Tax Battle Update

I'm going to be out of pocket for a few days over the weekend, but here's a jam-packed update on the battle over raising/cutting taxes and the debt limit to tide you over.

Against the backdrop of 64% of small businesses -- which are responsible for something like 70-80% of all jobs in the country -- saying they will not be hiring this year and the Fed Chairman -- Obama's own man -- is still predicting little growth in the forseeable future, I suppose it should be considered a minor victory and first step that even the Democrats have conceded that spending needs to be cut, but since we live in the real world, actions speak louder than words. So how much are the Democrats proposing to cut? Let me remind you of just a few key figures first, to put things into perspective:

• Current national debt: over $14,000,000,000,000
• Current annual deficit: over $1,500,000,000,000
• Dem proposed cut: $2,000,000,000

For the record, that's .1% of the deficit. Missing a few zeros, aren't we, Democrats?

Obama is pushing for a fast deal, probably because he wants the GOP to cave before Democrats have to go home and suffer through another August of rough town hall meetings filled with angry constituents.

In response to the question of how Obama would address the 69% of Americans who oppose raising the debt ceiling again, Obama blithely suggested that they just weren't paying attention, implying that people just aren't smart enough to comprehend the full import of the issue. Then he goes on to set himself up as the only adult in the proverbial room and admonishes Congress to buck up, eat their peas, and do what needs to be done.

Obama's big economic gun, his stimulus, has been judged a complete failure by every objective measure (other than growing government and vastly expanding the national debt). But we've seen time and time again that a true liberal will never let failure or facts stand in their way. Sure enough, now the Obama administration is talking about another stimulus. I ask you in all seriousness: how much more of the Obama administration can America survive?

Unfortunately for Obama, his schtick is pretty transparent. For example, in one recent speech he directly contradicted himself in the space of 9 minutes:

During his press conference today Barack Obama told reporters that nobody’s talking about increasing taxes:

11:22 a.m. ET – @LisaDCNN: OBAMA-TAXES: Nobody has talked about increasing taxes now or next yr. We have talked about closing loopholes in 2013.

Then 9 minutes later told reporters that we need to increase revenues (taxes):

11:31 a.m. ET - “It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that includes trimming benefits and increasing revenues” Obama said. “Reason we have a problem now is people keep avoiding hard things.”

Hey… Somebody has to pay off his debt!
Barack Obama increased the national debt by over $3 trillion in just over 2 years.

And while we're on the subject, isn't it striking that Obama himself decried in 2009 exactly what he's proposing in 2011:

This isn't new. In fact, Democrats and tax increases are practically synonymous. The Wall Street Journal points out just a few of the tax increases that Obama has already implemented:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

And that's all just in Obamacare. Don't forget the tobacco tax increase, the death tax reinstatement, and the proposal to increase the tax rates on every American, too. Tax increases are just the way Democrats roll. Don't be fooled by anything they may say to the contrary, and look at their actions instead.

Perhaps most disgustingly, Obama's latest tax increase is threatening some of the most vulnerable Americans in the process:

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Just one problem with that:

Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) pointed out that the decision to withhold checks “would be a political one” made by the President.

During this morning’s Budget Committee meeting, Congressman Huelskamp asked Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration, to explain how the Obama administration could withhold Social Security checks to American seniors. The question was prompted by a statement by President Obama that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would be mailed August 3, 2011, if Congress fails to increase the debt limit. Yesterday, Congressman Huelskamp issued a statement noting that it is irresponsible for the President to use seniors on Social Security as pawns to leverage his point in the debt limit negotiations.

Mr. Goss told Congressman Huelskamp: “The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive. We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it’s electronic funds, transfers, or check.”

Or, in other words, Obama is willing to shoot his own hostage:

Everyone is using the hostage metaphor these days regarding the debt ceiling. Barack Obama started it back in December when he called the GOP hostage takers before the GOP gave him everything he wanted.

Well, I hope the GOP noticed Barack Obama yesterday upped the ante and declared his willingness to shoot his hostages, i.e. senior citizens. Yes, if the GOP dares to hold the line on spending cuts, Barack Obama will balk, the debt limit will not be raised, and Obama will refuse to pay senior citizens. ...

The President today signaled his willingness to shoot the hostage. The GOP should do the same — show an absolute unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling without their balanced budget amendment passing out of Congress to the states.

Again and again, Congress folds to the doomsday scenarios. The Wall Street Journal again and again claims the sky will fall and the markets will crash. The suits come down from New York and paint the disaster scenario. The GOP falls in line. TARP is passed. What else will be passed?

This time, the GOP should embrace the apocalyptic future, call B.S. on the fear mongering, and shoot their debt ceiling hostage...

If only the GOP could be trusted to have that kind of spine! I'm not the only one who's skeptical of that little detail:

But let's look a little closer at the Republican response to all this. The top Reps in the House and Senate appeared to be in lockstep opposition to Obama's proposals...at first, even to the point of the normally moderate Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offering a scathing rebuke to Obama and claiming that no deal is possible as long as Obama is President. But then...


McConnell offered an inexplicable proposal that triggered a firestorm from the Right:

Mitch McConnell is right now talking about making a historic capitulation. So fearful of being blamed for a default, McConnell is proposing a compromise that lets Barack Obama raise the debt ceiling without making any spending cuts at all. ...

McConnell’s idea is to make the debt ceiling automatic unless Congress, by a 2/3 vote blocks the increase. Oh yes, he put a salve on it by dressing it up in tough talk that, to quote the Wall Street Journal, “[a] ‘eal solution’ to U.S. fiscal problems isn’t possible as long as President Barack Obama remains in office.” So since no “real solution” is possible, McConnell proposes to go Pontius Pilate and wash his hands of spending, blaming Obama while doing nothing himself.

*sigh*

Here's one take on the strategy:

It sounds complicated but it’s not. This achieves two things in one fell swoop: (1) it provides a nearly foolproof mechanism to avoid default armageddon in case the two sides can’t make a deal by August 2, which will reassure markets, and (2) by investing Obama with near-unilateral power to raise the ceiling (it’s not fully unilateral because Congress could, in theory, override him with a 2/3 vote), it makes him almost wholly responsible for the debt hike, which will be a major political liability with the election around the corner and a plurality of voters still more worried about raising the ceiling than letting a default happen. After a month of shrieking from lefty legal experts about how the Fourteenth Amendment supposedly lets O ignore the ceiling, here’s McConnell calling their bluff. You want to own America’s debt problem? Enjoy.

Okay, I get that, I really do. It seems like some really good triangulation. The obvious problem, in my humble opinion, is that no triangulation is needed here. Every American with a quarter of a functioning brain understands that we have serious economic issues, that Obama is a reckless spender with nothing to show for two years of liberal spending policies except vast new amounts of debt, and that the fiscal sanity desperately needs to be restored fast.

Oh, and did I mention that the American people oppose raising the debt ceiling by a factor of 2 to 1?

You see, triangulation and fallback positions are all fine and good when you have no good options, but that's not where the Republicans in Congress currently stand. Quite the opposite: they have all the leverage! Rush Limbaugh sums it up:

About this time yesterday we quoted Senator Mitch McConnell as saying nothing substantive will ever get done in this country until Barack Obama is removed from the Oval Office. As long as Obama's in the Oval Office nothing is gonna get done. All right, fine. And I said I don't know how you walk that back. But he did. I sat here and I mean we were ladling praise out. We're just not used to hearing Republicans talk that way. ...

But you go out and make that really powerful statement, which has the added benefit of being true. We're not gonna get anything seriously accomplished as long as he's in the Oval Office, as long as he's president. Gotta be defeated. And then a few hours later after not telling anybody, you submit a plan without running it by your colleagues, and everybody is asking of me what I think of this. The number one problem I have with it has nothing to do with its substance. There's some problems I had, but it shows weakness. My gosh, we've got Obama and the Democrats predictably following every page in their playbook, knowing exactly what they're gonna do before they do it, scaring senior citizens, and the minute they come out with that, here's this proposal that basically shows panic. To me it reeked of a lack of resolve. I think Obama needed to think that these Republicans were serious about taking this to the end and now he knows that they're not. Now he knows the Republicans are not united on that concept. Now he knows that there are Republicans who'd like to do anything to avoid being blamed for this.

Look, the plan's got its positive aspects. If you want we can go through it. It's got its positive aspects. But I just don't see the need for it right now. I was shocked when this thing hit. It's got a lot of procedural rigmarole in it, but it seems to be calculated in a way -- and this is my main problem with it -- to escape responsibility. It seems like the objective here was to come up with a way that would allow the Republicans to blame Obama for once, which is a waste of time. As long as the Democrats control the media like they do, Obama is never going to be portrayed as the problem in a back-and-forth with the Republicans, I don't care what happens. The people that the Republicans care about, apparently, the media and the ruling class in Washington is never, ever going to end up blaming Obama for this, particularly the media as long as they control the press like they do. They're always gonna portray the Republicans as obstructionist and extremists no matter what they do or don't do.

You know, this is pedal to the metal time. It's time we swallowed the pill and take our medicine. Why come up with a plan that allows Obama to raise the debt ceiling three more times before he leaves office? I know it puts the onus on him and so forth, "Oh, yeah, Obama raised the debt ceiling." Why cede that kind of power just to try to illustrate to everybody that he's the big spender. Look at the public polling data. Everybody knows that Obama's the problem on this. He doesn't have majority support on anything he's doing right now and everybody knows that the media's gonna try to blame the Republicans, everybody knows this was coming down the pike. Everybody knew that the same old same old was gonna happen, meaning Republicans hate senior citizens and want them to die, and the military, Republicans really don't care, all they care about is their corporate jet guys. Come on. You know it's gonna happen, and to react this way to it out of nowhere, I don't know, depressed me.

... Obama in this deal gets two and a half trillion dollars more borrowed money in exchange for future spending cuts that will be chosen by the Democrat Senate. When I saw that Harry Reid consulted on this and liked it, and when I saw that Chuck Schumer liked it, when I saw that Durbin liked it, when I saw that Pelosi liked it, I said, whoa. Now, the plan does allow the Republicans to go on record as voting for their own cuts. It does do that. And it allows the Republicans to escape blame if those cuts never happen. It does throw all the onus on Obama. But who's gonna care, who's gonna remember in the future anyway? ... The blame game and trying to escape it is not the point. Stopping spending is the point. Stopping Obama from doing any more damage is the point, not constructing things so the party doesn't get blamed.

That's the thing that is so maddeningly infuriating to me about so many elected Republicans. They're right on this issue. Obama and the Democrats are wrong. Everyone knows that. They've had their way and it's been proven wrong beyond doubt. The American people are the gale-force winds behind the GOP on both the short-term issue of not raising the debt limit without deep tax cuts, as well as the long-term issue of reigning in reckless spending, reducing debt, and actually getting our economy on the road to genuine recovery.

And yet, these $(#@Q$(* idiots are more worried about who takes the blame just in case. It's unbelievable, and the backlash is growing fast. I also don't think that most elected Reps understand the tenuous grip they have on power right now. I firmly believe that a huge chunk of the American people are spoiling for a fight, and begging for Republicans to take that fight to Obama and the Democrats. If they fail to prove their willingness and ability to fight that fight, I think there is a very real danger that the so-called Tea Party will split from the traditional Republican party and form its own party. While that might satisfy those seeking ideological purity, it will also split the political Right, guaranteeing Democrat victory despite having every electoral advantage going into 2012.

Those are the puzzle pieces, and the stakes are the economic future of America. Some good old-fashioned grass roots pressure directed toward your Republican Senators and Representatives would go a long way toward growing their spine for them and keeping them on the right path. We'll see what happens in the coming days.

iPhone Users: How Do You Like Your 4G Coverage?

This amuses me:

Either people don't listen to what features they're getting on their phones or they believe what they want. Regardless, some answers from a new study are surprising.

The survey, done by consumer electronics review and shopping site Retrevo, shows that 34 percent of iPhone owners mistakenly think they already have 4G.

Of course, the reality is that iPhones do not currently use 4G networks...at all.  They're purely a 3G device.  While it could be reasonably assumed that a lot of iPhone owners are confused by all the marketing jargon surrounding "4G" networks and the "iPhone 4", this is the part that really kicks it up a notch for me:

Keeping in mind that so many people think they already have 4G, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that 22 percent of the people surveyed don't think 4G performance is worth the cost. 

Um, okay.  Let's read between the lines a bit here and focus on what's not being said.  Aside from the fact that they don't actually know what network their phone uses (a lot of Android users probably don't, either), those 22 percent that aren't happy with 4G performance are actually the smart ones (relatively speaking, of course) because at least they've figured out that something's not what it should be.  But what about the other 12%?  If only 22% are unhappy with it, then that leaves a full 12% who think it was worth the extra cost for 4G speed.  Wouldn't most normal people actually work a little harder to understand something that they're paying extra for?

Not these Appleheads.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to be a bit careful here - my wife is the enthusiastic owner of a new iPhone 4.  I urged her to take advantage of the closing window of Verizon's unlimited data plan, and she didn't really like any of the Android phones available.  She's not a geek, she doesn't tinker, and she isn't all that interested in customization.  Above all, she doesn't want to have to spend a lot of time and energy learning how to use a new gadget.  She just wants it to work, period (insert any of a hundred good jokes about the infamous antenna problem here).  Regardless, she just wants a phone that will also do text messaging, simple Internet browsing, play music, and an occasional random task like driving directions or a shopping list.  She doesn't want a fully personalized, completely configurable, multi-use tool/toy/gadget/information center.  It's not that she can't handle something more complex or robust like my Droid X...it's that she simply doesn't want to.  I suspect she's like many people in that, and to get her a smartphone that truly reflects her preferences and needs, it was actually a pretty easy conclusion to land on the iPhone (yes, for the record, I did recommend it to her).

So, I've come to a new conclusion regarding users of Apple products.  They can be divided into two very different kinds of people.  The first kind is like my wife, and the simplicity and intuitiveness of the iPhone works really well for her (provided you have a $.05 case to protect your $300 iPhone...sorry, couldn't resist!).  The other kind is the true Applehead - a moron who is incapable of independent thought, who cannot do anything if St. Steve doesn't tell him it's acceptable, and who struggles to change his wallpaper.  For these people, the iPhone is the only option they have precisely because it doesn't allow any sense of personality, it tells you exactly what you are allowed to do, and it does almost all of your thinking for you.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, I know you fall into the first class of iPhone owners along with my wife.  Good for you, and enjoy your fancy gizmo.  But admit it...you know I'm right about that other class of iPhone users, too.  We know it's at least 12% of 'em out there...

Awesome Video Onslaught

Here are four terrific videos that are worth your time to check out. All of them help illustrate what liberalism is and does. The last two, in particular, are closely related, and could be the most informative and important 11.5 minutes of your day today. Don't miss out...

DC Taxi Heist (language warning)

Barack Obama wants these people to handle your health care

Why the Left's global warming agenda is flat out wrong

Economic Freedom

Sugar Daddy's Run Out Of Sugar

Since I was a total slacker last week in terms of blogging (though in my defense, I was being productive...just not on blogging), I've got two posts to start off this week. First, we're going to continue to beat the economic horse because it ain't nowhere close to being dead. The big news: unemployment goes back up. Unfortunately, it appears the government is still playing fast and loose with the statistics - buried in June's job report is a decrease in the number of the number of jobs 'created' in April and May (you know, because if you report accurate numbers later, when the headlines have moved on, it's almost as good as actually creating the real jobs, right?). Even worse, most of the jobs 'created' for the month of June are 'guesstimates' of companies that don't actually exist, so it is likely June will be revised downward in future months, too.

I'm a visuals kind of guy. I like visuals. They speak volumes in just a glance. If you're like me, you'll love (or hate, actually) these charts:


The obvious evidence proves that Obama's promises regarding the 'stimulus' were hideously, horribly inaccurate. The question is why, and there are two scenarios. The first possibility is that Obama genuinely believed this would work, and he was just wrong. The second is that he knew this wouldn't work and did it anyway. While we could speculate as to which is the true reason, I submit to you that it really doesn't matter. Either way, Obama's policies have been disastrous for America.

In fact, Heritage outlines five specific ways in which his policies have tanked the economy:

• Stimulus package—The nearly $1 trillion boondoggle failed to stimulate, as we all now know, but made government grow beyond its means. Most of the stimulus bill was filled with the usual government pork or repeating failed policies of the past such as “shovel-ready” projects. Very few provisions were pro-growth and worked to encourage companies to create new, permanent jobs. Some provisions, such as increased unemployment benefits, unfortunately increase the duration of unemployment. The bottom line is that the stimulus bill was based on the flawed economic assumption that governments can spend their way back to prosperity and growth. The government stimulus bill did not create jobs; instead it filled job creators with fears of future tax hikes or more borrowing, and thus future artificially high interest rates.
• Obamacare—It took the Administration and the Democratic-held Congress a year and half to ram this piece of legislation down the throat of the American people, time that could have been spent fixing the employment picture. Worse yet, Obamacare imposes vast and expansive new regulations and made labor costs uncertain. Many businesses have said that they are not going to hire permanent workers until they understand exactly how much Obamacare is going to cost their business and raise employment expenses. Other businesses are not sure how the new Obamacare regulations impacts their bottom line, which means they are going to sit tight instead of expanding.
• Frank-Dodd Financial Bill—The heavy-handed Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill not only placed needless burdens on small as well as large financial institutions, but has deterred investment by imposing ill-defined restrictions on those who want to invest in the economy. And it did so without addressing the real causes of the financial crisis.
• Environmental Protection Agency regulation—Unable to get Congress to pass Cap and Trade, with its skyrocketing electric rates, the Obama EPA is skinning the cat another way—mandating costly regulation. The EPA is implementing a lineup of electric-industry regulations, including the already in-force, but-as-yet-unspecified new CO2 rules, that promise higher rates, less reliability, and a sketchy future business environment. It’s no great surprise that firms haven’t turned up the throttle on hiring and expansion.
• Regulatory Assault on Employers—The Administration’s enforcement agencies view employers as lawbreakers who need to be brought in line. Within the Department of Labor the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Wage and Hour Division (WHD) have ramped up enforcement spending while cutting back programs that help employers understand and comply with the law. Obama’s Solicitor of Labor emphasizes the Labor Department’s focus on litigation against employers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is twisting the law into pretzels to facilitate union organizing, going so far as to file charges against Boeing for creating jobs in a non-union state. Obama’s message to employers has been clear: “We suspect you are breaking the law and we will get you.” Small wonder they are not hiring.

And this is just from the first two years. Can you imagine what would happen if he gets a full eight years to direct American policy? Let's hope that nightmare doesn't become our reality.

But, back to the economics.

Unfortunately, the spinworks is trucking along at full speed. Obama is blaming everyone and everything but himself and his policies for what's going on:

A year after the WH proclaimed “recovery summer" and two years after a trillion dollar “stimulus” program, the President blamed a series of “headwinds” for what he described as a “rocky” “recovery.” Obama said Greece, natural disasters, high gas prices, state budget cuts and uncertainty about the debt ceiling were prohibiting the economy from creating more jobs, which critics called just more finger-pointing from the White House. “Streamlining the patent process” and new infrastructure spending were a few solutions to the jobs crisis offered by the President this morning, leaving many economists scratching their heads. Looking detached, Mr. Obama plodded back into the White House with his head down, without acknowledging any responsibility for the economy for the struggling economy and appearing to some critics extremely out of touch.

Moe Lane at RedState pins the tail on the donkey with this caption and photograph:

The Democrats and unemployment, summed up in one screencap.

Bingo.

And here's the thing. They know their policies achieve these results. They know poor economics equals more dependence upon government. That's the whole point. Even Obama himself admitted it recently:

I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.

Heritage points out the most damning evidence:

The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.

Of those 70 welfare programs, guess how many actually require recipients to be looking for a job? Seriously, just guess. Got your number in mind? Here's the answer:

1

They cannot be this stupid. Well, the liberal masses can (and I suspect they probably are), but these people at the top of the liberal food chain are not. They know these things, but they embrace them because with more dependence on government comes more power for them, and power means control. And remember, above all else...liberals are in it for the control. To get it, they're pushing hard for more and more regulations and taxes, and trying to threaten dire consequences if Republicans don't cave. The problem is, though, that the sugar daddy has run out of sugar.

The political establishment is in full panic mode to artificially try to force the issue and bully Republican compliance despite having no real leverage. Obama's recent Twitter 'town hall' -- intended to reassure the American public -- was rife with inaccuracies and deceptions. Democrats are blustering about trying to help the economy even while simultaneously pushing legislation to take more money out of the pockets of American citizens and blaming everything on Republican obstruction. Personally, I can't get enough of that kind of obstruction, and am not optimistic that the GOP will hold firm. Time will tell.

As unreliable as they may be, the Republicans are the only ones in American politics right now who have any notion of what it takes to actually improve the economy. Let's take Republican Senator Marco Rubio as an example:

Let’s stop talking about new taxes and start talking about new taxpayers, which means jobs. This debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone’s minds and rightfully so. It is a major issue, but everywhere else, in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is jobs. And I tell you, every other problem facing America — a mortgage crisis, a home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem — all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America. And the impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating. …

Our job here [in Congress] is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that’s what we have to do when it comes to ‘a balanced approach’ and when we talk about revenue. We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. …

So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed and here’s what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the planes tax. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the oil company tax that I’ve heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the president talks about? I want to know! How many jobs do they create? …

I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I’ve never met a single job creator who has ever said to me I can’t wait ’til government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I’m curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don’t say that in Florida. So my view on all that is, I want to know how many of these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they’re not creating jobs and they’re not creating new taxpayers, they’re not solving the problem.

This message should be hammered by every Republican politician from now until the election! It's not only the right thing to do, but it's also a political win. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows us just how in love with government control of the economy most normal everyday Americans are. Take a look at these numbers:

• 72% of likely voters believe a free market economy is better than a government managed one
• 56% think increased competition is better for keeping businesses accountable than increased government regulation
• 23% think the government knows what it's doing in terms of economic policy
• 11% think increasing deficits are good for the economy

It should also be noted that Democrats are the only political demographic that doesn't generally follow these proportions. Go figure.

And the Obama administration haughtily dismissed the entire notion that Americans are paying attention to unemployment, saying they just don't care. Um...really?

Do you care? Yep, so do I.

It looks like Republicans are hanging tough for the moment. But a few phone calls and e-mails from concerned American citizens would go a long way toward firming up their usually non-existent spines. Give it a shot...there's too much at stake not to.

Damn You, Autocorrect!

You whip out your smartphone. You dash off a quick text message containing seventeen words by typing in only six characters. You hit send. Your stomach does a flip because only now do you see what your autocorrect has done to you...

Smartphones are awesome. One of their shortcomings is the lack of a keyboard, so most smartphones come with an algorithm where the keyboard tries to predict what you're typing as you go. It's a great thing that often allows you to input a whole word using just the first couple of characters. However, if you're not careful, that autocorrect functionality will whip around and bite you from time to time. Damn You, Autocorrect is a website dedicated to funny instances just like that, and it's hysterical (language warning - these are uncensored messages). PC World recently did a slideshow of some of their favorites, and if you're looking for a 2-minute pick-me-up, you really should check it out here.

Here's a quick sample of some of my favorites from the slideshow:





Enjoy, and happy texting!

(just be sure to confirm before you pull the trigger...)

Stimulus = Fail EPIC FAIL

And getting worse with each passing day:

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it's clearly not trying to draw attention to the report's contents. Sure enough, the "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the "stimulus" in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.   

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the "stimulus," and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. 

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the "stimulus" had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs withoutthe "stimulus" than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the "stimulus" has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it's quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama's "stimulus" has actually undermined the economy's recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt. 

The actual employment numbers from the administration's own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the "stimulus" was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It's now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn't passed the "stimulus."

But it doesn't stop there, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Two years ago, officials said, the worst recession since the Great Depression ended. The stumbling recovery has also proven to be the worst since the economic disaster of the 1930s.

Across a wide range of measures—employment growth, unemployment levels, bank lending, economic output, income growth, home prices and household expectations for financial well-being—the economy's improvement since the recession's end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II.

In some ways the recovery is much like the 1991 and 2001 post-recession periods: All three are marked by gradual output growth rather than sharp snap-backs typical of earlier recoveries. But this recovery may remain lackluster for years, many economists say, because of heavy household debt, a financial system still damaged by the mortgage crisis, fragile confidence and a government with few good options for supporting growth. ...

Banks are less able or willing to lend than before the recession. Since the recovery started, banks have reduced money they make available through credit card lines from $3.04 trillion to $2.69 trillion and have reduced home equity credit lines from $1.33 trillion to $1.15 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Policy makers, meanwhile, are reluctant to do more to stimulate economic growth. The Federal Reserve has already pushed short-term interest rates to near zero. Two rounds of quantitative easing that including purchasing $1.425 trillion in mortgage bonds and $900 billion in Treasury debt helped to stabilize the economy but failed to spur a vigorous recovery.

Likewise, fiscal stimulus, either in the form of tax cuts favored by Republicans or spending increases favored by Democrats, looks unlikely given large federal deficits and the disappointing results of earlier efforts, including President Obama's $830 billion stimulus program of 2009. ...

Debt and a dismal job market have hurt consumers' confidence, which further damps their willingness to spend. The University of Michigan finds that 24% of households expect to be better off financially within a year's time. That's the lowest this measure has been at this point in a recovery since World War II.

The Obama administration, not surprisingly, has its head stuck firmly in the sand:

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said job growth had been "significantly faster" than the recovery in the 2000s, though there was a long way to go. He added that recovering from a bubble-based expansion driven by consumer spending and housing toward more exports and investment was tough work. "We can't just go back to what we did before," he said.

As you can see, there is no hope of genuine recovery with these people in charge.

Liberalism in action.  We need a lot less of it.

Happy Independence Day!

Here's a delicious 4th of July treat ironically served up by that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard:

Just in time for the Fourth of July weekend, a Harvard study confirms: Not only do Republicans celebrate Independence Day more intensively, but the celebrations, in turn, tend to solidify Republican beliefs.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

• When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
• It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
• It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, [they] should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Looks like Republicans take seriously what Founding Father John Adams wrote after the drafting of the Declaration of Independence:

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

The commentary by Rush Limbaugh is can't-miss stuff:

Finally they admit it, the Democrats don't care about the nation's founding. They admit it! They admit that celebrating the founding of this nation is a Republican event. It's a conservative event that liberals are not welcome, that liberals don't care, and that they don't show up. ...

Is that not stunning? Or is it stunning? What does this say about the patriotism of liberals? What does this say? Fourth of July parades make people vote Republican. Fourth of July parades turn kids into Republicans. Fourth of July parades do all of this permanently.

"'The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,' write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam. Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them. 'There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,' the two wrote."

Democrats gather to protest their handouts being cut. That's their celebration. That's their parade. The Democrats and the unions, they get together when they think their benefits are being cut, when their handouts are being cut, when their food stamps are about to be shut off, that's when they get patriotic, that's when they show up. When they fear the freebies are about to run out, that's when they parade, except theirs are not celebrations. Theirs are instances of rage. I love this.

So, what we really have here is an acknowledgement that the political Left -- liberals and Democrats -- are against all of the concepts and principles upon which America was founded! Freedom, liberty, capitalism, individual achievement, smaller government, a strong military...these things are as distasteful to liberals as a silver cross is to a vampire.

If you want to boil it down, one could say that the liberal Left is anti-American.

Not that we didn't already know that, of course, but it's fascinating to see a famously liberal institution admit it out loud, just in time for the 4th of July.

Now that we know where everyone stands, enjoy your Independence Day! Kick back, have fun, enjoy time with friends and family, and remember who stands for American ideals...and who doesn't.

"Leaders Are Gonna Lead"

And it is becoming more and more apparent just what kind of leader Barack Obama is.

We all know the crisis-in-motion that is the U.S. economy and Washington's utter self-blindedness to the problems therein. Obama recently charged Congress with 'getting it done' right before going on vacation. But it gets even worse. One of the more popular criticisms that liberal Democrats like Obama seem to enjoy tossing around right is that Republicans refuse to even come to the table and are just trying to obstruct everything (never mind the fact that the Dems still control the Senate and White House). In response, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, offered to host President Obama for a discussion of the debt situation. Obama's response was pretty informative:

White House press secretary Jay Carney, while not directly saying the invitation had been rejected, said Obama did not need to hear Republicans tell him what they would not support.

That, Carney said, was "not a conversation worth having."

Um...really? Seems like most of America wants that conversation to take place, as do the Republicans. Funny how liberals are once again saying one thing and doing another.

But, as usual, it gets even worse. Obama doesn't think this conversation is worth having with Republican leaders who are directly involved in any potential solution, but he's more than happy to meet with other Democrats to strategize about it. Oh, and he's going to have a Twitter session about it, too. But the Republicans? Nope, not worth talking to.

It's hard not to point out once again that Obama has taken almost two full months' vacation and played almost 100 rounds of golf since he's been President, prompting one Republican Senator to observe that the best way to secure a meeting with the President is to set up a tee time. I can't wait to see the campaign commercials come out of that one!

Bottom line:

I actually agree with him on this one.

Bow, Bow, Chicka-Chi-Bow-Bow-Bow

I wanted to post this for no particular reason other than that I wanted to post it. Enjoy!

Three Years

The Economy Isn't Recovering, And There's A Reason For That

Yep, it's time for more economic analysis.

Look, we all know that we're living in some really tough economic times.  Things haven't really gotten better for most people, and for many they keep getting worse.  There are no real signs of any recovery (other than in government and government-backed unions), and no real reason for optimism until the current policies are killed and rolled back.  Despite all this, Obama and the Democrats continue to claim to be leading while simultaneously not even bothering to pass a budget of their own.  Even Senate Democrats are unhappy about that.  I can understand that - it's gotta be tough to face your constituents when you haven't even done the most basic function you've been hired to do, especially when you've tanked the wealthiest nation in the history of the world while failing to do that basic function.

But the Obama administration is continuing to pursue its radical Leftist liberal agenda on all fronts. For example, they're pushing hard to pass even tough regulations that will have a direct impact on the prices:

The Obama administration wants cars and light trucks in the United States to average 56.2 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2025, a standard that will cut the nation's oil consumption and carbon output significantly while also raising each vehicle's cost by about $2,375.

And, every time we turn around, we hear of yet another Obama program that has far exceeded their estimated costs in return for little or no gain.

Our Founders were geniuses. They set up state governments to have the freedom to experiment with particular policies; the ones that worked could be adopted by other states, and the ones that didn't work could be dropped. The key point is that these policy experiments should be conducted on a state level so that the entire nation doesn't get affected in an adverse or hasty way. The federal government should be the last place where major sweeping changes take effect.  However, the last few years have seen more and more policy experiments taking place at the federal level, and that's hurting everyone across the board.  Looking at states where the most Leftist liberal policies have been in operation for the longest periods of time shows that they're the ones that are currently in the most dire financial straits.  In fact, the only places that are experiencing anything resembling a healthy economic picture are places like Texas, which has chosen to do essentially the opposite of Obama's policies.  Now, according to the Founders' design, other states should be looking at Texas and understanding why their policies are working and adopt them, thus improving their own health and that of the nation overall.  But liberals simply won't do that.

So Wall Street braces for more layoffs, the misery index is at its highest point since the Carter years, the fiscal crisis is looming closer and closer with U.S. financial ratings being threatened, the administration admits it's clueless and continues offering mixed messages and provoking class warfare, and the situation is little changed from a year ago when Obama declared the 'summer of recovery'.  Except that more people are out of work and life in America has become more expensive.  Most of the meager improvement in job numbers comes from people completely giving up even looking for work and thus not being counted as 'jobless', but that's hardly a feather in the cap.  The administration is so desperate that they're even considering raiding federal pension funds to pay for their reckless spending habits.  Obama's economic stimulus is a demonstrable failure for everything except tripling the deficit.  Is it any wonder Americans fear that government is choking the American economy to death?

But oh, don't trouble the President with such trivial matters.  No, when it comes to the serious discussions on the national debt and how to unbury the American economy, Obama is more than up to the task of scolding Congress for being undisciplined about getting things done.  Of course, when someone had the temerity to ask whether or not he should be more involved in those discussions, he dismissed that question as...amusing.  That's leadership??  I guess he can't be bothered take time out from his next vacation to deal with the economic future of this nation.

It's no coincidence that only 24% of the nation shares Obama's political views, and only 30% are committed to voting for him in 2012.  This could explain why Obama's team is showing distinct signs of nervousness and is having to work exceedingly hard to raise money for his increasingly difficult re-election bid.  In fact, his last fundraising e-mail pretty much lays out just how badly they're doing:

We're closing the books on the first fundraising quarter of the 2012 race at midnight tomorrow.

A lot of folks will be interpreting our numbers as a measure of this campaign's support.

They're not wrong, but they are wrong about why.

We measure our success not in dollars but in people ...

Right.  I'm sure you do.  Never fear, though.  I'm sure that George Soros and the hidden millions of dollars that he dumped into the 2008 campaign will be back in the form of thousands of undocumented, untraceable, and unreported credit card 'donations' when the election draws nearer.  Still, it's good to see them already struggling so mightily, and should give hope to those who desire change.

But here's the truly insane part.  In the midst of the mounting economic pressure, the continued failure of their own economic policies, and the obvious political headwind they've created for themselves...they keep pushing for more spending.  In a recent meeting, Obama claimed to have created over 2 million jobs and received hearty laughter.  This meeting wasn't stocked with conservatives or Republicans.  No, these people who so clearly understood the falsehood of the claim and found it funny were Democrat donors.

Barack Obama -- and liberals in general -- are disastrous for genuine economic leadership.  The longer their policies remain in effect, the worse off America will be.  It's a two-step process to achieve a real recovery and real economic growth.  First, liberals need to be thrown out of office at every possible opportunity.  Second, their policies need to be thrown out, as well.

Then there's hope for a real change.

Speaking Of Control...

...we see yet another example of liberals trying to wrestle control from where it doesn't belong:

Who needs Congressional authority when you can govern by executive fiat?

“A new enforcement memo handed down by the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week has some accusing the White House of running around Congress to implement the DREAM Act – and consequent amnesty for some illegal immigrants – by executive fiat.

The new memo, penned by ICE Director John Morton, directs ICE agents, attorneys and directors to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” – meaning less likelihood of deportation – for illegal aliens who have been students in the U.S., who have been in the country since childhood or who have served in the American military.” LINK

Morton’s excuse for the memo—”not enough resources”:

Specifically, the memo argues, “Because the agency is confronted with more violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise prosecutorial discretion.”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer calls this maneuver a Constitutional breech pointing out that it is Congress’s responsibility to enact laws:

“This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration,” argued syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on a discussion panel with Fox News’ anchor Chris Wallace. “Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the Legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn’t make them up.

“The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress,” Krauthammer continued. “It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; it’s an implicit one.”

The Obama administration IS explicitly running an end-run around the will of people and their representative government. First Libya and now this. What’s next Mr. President?

Update: It appears John Ransom at Townhall saw this coming. John posted this on May 12^th titled “Crass and Cynical on Illegal Immigration”

“The guy who rushed out to get trillions for banks, big pharmaceuticals and unions, practically ignored the topic of immigration reform when his guys ran Congress for two years and could have written their own version.

Indeed one of his wise-guys from Chicago, Rep Luis Gutierrez recently noted “[Obama] has the power to make things better right now without the Congress having to pass any new laws.”

Yeah, he can just do what he did for gays, unions, Chicago and all of his other cronies: He can ignore enforcing the old laws he doesn’t like. Or maybe he can grant every illegal immigrant a waiver, like he did for his favorites under healthcare “reform.”

And Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit asked “the question“:

Who Needs Congress?… Obama Rams Through DREAM Act By Executive Order

Personally, I think they know their window is closing. They know they're in for another shellacking in the next election, and the closer it gets to that day, the harder it will be for them to enact the radical liberal agenda without being noticed. So, they're trying to ram as much through now as possible -- with or without Congressional involvement -- in the hope that it sticks permanently.

The point remains that the ultimate goal of liberals is to control you, everything you do, everything you buy (or don't buy), everywhere you go, and everything you think. Because they know what's best for you, of course. Never mind that the American people are soundly against amnesty...they'll grant it anyway, and the American people (and the Constitution) be damned.

It's going to continue until they are thrown out.

When Environmentalists' Idiocy Becomes Real Peoples' Destruction

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past couple of months, you probably know of the terrible flooding currently going on up and down the Missouri River. Here are a few videos to illustrate:

Bismarck, ND:

Same place three weeks later:

Onawa, IA:

Blair, NE:

Omaha, NE:

Coming soon to Kansas City and others:

Now, what does this have to do with politics? Well, I'm glad you asked that question! Joe Herring provides us with the answer at American Thinker, and it's well worth the read:

The Missouri River basin encompasses a vast region in the central and west-central portion of our country. This river, our nation's longest, collects the melt from Rocky Mountain snowpack and the runoff from our continents' upper plains before joining the Mississippi river above St. Louis some 2,300 miles later. It is a mighty river, and dangerous.

Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.

The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach. It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development. In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom. By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.

But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.

Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.

Congress created a committee to advise the Corps on how best to balance these competing priorities. The Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee has seventy members. Only four represent interests other than environmentalism. The recommendations of the committee, as one might expect, have been somewhat less than evenhanded.

The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse." The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels. This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.

This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream.

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt agrees, calling the management plan "flawed" and "poorly thought out." Sen. Blunt characterized the current flooding as "entirely preventable" and told reporters that he intends to force changes to the plan.

Perhaps tellingly, not everyone feels the same apprehension toward the imminent disaster.

Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD, told the Seattle Times that this event will leave the river in a "much more natural state than it has seen in decades," describing the epic flooding as a "prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species." He went on to say, "The former function of the river is being restored in this one-year event. In the short term, it could be detrimental, but in the long term it could be very beneficial."

At the time of this writing, the Corps is scrambling for political cover, repeatedly denying that it had any advance warning of the potential for this catastrophe. The official word is that everything was just fine until unexpectedly heavy spring rains pushed the system past the tipping point.

On February 3, 2011, a series of e-mails from Ft. Pierre SD Director of Public Works Brad Lawrence sounded the alarm loud and clear. In correspondence to the headquarters of the American Water Works Association in Washington, D.C., Lawrence warned that "the Corps of Engineers has failed thus far to evacuate enough water from the main stem reservoirs to meet normal runoff conditions. This year's runoff will be anything but normal."

In the same e-mail, he describes the consequences of the Corps failure to act as a "flood of biblical proportions." His e-mails were forwarded from Washington, D.C. to state emergency response coordinators nationwide. The Corps headquarters in Omaha, NE which is responsible for the Missouri river system, claims they heard no such warning from Lawrence or anyone else. Considering the wide distribution of this correspondence, and the likely reactions from officials in endangered states, their denials strain credulity.

Whether warned or not, the fact remains that had the Corps been true to its original mission of flood control, the dams would not have been full in preparation for a "spring pulse." The dams could further have easily handled the additional runoff without the need to inundate a sizeable chunk of nine states. The Corps admits in the MWCM that they deliberately embrace this risk each year in order to maximize their re-ordered priorities.

MWCM (Sec 7-07.2.6):

Releases at higher-than-normal rates early in the season that cannot be supported by runoff forecasting techniques is inconsistent with all System purposes other than flood control. All of the other authorized purposes depend upon the accumulation of water in the System rather than the availability of vacant storage space. [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps the environmentalists of the Corps grew tired of waiting decades to realize their dream of a "restored Missouri River." Perhaps these elements heard the warnings and saw in them an opportunity to force an immediate re-naturalization of the river via epic flood. At present, that is impossible to know, but to needlessly imperil the property, businesses, and lives of millions of people constitutes criminal negligence. Given the statements of Corps personnel, and the clear evidence of their mismanagement, the possibility that there is specific intent behind their failure to act must be investigated without delay.

In recent decades, many universities have steeped their Natural Sciences curriculum in the green tea of earth-activism, producing radically eco-centric graduates who naturally seek positions with the government agencies where they can best implement their theories. Today, many of these men and women have risen high in their fields, hiring fellow travelers to fill subordinate positions and creating a powerful echo chamber of radical environmentalist theory.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a victim/tool of the above-described process. The horrifying consequence is water rushing from the dams on the Missouri twice as fast as the highest previous releases on record. Floodgates that have not been opened in more than fifty years are in full operation, discharging water at a rate of 150,000 cubic feet per second toward millions of Americans downstream.

This is a mind-boggling rate of release. Consider that 150,000 cubic feet of water would fill a football field instantly to a depth of four feet. This amount of water, being released every second, will continue unabated for the next several months. The levees that protect the cities and towns downstream were constructed to handle the flow rates promised at the time of the dam's construction. None of these levees have ever been tested at these levels, yet they must hold back millions of acre-feet of floodwater for the entire summer without failing. In the flooding of 1993, more than a thousand levees failed. This year's event will be many orders of magnitude greater.

There are many well-publicized examples of absurd obeisance to the demands of radical environmentalists resulting in great economic harm. The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011 is shaping up to be another -- only this time, the price will likely be paid in lives lost as well as treasure. Ayn Rand said, "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

We need to begin the investigations immediately. It seems that it is sanity, and not the river, that needs to be restored.

This is what happens when radical liberal environmentalists get their way. These people wanted this to happen, and they drove policies that ensured it would. In their high and mighty talk of returning nature to it's 'natural' state, they conveniently ignore the plight of millions of people who will suffer, lose their homes, lose their jobs, maybe even lose their lives in the process.

Should we take care of the environment, recycle, and require industry to clean up their messes? Absolutely. But when we have such a clearly dangerous fork in the road where people will be irreparably harmed for some fanciful notion like environmentalism, common sense and genuine priorities need to win out. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I believe it should have been drawn well before this point.

Unfortunately, the environmentalists won this one decades ago, and it's too late to change our minds now. We just have to live with the consequences of those actions, hope to survive them as best we can (and help those who need it), and remember what havoc the Left's agenda has wrought so we can cast it away at every possible turn in the future.