn't referring to stimulus spending. He was alluding to the rise in the minimum wage which took effect this past summer. The food industry is characterized by a significant number of low-wage workers, he points out. In the past, he'd noticed that every increase in the minimum wage resulted in an up-tick of orders for automation equipment designed to eliminate a few more jobs. He figures this past summer's wage hike is shaping up to be no different. Of course, you'll likely never read this explanation for economic activity in newspaper headlines. One suspects that machinery manufacturers asked to publicly explain their improving business conditions tend to avoid giving politically incorrect answers. It is generally unwise to point out that your own good fortunes are partly due to missteps by politicians that have brought misery to others.

(emphasis added - ed.)

Of course it was the politicians in Congress that pushed through the raise in the minimum wage, using the excuse that no one could support a family making the minimum wage as it was before they took action. However, it is rare that anyone making minimum wage is also supporting a family. Such jobs are usually entry level positions for people taking their first jobs. But with the increase of the minimum wage over the past couple of years many of those jobs have disappeared. As illustrated above, when the costs go up employers find ways of cutting costs. Whether that means trimming jobs or replacing personnel with machinery, the end result is the number of jobs at minimum wage shrink.

I have no doubt the members of Congress that ramrodded this change will now claim the decrease in the number of minimum wage jobs is solely the fault of the greedy business owners. But the one thing they constantly overlook is that businesses, particularly small businesses, are not charities. If they don't remain profitable they go out of business, and those working for them will be out of jobs. This is something that seems to have escaped the notice of the Congresscritters when they passed the minimum wage increase legislation.

Professor Russ Roberts of George Mason University gave the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform an earful earlier today when he testified in front of the committee about executive compensation and the serious imbalance that exists in regards to over-the-top compensation given to high level executives of failing or failed firms.

While I have a problem with the government setting the pay scales and other compensations for corporations and financial institutions, Roberts does make a case for reining in giving incompetent or corrupt executives excessive pay and perks while everyone else takes it in the wallet.

Americans are angry about executive compensation.

Rightfully so.

The executives at General Motors and Chrysler don't deserve to make a lot of money. They made bad products that people didn't want to buy.

The executives on Wall Street don't deserve to make a lot of money. They were reckless with other people's money. They made bad bets that didn't pay off. And they wasted trillions of dollars of precious capital, funneling it into housing instead of... a thousand investments more valuable than bigger houses.

Everyday folks who are out of work through no fault of their own want to know why people who made bad decisions not only have a job but a big salary to go with it.

No wonder they're angry at Wall Street.

But if we keep getting angry at Wall Street, we'll miss the real source of the problem. It's right here. In Washington.

We are what we do. Not what we wish to be. Not what we say we are. But what we do. And what we do here in Washington is rescue big companies and rich people from the consequences of their mistakes. When mistakes don't cost you anything, you do more of them.

(Emphasis added - ed.)

For far too long we have taken a path that privatized profits but socialized risks, meaning the risks businesses were willing to take became greater because they knew they really wouldn't have to pay the price if things didn't work out. All we need to do is look at the housing crash, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the string of failed banks holding non-performing loans, mortgages, and mortgage backed securities. And we have Congress to thank for that, Barney Frank's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

The question is, have we learned anything from this? Probably not.

Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk-taking. The losses encourage prudence. Is it a surprise that when the government takes the losses, instead of the investors, that investing gets less prudent? If you always bail out lenders, is it surprising that firms can borrow enormous amounts of money living on the edge of insolvency?

I'm mad at Wall Street. But I'm a lot madder at the people who gave them the keys to drive our economy off the cliff. I'm mad at the people who have taken hundreds of billions of taxpayer money and given it to some of the richest people in human history. I'm mad at Bush and Obama and Paulson and Geithner and Bernanke. And I'm mad at Congress. You made sure that risk-takers continue to expect that the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to people with the right connections.

You have saved the system, but it's not a system worth saving. It's not capitalism but crony capitalism.

And therein lies the problem. If we were truly a capitalistic economy, the meltdown we experienced never would have happened because the banks, investment firms, and mortgage lenders would never have floated the amount of tainted paper that caused it all. They would have been prudent because they knew no one would bail them out, would get canned (without the golden parachute), and possibly go to prison. But the government intervened with "incentives"and gave them a license to be foolish, to push the edge of the envelope, and to waste money that wasn't theirs to begin with. They knew that if they lost it the government would bail them out, which means that we - the taxpayers - would ultimately foot the bill.

While a "pay" czar may sound like it would stop the insanity, it is merely window dressing that does nothing to solve the problem. Dictating what salaries and other perks high level executives will receive may be a sop to those calling for the government to "Do something!", but it doesn't address the underlying cause of the problem: the government itself.

The regulations and laws passed by Congress that forced lending institutions to make loans to people unlikely to pay them back was merely one aspect of what led to the economy into a deep recession. Changes in lending practices at the behest of the government and government guarantees for sub-optimal loans merely added fuel to the fire that was the banking/credit and housing market collapse.

From what I've been hearing, seeing, and reading, Congress seems disinclined to actually do something substantive about it. They will make the appropriate noises, tell the media that they'll be tackling the issue(s), pass some legislation that sounds like it will take care of it but in the end will do very little to actually fix the problem, and then they'll move on to making sure they get re-elected in 2010.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I find it interesting that with all the noise I've been hearing from the Democrats and the rest of the Left about health care reform, not once have I heard any of them mention that we should see about raising the level and quality of medical care, not pulling it down to the lowest common denominator. They like to point to Europe as an example of how it should be done, but all I ever see (and read in a number of publications and medical journals), is how the quality and quantity of care has gone down. But shouldn't we be seeing them trying to catch up to us rather than we trying to pull ourselves down to their level?

The next time you see one of these oh, so morally concerned politicians, academics or book-hustling authors preaching on TV that we really ought to catch up with the rest of the advanced world on health care, talk back to the to the set, shout out that it's mostly lies, and make the opposite case.

The rest of the world ought to catch up with us.

Despite what almost seems a conscious effort to keep the facts properly subdued and tucked out of sight, the truth has been worming its way to the sunshine. Now it's clear, as one example, that longevity is only partially connected to health care in the first place and that when you subtract homicides and accidents, we in America live longer than anyone, despite President Obama's constant reiteration of the reform-encouraging and utterly deceptive thesis that we do not.

We know that our treatments of serious disease produce better outcomes than elsewhere in the world, that everyone can get treatment at least in emergency rooms, that most Americans are satisfied with their care, that insurance net profits are a relatively low 3.3 percent and that the actual number of citizens without access to insurance is closer to 10 million than the 46 million number so often heard. We also know that Medicare and Medicaid have accumulated trillions of dollars in obligations to future recipients that we have no way of paying.

But let us not confuse the issue with anything as mundane as facts. Instead, let us cast all caution into the wind and base the destruction of the American health care system on feelings, something which the Left is very good at doing. They feel it's unfair that not everyone can get the same level of health care, therefore something must be done to ensure egalitarian treatment, even if it means tearing down an effective, though flawed system, and replacing it with something that will come to resemble those like the UK's National Health System, which provides poor care at best. Let us make sure that the incentives to treat ill health will be destroyed and replaced with an "I don't give a s**t, where's my paycheck?" attitude. Let's make sure that all the truly dedicated and effective physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals are driven out of their careers by an ineffective, heartless, compassionless bureaucracy, and let them be replaced with people we wouldn't care to have take care of our pets, let alone our loved ones. (You think it won't happen? Then take a look in countries where many of the truly gifted health care professions went after their governments 'saved' health care. Or better yet, look at how many medical practices no longer take Medicare or Medicaid because of the exorbitant costs of providing care versus what they are paid for said care. It's a losing proposition.)

Health care 'reform' is something that must be handled carefully, with logic, reason, and in the end, an eye on the economics of reform. It must not be based on emotion or some fantasy egalitarian 'ideal' that can never be achieved unless countless millions are made to suffer because the government says they must, all in the name of equality.

It appears Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1)has caught a bad case of history revisionism.

While decrying the tone and tenor of a number of town hall meetings around the nation and the mood of the electorate, it appears she's forgotten some of her appearances at similar events before she was elected to the House of Representatives.

At one particular event that took place back in 2005, she and another woman were removed from event by Portsmouth police officers. But she denies she and her friend were ever asked to leave.

Two officers of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Police Department removed Carol Shea-Porter and Susan Mayer from a February 2005 town hall event hosted by then-President George W. Bush at the request of the owner of the property, a spokesman for the Police Department tells NowHampshire.com.

The revelation contradicts statements made by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter as recently as this week that she was not removed from the event.

"[T]here were no disruptions and no rudeness and I wasn't removed. If it happened, don't you think there would have been photos or video or news stories from that day? There aren't because it didn't happen," Shea-Porter told the Portsmouth Herald this weekend.

According to Capt. Tim Brownell, who responded to a Freedom of Information request from NowHampshire.com, Detective Sergeant Michael Ronchi and Detective Tom Grella removed the two women from the Pan Am hanger of the Portsmouth International Airport in Portsmouth, NH after being asked to do so by a representative of Pan Am.

You mean she lied about what happened? Say it ain't so!

But wait, there's more!

"My friend (Mayer) and I sat respectfully and quietly though the whole event. After it was over and we were leaving, I was grabbed by someone, a thug," Shea-Porter the Portsmouth Herald this weekend. "My friend told the person to stop grabbing me and he let go. It may have been a security person, but to this day we don't who it was. I was there, so I know what I'm talking about."

Capt. Brownell declined to comment on Shea-Porter's characterization of the officers involved in the incident as "thugs". But not all members of the law enforcement community were silent. Retired Manchester Police Sergeant Lloyd Doughty reacted with astonishment.

"For someone of her stature, as an elected official, to say that about members of law enforcement is so distasteful and so disrespectful I can't even think of a word that describes how I feel. It's ridiculous," Doughty told NowHampshire.com.

So police officers doing their jobs are "thugs"?

Let's remind ourselves where Carol Shea-Porter stands on a number of issues, some which I've covered before: the only people allowed to protest are those who agree with Carol Shea-Porter and are against anything Republican; those of us within her Congressional district that did not vote for her are not her constituents; she holds the Blue Star and Gold Star Mothers of New Hampshire in contempt; town hall meetings are only for those of her constituents that agree with her; she's afraid to face any us that may not agree with her leftist philosophy in an open town hall meeting where we can actually ask her questions; she thinks police officers are "thugs"; and she walks lock step with Nancy "Tea Party protesters are Nazis" Pelosi.

I can't wait until 2010 when we can finally fire her.

This was stolen shamelessly in its entirety from Maggie's Farm. It was too good to just link it. (The only changes made were in formatting and one or two minor spelling error corrections.)

I do not think it's so much because people want freedom and choice (although they do) as it is because people have no confidence in government entitlement programs (which the Dem plans are all about, ultimately). Why?

Social Security - bankrupt
Postal Service - bankrupt
Welfare - had devastating unintended consequences for which the nation still pays and from which the nation continues to suffer (eg huge rates - up to 70% - of single motherhood among beneficiaries)
Medicare - bankrupt
Medicaid - bankrupting the states
Government-run (ie union-controlled) schools: are people thrilled with them?
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac - bankrupt
The "stimulus" - a failure, but it did create 25,000 new government jobs!

The future tax consequences of the above are daunting to people, and the idea of adding another trillion or so frightens the heck out of people who are thinking about their own well-being, their kids' futures - and also about the nation's.

The sad thing is that most of what people complain about in health care can be easily solved without giant government controls and bureaucracies:

1. Permit interstate competition among insurance companies so people can have a wide range of choices of types of policies including cheap major medical which is what makes sense for most people, and explain the basic fact that medical care has to be paid for, and even saved for, same as car repairs and house repairs and vacations (and legal costs). That is what grown-ups do. You can get major medical for a family for the price of a big-screen TV.
2. Portability of insurance - so you own it (that is complicated tho for companies that self-insure)
3. A law that says you cannot be canceled if you get sick
4. State "pools" for the uninsurable, same as for uninsurable drivers. We already have (bankrupt) Medicaid for the poor.

How easy and non-controversial would those changes be? Abundant, high quality, and fairly expensive medical care is one of the great blessings and privileges of a prosperous society, and thus an important economic engine. Why kill it? People want these things.

Do Americans want to be grown-ups, or children? It's our call.

The Barrister also suggests we contact our Senators and House Representatives and let them know our views on the Democrat health care reform plans. I have already done so and my congresscritter, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), has made it quite clear she doesn't give a damn what I think. The same is true of one of our two senators, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). But that doesn't mean I won't stop contacting their offices (I use snail-mail rather than e-mail because it's too easy to hit the Delete key), and let them know my thoughts on various issues and legislation.

It's bad enough Congress was complicit in part for making the housing meltdown a reality. Now they want to do it again.

(Remember the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting the results to be different this time.)

...[F]ew people noticed a hearing with an exceedingly boring title -- "Proposals to Enhance the Community Reinvestment Act" -- held last week in the House Financial Services Committee. But the session marked a key moment in the ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats over what caused our current financial woes -- and how we might best avoid getting into the same trouble again.

At the hearing, and in others across Capitol Hill, Democratic majorities are pressing hard to expand some of the very policies that led to the reckless home lending that in turn helped lead to the great financial meltdown. If Chairman Barney Frank and his fellow Democrats have their way, we'll do it all again -- and more.

At issue last week was H.R. 1479, the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. It would expand and strengthen the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to make loans in low-income areas that many lenders had traditionally shunned.

The same legislation that forced banks to lend to borrowers incapable of repaying the loans is now being 'enhanced' to force banks to do even more of this kind of lending? If that isn't an example of fiscal insanity, I don't know what is.

Back in 2003 and again in 2007, President Bush tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-created financial organizations, because he believed they were getting in over their heads. Barney Frank, the same Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, blocked any attempts to do that, stating on more than one occasion that they were fiscally sound and required no such efforts.

He was wrong.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backed the irresponsible loans the banks were forced to make by taking them off the bank's hands and repackaging them, in effect collecting most of the risky home loans and holding on to them or repackaging them as mortgage backed securities. When these home loans stopped performing, as they were destined to do, both financial organizations failed and billions of dollars were lost in the financial markets and billions of dollars worth of real estate was foreclosed upon, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag.

Now these congressional idiots want to the same thing...again.

Do they really believe that this time there won't be a housing market collapse when banks are forced to give even more home loans to people incapable of paying them back?