Thomas Lifson A host of states -- California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon -- are planning to raise taxes on their richest inhabitants in order to overcome the consequences of overspending. Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore demonstrate the futility of this plan in today's Wall Street Journal:
It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states. ...
The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities. ...
We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.
I am not optimistic that the California Legislature will read and understand the many studies which confirm these findings. Already, one of my best friends here in the Bay Area is decamping for Texas. I am sure he will have plenty of company. Maybe me, sooner or later.
Hat tip: Susan L.
Update -- Rosslyn Smith writes:
It is happening elsewhere. Cook County Illinois has some of the highest sales and property taxes around. According to this story it has lost population while the population of some of the collar counties has boomed. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=294149
Randall Hoven Europe is in its deepest recession since World War II, so reports the UK's Telegraph .
"German economic policy is ‘bankrupt,' economists have said. The declaration was made as it emerged that Europe's biggest economy has now suffered a worse ‘lost decade' than Japan and is deeper in recession than any other major economy. On a day of dismal news for the European economy, official figures also showed that Italy, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands are facing their biggest combined slump in post-war history."
Eurostat provides the raw data. Here are real GDP growth numbers for some selected countries and averages for the latest quarter (1st quarter of 2009, or January through March).
From Previous Quarter From Previous Year
Austria -2.8% -2.9%
Belgium -1.6 -3.0
France -1.2 -3.2
Germany -3.8 -6.9
Italy -2.4 -5.9
Netherlands -2.8 -4.5
Portugal -1.5 -3.7
Spain -1.8 -2.9
UK -1.9 -4.1
Europe (EU27) -2.5 -4.4
US -1.6 -2.6
Do you notice anything funny about these numbers? Here is what I notice: the recession in the US is milder than that of Europe. Every country on this list had more economic shrinkage from 2008 to 2009 (Q1 to Q1) than did the US.
How could this be? Did they all have George Bush for President? Did they all succumb to free market ideology in the last eight years? Did they all repeal part of Glass-Steagall? Did they all spend wildly on an unnecessary war in Iraq? Did they all bankrupt themselves with out-of-control defense spending?
Perhaps we need to look deeper, into the last eight years, in order to discover how bad President Bush was. Here are the average GDP growth rates over the last eight full years.
Ave. GDP Growth, 2001-2008
Austria 1.5%
Belgium 1.3
France 1.1
Germany 0.4
Italy 0.1
Netherlands 1.3
Portugal 0.3
Spain 2.3
UK 1.6
Europe (EU27) 1.2
Japan 0.6
US 1.7
Well I'll be darned. With the minor exception of Spain, the US did better than all these countries over the last eight years as well.
What could it be? Could it be possible that Bush was not the cause of our global economic meltdown? Could it be possible that the economic illness spread from Europe to the US, rather than vice versa?
Could we have the whole thing wrong?
Whatever it is, I'm sure if our government does what it did in the 1930's -- raises taxes, spends more, regulates more, restricts trade, and "fine tunes" monetary policy -- we will get through this just fine. Just like we did then. I think we're seeing the results already.
Nope, not at all. But my wife and I are positioning ourselves into jobs and careers that will likely survive what's coming. We don't have kids, so we won't have to watch the next generation suffer like others will. I'd like to empathize, but I just can't...not when people made this choice. Now, they'll have to live with the consequences.
You don't have kids? But Toddster said if you don't have kids that you are a self absorbed liberal. Now I'm confused.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's proposed new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon fuel efficiency standard. Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate director, publicly confirmed the new initiative in appearances on morning network news shows, calling it a "truly historic" occasion and saying that such tougher environmental standards have been "long overdue." The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said, speaking anonymously ahead of the announcement. New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said. The plan still must clear regulatory hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers appear to be in support. Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700 for mileage standards that had already been approved. The comprehensive Obama plan would add another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said. The extra miles would come at roughly a 5 percent increase each year. By the time the plan takes full effect, at the end of 2016, new vehicles would cost an extra $1,300. That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections. "We worked very, very closely with all the car companies, with California, with the environmental groups," Browner said Tuesday. "Historically, the program was a fleet average," said Browner, who headed the EPA during the Clinton administration. "What we're doing here is proposing standards for every category of car." Browner said the administration worked closely with the industry on this issue. "What they told us over and over again," she said, "was they wanted to make more fuel-efficient, they wanted to make cleaner cars and what they needed was the government to give them predictability and certainty so that they could make the investments toward cleaner cars." In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond. The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment. The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion. But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade. Auto executives, including General Motors Corp. CEO Fritz Henderson, and executives from Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler AG and others planned to attend the White House event. United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger also planned to attend, as did Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Browner was interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America."
How long before they find a way to get our dirty, polluting, global warming inducing cars off the road?
We completely understand your opinion on our oil dependence. You don't have kids, so you won't have to watch them go fight a war for oil like others will.
We completely understand your opinion on our oil dependence. You don't have kids, so you won't have to watch them go fight a war for oil like others will.
I won't have to watch the kids fight a war either. Because hopefully we will DRILL OUR OWN like we should be doing NOW. While we're on the subject, would you mind telling me what war(s) we've fought "for oil" and how much oil we got?
We completely understand your opinion on our oil dependence. You don't have kids, so you won't have to watch them go fight a war for oil like others will.
using less oil != not using oil
the only way to fix our dependence on oil is to stop using it, end of story.
We completely understand your opinion on our oil dependence. You don't have kids, so you won't have to watch them go fight a war for oil like others will.
True. No need for oil if you can't afford anything that's made from it. No need for oil if you don't have a job and can't afford a car anyway. And no need to worry about stability of an oil producing region if you don't have anything to gain or lose. That's probably why the South American headhunter tribes don't care much about the middle east.
We completely understand your opinion on our oil dependence. You don't have kids, so you won't have to watch them go fight a war for oil like others will.
Typical Tigger. Skip over all the relevant stuff, like the fact that we all own oil (gas) burning cars NOW, and that most of us would like to keep them running for the foreseeable future, and go right off on a tangent.
How long before they find a way to get our dirty, polluting, global warming inducing cars off the road?
There's probably going to be a new fee for registering old cars. This fee will get higher as the car gets older, to the point where many can't afford to register an old car. They'll combine that with subsidies for the freeloaders, so that they can "buy" a new car. This will fit in nicely with their plan for Government Motors.
WASHINGTON – In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba. The president readied a speech for Thursday on the U.S. fight against terrorism, at a time when liberals have chafed at some of his decisions. Obama has vowed to close the prison by January 2010, and the Senate's vote was not the final word on the matter. It will be next month at the earliest before Congress completes work on the legislation, giving the White House time pursue a compromise that would allow the president to fulfill his pledge. But Obama's maneuvering room was further constrained during the day when FBI Director Robert Mueller told a congressional panel that he had concerns about bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to prisons in the United States. Among the risks is "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States," said Mueller, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and is serving a 10-year fixed term in office. Additionally, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled this week that some prisoners — but not all — can be held indefinitely at Guantanamo without being charged, thus increasing the pressure on the administration to develop a plan for the men held there. After the Senate vote, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president understands that his most important job is to keep the American people safe and that he is not going to make any decision or any judgment that imperils the safety of the American people." He added Obama has not yet decided where some of the detainees will be sent. A presidential commission is studying the issue. There was no suspense in the moments leading to the Senate vote, although Democrats maneuvered to take political credit for denying Obama funds he sought to close the prison. They hoped to negate weeks of Republican warnings about the danger involved. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, favors closing Guantanamo, and the legislation his panel originally sent to the floor provided money for that purpose once the administration submitted a plan for the shutdown. In changing course and seeking to delete the funds, he said, "The fact that the administration has not offered a workable plan at this point made that decision rather easy." All six opponents of the proposal were Democrats, including Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The administration asked for $80 million to close the facility. Obama promised repeatedly as a presidential candidate to shut down the prison, calling it a blot on the international image of the United States. Even in voting to deny him the funds, Obama's Democratic allies insisted the president was fundamentally correct. "Guantanamo is used by al-Qaida as a symbol of American abuse of Muslims and is fanning the flames of anti-Americanism around the world," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had said on Tuesday he opposed allowing detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons, signaled he might change his mind on that point. "If the administration proposes a plan that recommends the transfer of some detainees to American prisons, he will evaluate it carefully and make a judgment at that time," said spokesman Jim Manley. The lopsided vote was a victory for the Senate Republicans, who have recently turned their attention to Obama's policies on foreign policy and terrorism after failing to make headway in criticizing his economic program. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has delivered numerous speeches in recent weeks raising pointed questions about Obama's plans to close the prison without first explaining where the men held there would be sent. "For months, we have been saying what Senate Democrats now acknowledge: that because the administration has no plan for what to do with the 240 detainees at Guantanamo, it would be irresponsible and dangerous for the Senate to appropriate the money to close it," McConnell said shortly before the vote. The Republican leader also won approval for a separate terror-related provision later in the day. On a vote of 92-3, the Senate agreed to require the administration, before releasing any detainee, to inform Congress of the likelihood that he would return to terrorism. It also would report on any effort al-Qaida may be making to recruit detainees once they're released from U.S. custody. Obama came to office pledging a dramatic change in George W. Bush's terrorism policy. In the months since, he has woven an uncertain course, occasionally angering liberals. He first backed the cancellation of military tribunals for prisoners, then announced he wanted them resumed with greater legal protections for the accused. Last week, he reversed course on another issue, deciding to appeal a court-ordered release of prisoner-abuse photos taken at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Several Republicans praised Obama for those very steps. "I commend him for being very willing to change his opinion in light of having access to the intelligence he didn't have access to" as a candidate, said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. FBI Director Mueller made his comments before the House Judiciary Committee. Prodded by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., to agree that Guantanamo detainees could be kept safely in maximum security prisoners in the United States, Mueller declined. He noted that in some instances gang leaders have run their gangs from inside prisons. If Reid has appeared equivocal on the possible transfer of prisoners, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-in-command among Democrats, pointed out that no one has ever escaped from a federal "supermax" prison and that 347 convicted terrorists are among those held in them. That drew some support from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational," he said. Not all Republicans were thinking along the same lines. "No good purpose is served by allowing known terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come to the U.S. and live among us," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. "Guantanamo Bay was never meant to be an Ellis Island."
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained…"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute...”
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued. "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained…"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute...”
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued. "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
Many Obama voters now expect the President to pull utopia out of his magician's hat. What will they do when the hat turns out to be empty?
In the dream, the magician came on stage amid a robust round of applause. He took the magician's hat off the table and showed the audience it was empty inside. Then to everyone's amazement he pulled a rabbit from the hat. "That was nothing," he said. The audience waited as the magician put his hand deep into the hat. Then suddenly out came; Free health care for all! No waiting, no horror stories, everyone will be taken care of and no one will pay.
Next, he pulled out a blue box. When the box opened, money poured out endlessly. The cover of the box read, "The fair share of the rich." Next, he pulled out a yellow box with a peace symbol on the top. Out of this box came flowers and birds and magic words which when spoken brought about universal peace and changed enemies into friends. Next came a green box, which when opened became a pristine garden of Eden, untouched by man. Item after item came from the magic hat, no more hard work, no more pain, no more tough decisions, no more disagreements, no war, no blood, no more "evil" businessmen, no bothersome people with rational arguments.
The young dreamer awoke from his dream with excitement. He rushed to turn on the TV to see what his new President had pulled from the magic hat. To his disappointment, the hat was empty today, though the commentator said he still believed. He called his conservative friends to complain that they were preventing the President from using his magic hat.
Of course, the magic hat will never work. The utopian dreams of the far left are incompatible with reality. These dreams are nothing more than fantasy. Fantasies can only be brought about by magic, not wishful thinking. In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, John Galt describes the mystics' belief in wishing:
...in their non-material, non-profit world, they travel from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: ‘How?' - they answer with righteous scorn that a ‘how' is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is ‘Somehow.' On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions rewards are achieved by wishing.
Such wishing is described in Randall Hoven's excellent article:
The common theme of the wishful thinking method (aka "hope") is that there never need be a tradeoff. There is always some other method, one never before tried, of dealing with life's problems. And funny thing: only Democrats seem to have these methods.
Voters are encouraged to believe in the magic methods by subtle hints and murky slogans, such as the recent "change" theme. The "Change" signs held up by Obama supporters in the campaign could just as easily have read "Magic." The magician is never mentioned but is always assumed somewhere offstage.
Time will drag on and the stuff will never come out of the magic hat. What will the Obama supporters do then? Substitute "utopia" for "prophecy" in the following quote about when prophecy fails:
You might also think that followers would decide they'd been fooled and rebel. More often, however, the failed prophecy actually makes their belief stronger. In the case of cults, members have invested their money, time, lives, and sometimes even children in the cult leader. It's very difficult to suddenly reject all that, since their very identity is often linked to the beliefs.
Most likely, the true believers will find a reason utopia didn't appear, like we didn't let them have enough of our money. They will find someone else to hate. The statist ideologue believes it is some else's fault. As Mark Levin says in Liberty and Tyranny:
The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it.
So, it will be those nasty people on American Thinker who thwarted the magician. Don't count on the true believers to suddenly be rational when voting in 2010 or 2012. But true believers are not the majority. There will be many disgusted, dispirited, and disappointed people (who can see the hat is empty) voting differently next time, and hopefully the magicians will be booted off the stage.
Many Obama voters now expect the President to pull utopia out of his magician's hat. What will they do when the hat turns out to be empty?
In the dream, the magician came on stage amid a robust round of applause. He took the magician's hat off the table and showed the audience it was empty inside. Then to everyone's amazement he pulled a rabbit from the hat. "That was nothing," he said. The audience waited as the magician put his hand deep into the hat. Then suddenly out came; Free health care for all! No waiting, no horror stories, everyone will be taken care of and no one will pay.
President Obama bad mouthing "tax shelters" overseas was a blunder. The common business practice in other countries that allows for the free flow of capital around the world may seem "unfair" to our president but others don't quite see it that way.
Take British banks, for instance. They do not plan to sit idly by while Obama trashes their business. This piece in the Telegraph by Louise Armistead shows what the big banks in Britain plan to do about it:
The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.
Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."
One executive at a top UK bank who didn't want to be named for fear of angering the IRS said: "It's just about manageable under the current system - and that's because we're big. The danger to us is suddenly being hauled over the coals by the IRS for a client that hasn't paid proper taxes. The audit costs will soar. We'll have to pay it but I know plenty of smaller players won't."
Does the president have a clue that actions are never taken in a vacuum, that there is a possibility that American companies and individuals will actually be injured by his desire to soak the rich?
The Brits have no illusions about tangling with the IRS which means other foreign banks won't either. All it will end up doing is making us more uncompetitive in the financial world.
This is scary. If Obama is willing to chastise N. Korea over this, this situation may very well get out of hand quick. It could escalate into full blown disapproval. That's it. I'm building a rhetoric shelter in the back yard.
Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly? Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly? Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 24, 2009 at 18:41:00 [General] Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics , Eagle Eye Tags:Barack Obama, CIA, Condoleezza Rice, dick cheney, waterboarding
If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that - once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.
President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.
President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Repeated for emphasis, because it's so relevant...
"Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail."
It seemed Barack Obama, in his charmed existence, had never heard the word "No". Suddenly, he is hearing little else. More surprisingly, he is hearing it from Democrats as well as Republicans. Most recently, the Senate has refused to give him the $80 million he asked for to cover the costs of closing down the Guantanamo facility and relocating its inmates elsewhere.
Obviously $80 million is a trifling sum for a president who disposed of trillions in less than 100 days in office and who has lately gone into the car-manufacturing business. The Senate, however, was not being parsimonious, but politically cautious. There is no hotter potato in American politics than the question of where former Guantanamo detainees are to be housed and senators have no intention of getting on the wrong side of Joe Public on so controversial an issue.
Republicans have drawn a line in the sand by insisting that none of the 240 detainees must be relocated to prisons on mainland America. The Democrats nominally reject that position: "God knows we have the facilities that can house them safely and apart from anyone's neighbourhood, community or anything else," insisted Dianne Feinstein, Democrat chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
But she too joined with Republicans in insisting the President spell out the exact proposals for closing Guantanamo before requesting money ("The money was sought prematurely"). She admitted the issue was problematic: "It's a problem because it gets people upset." But Majority Leader Harry Reid broke ranks with Feinstein by stating bluntly of the Guantanamo inmates: "We don't want them around."
The Democrats will now combine with the Republicans in placing restrictions on a war-funding measure for Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure money cannot be diverted to closing Guantanamo. The GOP has successfully crusaded against the Guantanamo closure and has scored a significant success in manipulating Democrat senators into de facto support for their position and against Obama's policy.
With Obama reintroducing military tribunals last week and now being denied the funds to close Guantanamo, one of his key grandstanding liberal initiatives is unravelling. Add to that his U-turn on authorising publication of "torture" photographs, followed by his car-crash visit to Notre Dame University and his image of invulnerability is looking distinctly battered. Factor in the Supreme Court ruling that Bush officials cannot be prosecuted for permitting alleged ill-treatment of Javaid Iqbal and it is evident the wheels have come off the chariot of leftist revenge.
In terms of Middle America, that may actually be a relief to Obama: trials of Bush-era officials would not have played well in Peoria. But for America's extreme Left whose chief characteristic, like the Left everywhere, is rampant paranoia, this adds to the impression of "betrayal". Extremists always suspected Obama's New Order was too good to be real and these disappointments are confirming that suspicion and triggering disillusionment.
In fact, Obama is every bit as extreme as they hoped: it is simply that he is finally confronting political realities and the limitations on even his power. Messiahs who fail to deliver get short shrift from their disciples. With considerably more than 1,000 days to run, the Obama farce could get very funny indeed.
I just heard a guy on tv say all but 1 of the closed Chrysler dealers belonged to republican contributes. I thought that was BS but it seems to be mostly true. And at the same time heavy dem contributors have had their competition eliminated.
I just heard a guy on tv say all but 1 of the closed Chrysler dealers belonged to republican contributes. I thought that was BS but it seems to be mostly true. And at the same time heavy dem contributors have had their competition eliminated.
Many of us have friends, family and colleagues who still cling to liberalism, and worship at the Obama altar. Usually, they are not bad people. They're neither stupid nor pusillanimous -- they're just shockingly ill-informed, having received a lifetime of news and opinions solely from the liberal media.
We want to enlighten our friends, not offend them, and the fact is that one cannot simultaneously insult and persuade people. Ann Coulter, author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter, is an entertainer -- and a good one, too -- but she is not a persuasive advocate of conservative principles for those who are not already true believers.
So how do you talk to liberals if you want them to begin thinking logically, not emotionally, about issues? Insults are counterproductive, factual barrages are boring, and most people get defensive when they feel you're attacking their values. Nevertheless, here are a few ways to find the chink in a liberal's intellectual armor and, possibly, effect a sea change in his thinking.
1. Understand what a liberal perceives as insulting -- and then avoid it.
We're all agreed that people are going to shut down if you start a conversation by calling them blithering idiots. In any event, you're too nice a person to call your family, friends and colleagues names.
Be aware, though, that, with liberals, personal insults don't stop with the actual person (or his mother). For liberals, the political is personal. This means that liberals will take it as a personal insult, not only if you call them morons, but also if you call their leaders morons.
While conservatives spent eight years hearing "Bush lied, people died" or "Cheney is evil", responding with reasoned facts aimed at real dialogue, even the nicest liberals don't operate that way. If you open a conversation by saying, "Pelosi is an idiot," or "Obama is the Manchurian candidate," you can expect tears, yelling or a punch in the nose. Any persuasive conversation will be over before it's begun.
2. Show that you are sympathetic to the liberal's goals.
The best way to start a conversation with a liberal is by speaking liberal language. Show that you think that the person's ultimate goal is admirable or that you recognize the person's concerns.
A perfect conversation starter might be "Gosh, universal healthcare would really be great." The beauty of this statement is that, in a perfect Star Trek-style world, free of money and greed, it's true that free, comprehensive healthcare, preferably with Dr. Beverly Crusher's magical little tricorder device, would be great. It would also be really great if all men looked like Dave Beckham or all women like looked like Angelina Jolie. It'll never happen, but it sure would be great.
Another honest conversation starter is "My kids are really worried about global warming." If your kids go to public school, this statement is absolutely true. It also implies, without actually saying so, that you, like all liberals, recognize that humans, especially American, are responsible for the imminent destruction of earth's atmosphere.
With conversation starters such as these, your average liberal will begin the conversation by agreeing with you -- and, as every con man knows, you want the mark to get used to saying "yes" to you. Interestingly, what works for con men can also work for honest brokers. It's a good technique, so use it.
3. Provide the liberal with facts from non-threatening sources.
In many conversations over the years, I've discovered that my liberal friends don't have many politically relevant facts at their finger tips. Liberals know, for example, that "prisoners were waterboarded at Gitmo." The details behind this ultimate fact tend to elude them. Most don't realize that only three high level Al Qaeda operatives were ever waterboarded. Nor do they know that the waterboarding took place in the immediate wake of 9/11, when we had almost no information about Al Qaeda's networks and feared an imminent, and even greater, second attack.
Mostly, though, liberals know conclusions, which they erroneously identify as facts. For example, they know that huge numbers of Americans have no medical care; they know that Obama was a top student at every school he attended; and despite their support for the military, they know that most American troops are ill-educated, violent hicks. As it happens, each of these statements is factually wrong (see here, here and here) and, instead, reflects only an emotional conclusion.
In any conversation with a liberal, therefore, you need to get out the facts. But remember: In pursuit of this goal, attribution is everything. Never say to a liberal that you heard something on Rush's show. This is true even if the fact originated with a liberal Rush was interviewing. Mention Rush and your conversation is over. Finito. Done. Your liberal will shut down.
Instead, always attribute your fact to a comforting source. I like to say, "You know, I read in the New York Times that [insert actual fact]." The beauty of this approach is that the fact may often be found in the New York Times, although it will have been buried in a squiblet at the bottom of page B32, where no one looks. If your friends googles your fact, voila!, she'll get a link to the Times.
Alternatively, attribute your fact to an unnamed knowledgeable, but unthreatening, source. If you're talking about health insurance, and you want to talk about the cost differential between insurance in Texas (a low regulation state) and California (a high regulation) state, say that you got this information from a claims adjuster you met at a party. You've gained credibility and the curious liberal can later find corroboration on the internet.
4. Don't lecture; instead, seek enlightenment.
When conversing with a liberal, I channel my inner dumb blond. I don't use a barrage of facts, nor do I lecture. Instead, I assert politely that I've learned the fact and then I ask the liberal to explain to me what the fact means. I do this even if I know perfectly well what the fact means. (And yes, women can do this more easily than men.)
A good example of this approach in action is universal health care. After you've said, "Gosh, universal healthcare would be really great," you should then follow-up with several "please enlighten me, Oh Great One" questions.
Thus, you might say, "England has managed care doesn't it? It's so funny, but I just read in the New York Times that there's a dentist shortage in England, so people are pulling out their own teeth. Are you sure that won't happen here?" This will either lead to bluster, an insult to British oral hygiene, or a good conversation about how important competition is to entice the best and the brightest into a profession and to keep innovation alive.
Another useful fact/loaded question is this one: "Someone told me that universal health care is kind of like social security -- it works best when there aren't a lot of old people, ‘cause they're the most expensive. I wasn't sure about that. What do you think?" When your liberal starts waffling on, throw into the conversation how you read that, in England, they're discussing euthanizing elderly demented patients, because their care is too expensive.
If you just keep politely throwing in unpleasant facts, followed up by respectful requests for enlightenment, your average liberal will either become tongue-tied, or, if intelligent, work his way through to the correct answer. With managed care, for example, he might conclude that, if you remove all competition and have only one provider, rationing begins, quality plummets, good people pull out of the system, and people suffer and die.
5. Strike when the iron is hot.
To have a successful conversation with a liberal, you need to find an opening that triggers a thought cascade in that particular liberal. Even though liberals are beginning to have buyer's remorse, human nature means they're just as likely to be in denial and defensive as they are to be regretful and receptive. Still there are conversational opportunities, and you must seize them.
I recently visited a die-hard Democrat who had just received her copy of Time Magazine, which had a picture of Michelle Obama on the cover. Now, my friend happens to be very beauty conscious so, in a completely non-hostile way, I scanned the cover and said, "I don't know. She's a nice looking lady, but I don't get why all the news stories keep describing her as beautiful."
I had opened the floodgates. Just like the courtiers in The Emperor's New Clothes, this friend had been trying to convince herself that Michelle was beautiful -- and she couldn't. Finally, though, in response to the media's implicit question of "Who're you going to believe -- me, or your lying eyes?" my friend, with a sigh of relief, could go with her own eyes. I hastened the eye-opening process by showing her Sally Quinn's ridiculous Mother's Day article about Michelle's arms, which left my friend reeling. For the first time ever, my friend is beginning to suspect that she's been had.
6. Don't undo the good you've done.
And if it ever happens that, after you've spoken with a liberal, the liberal actually agrees with you, just be sure to avoid one of the most poisonous phrases in the English language: "I told you so." Instead, quietly agree with your friend's wonderful insights, and have another conversation on another day.
