The Abominable No Man Strikes Again

The Abominable No Man Strikes Again

The House recently passed the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) with the assistance of 158 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate, where it was crushed by the DOPES (Democrats Opposing Practically Everything Sensible). Majority Leader Harry Reid led a team of job-killers which included Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Mary Landrieu (D-La), Carl Levin (D-Mich) and Jacke Reed (D-R.I.).

Even Barack Obama supported the bill.

The bill raised the shareholder threshold for companies to go public but created a fast track for companies to avoid the worst provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank regulations and roadblocks for five years. This bill was a boon to small business startups, which everyone except the DOPES agrees is the key to getting the economy moving again. Over the past few years, there was a precipitous drop in American IPOs (Initial Public Offerings), largely as a result of the deleterious regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, and this was a way to get past that.

No dice, said the DOPES. And this is despite the fact that the Treasury Department’s own experts estimate that the throat-gripping IPO regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank have probably cost as many as 22 million jobs (yes, you read that right—22 million). Technically, Treasury was saying those were jobs "not created." You want a little irony? Back in the House, Barney Frank (D-Mass) himself supported the JOBS Act, along with his heir-apparent Maxine Waters (D-Ca).

It’s very hard to understand the DOPES’ reasoning. Clearly, if implemented quickly, this act would have given the Democrats and their leader in the White House another talking point about being pro-business. It’s nonsense to think that, of course, but jobs would likely have been created in substantial numbers very quickly had the JOBS Act passed. It’s not the stock market “recovery” that voters are looking at in large part. They are looking at pernicious unemployment numbers, and this would have worked to the Democrats’ advantage by possibly reducing those persistent 8%+ numbers.

Reid’s quashing of this very sensible bill instead proves that the recalcitrant Democrats in the Senate don’t fully understand new realities, even though they call themselves progressives. One of the major features of the JOBS Act was that it allowed companies to solicit purchases online, following the CraigsList and E-Bay models. That meant that entrepreneurs could raise money online in $100 or less increments per investor, somewhat akin to the old “penny stocks” concept. Senator Jack Reed pooh-poohed the idea that such a model would work, saying that the model flies in the face of decades-old securities regulation.

That was the point, of course, but Reed doesn’t like it. Most of those regulations that Reid and Reed love so much were imposed originally during the Great Depression, at a time when many people had no telephones and the Internet wasn’t even a gleam in the eye of yet-unborn inventor Al Gore. But Reed snarkily said that E-Bay and Craigslist selling used tennis shoes and unwanted clothing is not the same thing as purchasing small stock offerings. The gummint must vet it first. Reed ignores the fact that those same private entities also sell outrageously expensive jewelry, antiques and real estate. But Reed thinks $100 online investments require more government regulation than million dollar trades in real property.

The other advantage of using the Internet for funding startups is the speed with which it can be done. The faster the startups can fund and get to work, the sooner jobs are created and unemployment reduced. But Reid and the other DOPES, who claim to hate Wall Street, have chosen to protect those old Wall Street firms and their arthritic way of doing business over innovation and fresh ways of raising money. “Progressives” indeed. It’s much faster and much less expensive for a small, viable startup to post an offering on the Internet than to hire huge prospectus teams, regulations experts, and an entire mailing and telephoning team to get the word out. Yet that creaky old system is what the Senate DOPES are protecting.

Online investors would get more realistic and useful information through the Internet publication than the Obama administration got about Solyndra using all the traditional methods. And savvy small private investors would do considerably more investigation into the company for a $100 investment than the Obamists did with the half-billion dollars of taxpayer money wasted on the Solyndra scam.

The JOBS Act would have lifted the threshold for most Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and mandates from 500 to 1,000 shareholders before the regulations kicked in (2,000 for community banks). Moreover, it would have removed the restrictions on stock ownership for company employees. Who is more likely to know the viability of a startup than employees who are willing to invest their own hard-earned money in the company they work for? Insider trading rules should be applied to institutional investors and management in this particular instance rather than to employees who want to share in the wealth.

If there is nothing else to be learned from this, it must teach us that it’s time to get rid of Democratic Senators who are still in love with Roosevelt-era rules and regulations which were designed in a much more primitive economy. We must rid ourselves of those who don’t know the difference between logical and necessary regulation and gross overregulation. We must elect younger, savvier, pro-business Senators who understand the verities of the twenty-first century. And if you won’t take my word for it, ask Barney Frank and Maxine Waters.

The House recently passed the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) with the assistance of 158 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate, where it was crushed by the DOPES (Democrats Opposing Practically Everything Sensible). Majority Leader Harry Reid led a team of job-killers which included Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Mary Landrieu (D-La), Carl Levin (D-Mich) and Jacke Reed (D-R.I.).

Even Barack Obama supported the bill.

The bill raised the shareholder threshold for companies to go public but created a fast track for companies to avoid the worst provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank regulations and roadblocks for five years. This bill was a boon to small business startups, which everyone except the DOPES agrees is the key to getting the economy moving again. Over the past few years, there was a precipitous drop in American IPOs (Initial Public Offerings), largely as a result of the deleterious regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, and this was a way to get past that.

No dice, said the DOPES. And this is despite the fact that the Treasury Department’s own experts estimate that the throat-gripping IPO regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank have probably cost as many as 22 million jobs (yes, you read that right—22 million). Technically, Treasury was saying those were jobs "not created." You want a little irony? Back in the House, Barney Frank (D-Mass) himself supported the JOBS Act, along with his heir-apparent Maxine Waters (D-Ca).

It’s very hard to understand the DOPES’ reasoning. Clearly, if implemented quickly, this act would have given the Democrats and their leader in the White House another talking point about being pro-business. It’s nonsense to think that, of course, but jobs would likely have been created in substantial numbers very quickly had the JOBS Act passed. It’s not the stock market “recovery” that voters are looking at in large part. They are looking at pernicious unemployment numbers, and this would have worked to the Democrats’ advantage by possibly reducing those persistent 8%+ numbers.

Reid’s quashing of this very sensible bill instead proves that the recalcitrant Democrats in the Senate don’t fully understand new realities, even though they call themselves progressives. One of the major features of the JOBS Act was that it allowed companies to solicit purchases online, following the CraigsList and E-Bay models. That meant that entrepreneurs could raise money online in $100 or less increments per investor, somewhat akin to the old “penny stocks” concept. Senator Jack Reed pooh-poohed the idea that such a model would work, saying that the model flies in the face of decades-old securities regulation.

That was the point, of course, but Reed doesn’t like it. Most of those regulations that Reid and Reed love so much were imposed originally during the Great Depression, at a time when many people had no telephones and the Internet wasn’t even a gleam in the eye of yet-unborn inventor Al Gore. But Reed snarkily said that E-Bay and Craigslist selling used tennis shoes and unwanted clothing is not the same thing as purchasing small stock offerings. The gummint must vet it first. Reed ignores the fact that those same private entities also sell outrageously expensive jewelry, antiques and real estate. But Reed thinks $100 online investments require more government regulation than million dollar trades in real property.

The other advantage of using the Internet for funding startups is the speed with which it can be done. The faster the startups can fund and get to work, the sooner jobs are created and unemployment reduced. But Reid and the other DOPES, who claim to hate Wall Street, have chosen to protect those old Wall Street firms and their arthritic way of doing business over innovation and fresh ways of raising money. “Progressives” indeed. It’s much faster and much less expensive for a small, viable startup to post an offering on the Internet than to hire huge prospectus teams, regulations experts, and an entire mailing and telephoning team to get the word out. Yet that creaky old system is what the Senate DOPES are protecting.

Online investors would get more realistic and useful information through the Internet publication than the Obama administration got about Solyndra using all the traditional methods. And savvy small private investors would do considerably more investigation into the company for a $100 investment than the Obamists did with the half-billion dollars of taxpayer money wasted on the Solyndra scam.

The JOBS Act would have lifted the threshold for most Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and mandates from 500 to 1,000 shareholders before the regulations kicked in (2,000 for community banks). Moreover, it would have removed the restrictions on stock ownership for company employees. Who is more likely to know the viability of a startup than employees who are willing to invest their own hard-earned money in the company they work for? Insider trading rules should be applied to institutional investors and management in this particular instance rather than to employees who want to share in the wealth.

If there is nothing else to be learned from this, it must teach us that it’s time to get rid of Democratic Senators who are still in love with Roosevelt-era rules and regulations which were designed in a much more primitive economy. We must rid ourselves of those who don’t know the difference between logical and necessary regulation and gross overregulation. We must elect younger, savvier, pro-business Senators who understand the verities of the twenty-first century. And if you won’t take my word for it, ask Barney Frank and Maxine Waters.

The Abominable No Man Strikes Again

View Detail

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

View Detail

A Gift of Christmas Light

A Gift of Christmas Light

Buried in the thousand or so pages of the much-debated and much-delayed compromise spending bill was a small Christmas gift for most of us. The House passed the bill last Thursday, while the Senate voted favorably on Saturday. As the bill currently stands, the upcoming ban on good old-fashioned incandescent lights was overturned. The President is expected to sign the bill after bellyaching about it for awhile.

It seems that the light bulb will not be one of the points of contention when the next last-minute "government shutdown" spending bill comes up. It also seems that even a lot of Democrats hate that ghastly pall cast by the compact fluorescent bulbs, and few of them want to call a hazmat team if somebody drops one of the ugly little buggers.

Some of the newer conservative House members objected that the bill only funds the government through the end of the fiscal year, thereby once again kicking the budget can down the road. But at least that's one unnecessary crisis averted until September 30 of 2012. The Republicans gave up many of their proposed restrictions on government regulation and policy, but wouldn't budge on the light bulbs.

Not only is the ban on incandescents little more than ill thought-out green weenie nonsense, but its deeper meaning is another bureaucratic nanny-state interference with the market and the personal choices of millions upon millions of Americans. Although the issue wasn't as big and obvious as cap 'n tax and other leftist bureaucratic schemes, the issue of what kind of light bulb the American consumer should buy became a freedom of choice issue that doesn't involve taking an innocent human life.

Pro-incandescent bulb advocate Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) led the original charge to end the ban with specific legislation. But his bill was defeated when it went to the Senate through parliamentary stalling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-La La Land). Burgess has vowed that he will hold his troops together to retain the provision in any future Congressional action.

In order to be added as a rider to the bill firming up the spending budget, the bulb provision does not actually amend the 2007 law banning incandescents which was scheduled to occur in increments starting with 100 watt bulbs and eventually extending to all incandescents. What it does is effectively the same thing, only with an additional slap at the eco-wackos. The new provision prohibits the administration from spending a single dime on enforcing or in any manner carrying out the idiotic standards. Your house can now remain free of lightbulb mercury poisoning a little longer.

It's a shame the Republicans had to use trickery to get a common sense bill past the ecofreaks in the Senate. And in this case, it happened largely because the administration was getting heat about the Democratic Senate failing to act on the year-end spending bill which had not so long ago seemed to be hopelessly deadlocked. The Republicans had also attempted to add riders to cut back the administration's nuclear waste policy, "family planning" policy and environmental policy, but for multiple reasons (most of them good and logical) decided to defer those actions for a later time.

Buried in the thousand or so pages of the much-debated and much-delayed compromise spending bill was a small Christmas gift for most of us. The House passed the bill last Thursday, while the Senate voted favorably on Saturday. As the bill currently stands, the upcoming ban on good old-fashioned incandescent lights was overturned. The President is expected to sign the bill after bellyaching about it for awhile.

It seems that the light bulb will not be one of the points of contention when the next last-minute "government shutdown" spending bill comes up. It also seems that even a lot of Democrats hate that ghastly pall cast by the compact fluorescent bulbs, and few of them want to call a hazmat team if somebody drops one of the ugly little buggers.

Some of the newer conservative House members objected that the bill only funds the government through the end of the fiscal year, thereby once again kicking the budget can down the road. But at least that's one unnecessary crisis averted until September 30 of 2012. The Republicans gave up many of their proposed restrictions on government regulation and policy, but wouldn't budge on the light bulbs.

Not only is the ban on incandescents little more than ill thought-out green weenie nonsense, but its deeper meaning is another bureaucratic nanny-state interference with the market and the personal choices of millions upon millions of Americans. Although the issue wasn't as big and obvious as cap 'n tax and other leftist bureaucratic schemes, the issue of what kind of light bulb the American consumer should buy became a freedom of choice issue that doesn't involve taking an innocent human life.

Pro-incandescent bulb advocate Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) led the original charge to end the ban with specific legislation. But his bill was defeated when it went to the Senate through parliamentary stalling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-La La Land). Burgess has vowed that he will hold his troops together to retain the provision in any future Congressional action.

In order to be added as a rider to the bill firming up the spending budget, the bulb provision does not actually amend the 2007 law banning incandescents which was scheduled to occur in increments starting with 100 watt bulbs and eventually extending to all incandescents. What it does is effectively the same thing, only with an additional slap at the eco-wackos. The new provision prohibits the administration from spending a single dime on enforcing or in any manner carrying out the idiotic standards. Your house can now remain free of lightbulb mercury poisoning a little longer.

It's a shame the Republicans had to use trickery to get a common sense bill past the ecofreaks in the Senate. And in this case, it happened largely because the administration was getting heat about the Democratic Senate failing to act on the year-end spending bill which had not so long ago seemed to be hopelessly deadlocked. The Republicans had also attempted to add riders to cut back the administration's nuclear waste policy, "family planning" policy and environmental policy, but for multiple reasons (most of them good and logical) decided to defer those actions for a later time.

A Gift of Christmas Light

View Detail

Keystone Pipeline Not Entirely Dead--Yet

Keystone Pipeline Not Entirely Dead--Yet

I'm happy to say that Barack Obama's big gift to the ecoweenie portion of his political base may yet be derailed. During the second week of November, Obama's State Department decided to "delay" (read "kill") the Keystone XL Canadian-American oil pipeline. The original discussion of this travesty can be accessed here: Keystone Pipeline. The Jobs President likes pie-in-the-sky, so he nixed a truly shovel-ready project to win back part of his base.

All reasonable estimates of this project (which was already in high gear in Canada) say that this pipeline would produce 20,000 new jobs "right away" on our side of the border. Tangentially, even more jobs would be created among the 1400 U.S. companies who sell products and offer services to oil transport.

Thirty-seven Republican Senators are sponsoring a bill offered by Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana). The bill is called The North American Energy Security Act. The title recognizes that the miserable state of our economy and the static unemployment numbers are among the most serious security threats to America's survival as a world power. Lugar's bill specifically addresses the Keystone XL pipeline, but also contains provisions for going forward with other similar projects which have all been thoroughly vetted and have complied with all federal requirement, including environmental impact reports.

President Obama is only interested in creating government-subsidized green projects which are largely unlikely to succeed and which will take years of research and development before final approval. He is only interested in creating jobs for federal employees, jobs which depend on government largess, or jobs which involve heavy government intervention. Keystone XL fits none of those criteria. It is truly shovel-ready, and will produce both jobs and revenue almost entirely in the private sector (tax-payers rather than tax-eaters), right away.

Likewise, Obama couldn't care less about the American people or American prosperity. His only interest is his own reelection and beatification. Knowing that people who work for a living will not be voting for him anyway (union members partially-excluded). He knows that ecoweenies and big government lovers will vote for him. So he finds it politically-expedient to pander to the lefties who were beginning to drift away from him. When the left started criticizing him for not standing in the way of a project that they simply don't like, he caved in.

Obama found a way to accomplish this political stall without having to directly attack his own ecoweenies in the Environmental Protection Agency that had given the project final approval. He could babble about protecting the environment, listening to the people (the left people), and protecting America from a bad deal with Canada. That put the project under the power of the State Department instead of the Interior Department and the EPA. It was a clever dodge to avoid having to deal with a pipeline that could now be delayed until after the 2012 elections.

In fact, the ploy succeeded in the delay (so far), but is another foreign policy boondoggle. The Canadians acted in good faith, assisted in the American environmental studies, agreed to changes that addressed local concerns, and went forward with its end of the project on the assumption America would keep its word. They forgot to account for Obama. Canadians can't vote in American elections, and the longtime friendly relationship between America and Canada is far less important to the perpetual campaigner than a few thousand votes created or saved for his green constituency.

Once again, a longtime ally gets slapped in the face. Once again, large numbers of jobs in a genuinely shovel-ready project are squelched. Once again, government bureaucrats control the very life's blood of a private enterprise. Once again, the Democrats betray America by claiming to find flaws in a project that was thoroughly investigated and approved over an arduous three year process. Once again, the green tail wags the American dog. Once again, they sacrifice jobs and prosperity over a phony environmental concern. They demand perfection before approval. Ain't gonna happen. Every project is going to offend someone. Civilization always requires trade-offs. And as soon as the elections are over, the imperfections will be forgotten anyway.

The State Department was entirely unprepared for the large backlash regarding the pipeline. State Department spokesman Mark Toner was asked about the Energy Security Act and didn't have a clue what the news people were asking about. Three days later, rather than face serious questioning about the motives behind the delay, Toner issued a written statement:

"This department remains committed to ensuring a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of whether the proposed pipeline project is in the national interest. Consistent with Executive Order No. 13337 (yep, another executive order), after consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, we determined it is necessary to specifically assess alternative routes around the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills. Based on past experience and possible total mileage of alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evalutaion could conclude as early as the first quarter of 2013. We look forward to continuing to consult with Congress as this process moves forward."

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if this ultimate bureaucrat had simply said: "We already have all the reviews, we already decided on the routes (no viable new ones will be proposed), we know everything we need to know, but since we'll gain more green votes than we'll lose job votes, we decided that it was politically-expedient to delay until after the presidential election?"

I wish the sponsors of the bill all the luck and success in the world. But I also recognize that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid knows how to kill a bill faster than almost anyone. And even if it got past him, it would still have to pick up a filibuster-proof supermajority of conservative Republicans, weak-kneed Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to have any chance of succeeding. The Great Job-Creator Obama will probably get his victory on the issue. Whether he'll get enough votes to win in 2012 is less sure.

I'm happy to say that Barack Obama's big gift to the ecoweenie portion of his political base may yet be derailed. During the second week of November, Obama's State Department decided to "delay" (read "kill") the Keystone XL Canadian-American oil pipeline. The original discussion of this travesty can be accessed here: Keystone Pipeline. The Jobs President likes pie-in-the-sky, so he nixed a truly shovel-ready project to win back part of his base.

All reasonable estimates of this project (which was already in high gear in Canada) say that this pipeline would produce 20,000 new jobs "right away" on our side of the border. Tangentially, even more jobs would be created among the 1400 U.S. companies who sell products and offer services to oil transport.

Thirty-seven Republican Senators are sponsoring a bill offered by Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana). The bill is called The North American Energy Security Act. The title recognizes that the miserable state of our economy and the static unemployment numbers are among the most serious security threats to America's survival as a world power. Lugar's bill specifically addresses the Keystone XL pipeline, but also contains provisions for going forward with other similar projects which have all been thoroughly vetted and have complied with all federal requirement, including environmental impact reports.

President Obama is only interested in creating government-subsidized green projects which are largely unlikely to succeed and which will take years of research and development before final approval. He is only interested in creating jobs for federal employees, jobs which depend on government largess, or jobs which involve heavy government intervention. Keystone XL fits none of those criteria. It is truly shovel-ready, and will produce both jobs and revenue almost entirely in the private sector (tax-payers rather than tax-eaters), right away.

Likewise, Obama couldn't care less about the American people or American prosperity. His only interest is his own reelection and beatification. Knowing that people who work for a living will not be voting for him anyway (union members partially-excluded). He knows that ecoweenies and big government lovers will vote for him. So he finds it politically-expedient to pander to the lefties who were beginning to drift away from him. When the left started criticizing him for not standing in the way of a project that they simply don't like, he caved in.

Obama found a way to accomplish this political stall without having to directly attack his own ecoweenies in the Environmental Protection Agency that had given the project final approval. He could babble about protecting the environment, listening to the people (the left people), and protecting America from a bad deal with Canada. That put the project under the power of the State Department instead of the Interior Department and the EPA. It was a clever dodge to avoid having to deal with a pipeline that could now be delayed until after the 2012 elections.

In fact, the ploy succeeded in the delay (so far), but is another foreign policy boondoggle. The Canadians acted in good faith, assisted in the American environmental studies, agreed to changes that addressed local concerns, and went forward with its end of the project on the assumption America would keep its word. They forgot to account for Obama. Canadians can't vote in American elections, and the longtime friendly relationship between America and Canada is far less important to the perpetual campaigner than a few thousand votes created or saved for his green constituency.

Once again, a longtime ally gets slapped in the face. Once again, large numbers of jobs in a genuinely shovel-ready project are squelched. Once again, government bureaucrats control the very life's blood of a private enterprise. Once again, the Democrats betray America by claiming to find flaws in a project that was thoroughly investigated and approved over an arduous three year process. Once again, the green tail wags the American dog. Once again, they sacrifice jobs and prosperity over a phony environmental concern. They demand perfection before approval. Ain't gonna happen. Every project is going to offend someone. Civilization always requires trade-offs. And as soon as the elections are over, the imperfections will be forgotten anyway.

The State Department was entirely unprepared for the large backlash regarding the pipeline. State Department spokesman Mark Toner was asked about the Energy Security Act and didn't have a clue what the news people were asking about. Three days later, rather than face serious questioning about the motives behind the delay, Toner issued a written statement:

"This department remains committed to ensuring a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of whether the proposed pipeline project is in the national interest. Consistent with Executive Order No. 13337 (yep, another executive order), after consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, we determined it is necessary to specifically assess alternative routes around the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills. Based on past experience and possible total mileage of alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evalutaion could conclude as early as the first quarter of 2013. We look forward to continuing to consult with Congress as this process moves forward."

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if this ultimate bureaucrat had simply said: "We already have all the reviews, we already decided on the routes (no viable new ones will be proposed), we know everything we need to know, but since we'll gain more green votes than we'll lose job votes, we decided that it was politically-expedient to delay until after the presidential election?"

I wish the sponsors of the bill all the luck and success in the world. But I also recognize that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid knows how to kill a bill faster than almost anyone. And even if it got past him, it would still have to pick up a filibuster-proof supermajority of conservative Republicans, weak-kneed Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to have any chance of succeeding. The Great Job-Creator Obama will probably get his victory on the issue. Whether he'll get enough votes to win in 2012 is less sure.

Keystone Pipeline Not Entirely Dead--Yet

View Detail

Federal Regulations Good For The Economy

Federal Regulations Good For The Economy

Or so says Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid. In fact, he's so sure of it that he has used his parliamentary power to make sure that no less than fifteen House-generated bills curtailing bureaucratic excesses have died aborning in the Senate. Never mind the findings of the committees over in the House of Plebeians, this Senator knows that regulations do no harm to the economy because, well, he just knows.

On Wednesday, the great Patrician rose on the floor of the Senate to tell the Ignorati: "While it's proper to guard against and remove onerous regulations, and we need to do that, my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any (emphasis added)." Tell that to the farmers and and agricultural workers in California's Central Valley. Or perhaps the 20,000 workers, union and non-union alike, who will now have no jobs generated by the stalled Keystone XL Pipeline.

Those House bills will not see a vote so long as Reid remains in charge of the machinery of getting bills to Senate committees and the Senate floor. In fact, Reid touts the record of Democrats in preventing new regulations from being enacted during the Obama administration. His stalking-horse (or Judas Goat) is nobody less than the regulations czar himself, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is nothing if not an accomplished liar.

In the three years of the Obama administration, the number of regulatory federal employees has increased by thirteen percent to 281,000 petty bureaucrats. In 2010 alone, the number of regulations increased by eighteen percent. For 2011, there are over four thousand new or revised regulations pending. The budget for regulators and regulations during the Obama administration is now at $54 billion annually, an increase of sixteen percent.

And those are only the direct costs. The Small Business Administration estimates that federal regulations are an annual cost to everyone of $1.75 trillion. In all fairness, this big government regulatory monstrosity has been burgeoning for decades. Like Topsy, it just growed. Most of that trillion-plus figure was snowballing before the Obama administration ever slithered its way into office. The seventy-five new regulations from the first twenty-six months of Obamism have added a mere $40 billion to the burden to business and consumers (I never thought I'd find myself saying a mere $40 billion).

But never fear. The One is working on it. The above figures don't yet include the costs of the pending EPA clean air/clean water rules, carbon suppression, FCC net neutrality rules, Dodd-Frank banking and investment regulations, and the Big Kahuna--Obamacare. I think it's time someone walked up to Harry Reid, slapped him hard in the face, and yelled "wake up you unconscious fool!" During the worst economic times since the Great Depression, crippling regulations (including pre-Obama regulations) are continuing to proliferate, bureaucracies continue to grow, the federal payroll continues to increase, and the brain-dead Reid still holds that there is no adverse effect on the economy.

Or so says Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid. In fact, he's so sure of it that he has used his parliamentary power to make sure that no less than fifteen House-generated bills curtailing bureaucratic excesses have died aborning in the Senate. Never mind the findings of the committees over in the House of Plebeians, this Senator knows that regulations do no harm to the economy because, well, he just knows.

On Wednesday, the great Patrician rose on the floor of the Senate to tell the Ignorati: "While it's proper to guard against and remove onerous regulations, and we need to do that, my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any (emphasis added)." Tell that to the farmers and and agricultural workers in California's Central Valley. Or perhaps the 20,000 workers, union and non-union alike, who will now have no jobs generated by the stalled Keystone XL Pipeline.

Those House bills will not see a vote so long as Reid remains in charge of the machinery of getting bills to Senate committees and the Senate floor. In fact, Reid touts the record of Democrats in preventing new regulations from being enacted during the Obama administration. His stalking-horse (or Judas Goat) is nobody less than the regulations czar himself, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is nothing if not an accomplished liar.

In the three years of the Obama administration, the number of regulatory federal employees has increased by thirteen percent to 281,000 petty bureaucrats. In 2010 alone, the number of regulations increased by eighteen percent. For 2011, there are over four thousand new or revised regulations pending. The budget for regulators and regulations during the Obama administration is now at $54 billion annually, an increase of sixteen percent.

And those are only the direct costs. The Small Business Administration estimates that federal regulations are an annual cost to everyone of $1.75 trillion. In all fairness, this big government regulatory monstrosity has been burgeoning for decades. Like Topsy, it just growed. Most of that trillion-plus figure was snowballing before the Obama administration ever slithered its way into office. The seventy-five new regulations from the first twenty-six months of Obamism have added a mere $40 billion to the burden to business and consumers (I never thought I'd find myself saying a mere $40 billion).

But never fear. The One is working on it. The above figures don't yet include the costs of the pending EPA clean air/clean water rules, carbon suppression, FCC net neutrality rules, Dodd-Frank banking and investment regulations, and the Big Kahuna--Obamacare. I think it's time someone walked up to Harry Reid, slapped him hard in the face, and yelled "wake up you unconscious fool!" During the worst economic times since the Great Depression, crippling regulations (including pre-Obama regulations) are continuing to proliferate, bureaucracies continue to grow, the federal payroll continues to increase, and the brain-dead Reid still holds that there is no adverse effect on the economy.

Federal Regulations Good For The Economy

View Detail

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.



The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.



Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.



Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.



But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.



Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.



So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.



The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.



Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.



Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.



But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.



Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.



So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

View Detail

Super Committee Not So Super

Super Committee Not So Super

The debt ceiling agreement requires the formation of a “super committee” of twelve Senators and Congressmen, who will be charged with finding $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. To approve anything, the committee needs 7 out of 12 votes. If it fails, or if Congress does not approve its recommendations, automatic cuts will kick in to make up the difference between what the committee approves and $1.2 trillion. So, how is the committee stacking up? It’s not horrible.



The Good

● Tax Pledge: Every Republican member has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.



● Leftist Anger: Leftist bloggers like the Daily Kos are furious at Harry Reid’s picks, which they consider unwilling to defend entitlements.



● Defense Sec. Leon Panetta: Democrat Leon Panetta just undermined the Democratic plan by saying that the super committee should not cut anything else from the defense budget. This will make it hard for Democrats to sell further defense cuts.



● Pat Toomey (R) (McConnell appointee): Toomey is the ultimate Tea Party guy. He’s the former head of the conservative Club for Growth and a Tea Party favorite. In fact, he tried to unseat Arlen Specter before there even was a Tea Party. He’s a solid conservative. Interestingly, he says he would be willing to eliminate deductions and subsidies in exchange for lower income tax rates, but will oppose any sort of “big tax increase.” That puts tax reform on the table.



● Jeb Hensarling (R) (Boehner appointee): Hensarling is a former chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee. He is also a member of the Budget Committee and works closely with Paul Ryan, who asked not to be appointed to this commission. His views are fairly similar to the Tea Party Republicans.



● Fred Upton (R) (Boehner appointee): You might recall Upton from the lightbulb debate. At the time, we weren’t sure if he would be willing to cast off his moderate environmentalism and do a good job of shifting the Energy and Commerce Committee to the right. He has. And he should be a good player here. He seems interested in ending energy subsidies, particularly for wind and solar: “Since I am sure that the industry will never give up its free money voluntarily, now is the time for us to slash it on our terms.” This has freaked out environmentalists.



● John Kyl (R) (McConnell appointee): Kyle is retiring at the end of the year, and wants to be Vice President. He has been a reliable conservative during his time in the Senate. He has a long record of pushing tax cuts and he walked out of the Biden talks because he felt the Democrats only wanted “job-killing tax hikes and new spending.” He also has suggested cutting deductions in exchange for lower rates.

The Bad

● Dave Camp (R) (Boehner appointee): Camp is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I know nothing about him (which is a bad thing) except that he is a member of both the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and the conservative Republican Study Committee. Being a member of the RSC is a good thing and he describes himself as a conservative on fiscal policy, but he has favored extending unemployment benefits and the auto bailout.



● Rob Portman (R) (McConnell appointee): Portman is a former Bush budget director, which is not a good thing. He’s a freshman Senator from Ohio and I know little about him, except that he’s considered the weak link on the Republican side. He too has signaled a willingness to reduce tax breaks, but says that those cuts should be used to lower rates.

The Ugly

● Max Baucus (D) (Reid appointee): Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is a wild card. He has shown an ability to act in a bipartisan manner when he worked with Chuck Grassley on a jobs bill which the Democratic left flank hated because it included tax cuts. But he also came up with Obamacare. He is likely to fight to protect farm subsidies and Obamacare. Interestingly, former Republican Senate Alan Simpson, who chaired Obama’s deficit reduction committee of which Baucus was a member, call him an awful choice. He described Baucus as being lazy, unhelpful and out of touch.



● John Kerry (D) (Reid appointee): Kerry is a troubling pick. First, he lobbied to get on the committee because he’s looking for a legacy. That’s always a bad sign. Secondly, he has proved to be a standard liberal ass. Third, he just accused the Tea Party of being the cause of the downgrade and he made the Orwellian suggestion that the media should ignore the Tea Party. That said, he was one of the first to attack Obama’s Afghanistan policy, claiming that we should not stick with a policy just because it exists. And Alan Simpson strangely suggests that: “Kerry will do good work, he really will. I know him well.” If he wants a genuine legacy, then he will need to move right, but we'll see.

The Ugliest

● Patty Murray (D) (Reid appointee): Patty Murray is the most cynical choice. She is the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This means that her job is to protect the 22 Democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2012. Their current campaign strategy is to scare old people by slandering the GOP by claiming Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare. Of this pick, one Republican official said: “It is shocking that Harry Reid appointed his chief fundraiser to a committee that will be the central focus of every lobbyist in town.”



● Pelosi: Pelosi has yet to appoint her three clowns, but you can pretty much guess they will be total losers.

At this point, Baucus and Kerry are where we will need to look to get a good deal. At the same time, we will need to watch Portman. My guess is that we end up with a little tax reform, the ending of some deductions and subsidies, a reduction in rates, a trimming of entitlement numbers without an actual plan to cause the cuts, and some minor discretionary cuts.

The debt ceiling agreement requires the formation of a “super committee” of twelve Senators and Congressmen, who will be charged with finding $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. To approve anything, the committee needs 7 out of 12 votes. If it fails, or if Congress does not approve its recommendations, automatic cuts will kick in to make up the difference between what the committee approves and $1.2 trillion. So, how is the committee stacking up? It’s not horrible.



The Good

● Tax Pledge: Every Republican member has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.



● Leftist Anger: Leftist bloggers like the Daily Kos are furious at Harry Reid’s picks, which they consider unwilling to defend entitlements.



● Defense Sec. Leon Panetta: Democrat Leon Panetta just undermined the Democratic plan by saying that the super committee should not cut anything else from the defense budget. This will make it hard for Democrats to sell further defense cuts.



● Pat Toomey (R) (McConnell appointee): Toomey is the ultimate Tea Party guy. He’s the former head of the conservative Club for Growth and a Tea Party favorite. In fact, he tried to unseat Arlen Specter before there even was a Tea Party. He’s a solid conservative. Interestingly, he says he would be willing to eliminate deductions and subsidies in exchange for lower income tax rates, but will oppose any sort of “big tax increase.” That puts tax reform on the table.



● Jeb Hensarling (R) (Boehner appointee): Hensarling is a former chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee. He is also a member of the Budget Committee and works closely with Paul Ryan, who asked not to be appointed to this commission. His views are fairly similar to the Tea Party Republicans.



● Fred Upton (R) (Boehner appointee): You might recall Upton from the lightbulb debate. At the time, we weren’t sure if he would be willing to cast off his moderate environmentalism and do a good job of shifting the Energy and Commerce Committee to the right. He has. And he should be a good player here. He seems interested in ending energy subsidies, particularly for wind and solar: “Since I am sure that the industry will never give up its free money voluntarily, now is the time for us to slash it on our terms.” This has freaked out environmentalists.



● John Kyl (R) (McConnell appointee): Kyle is retiring at the end of the year, and wants to be Vice President. He has been a reliable conservative during his time in the Senate. He has a long record of pushing tax cuts and he walked out of the Biden talks because he felt the Democrats only wanted “job-killing tax hikes and new spending.” He also has suggested cutting deductions in exchange for lower rates.

The Bad

● Dave Camp (R) (Boehner appointee): Camp is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I know nothing about him (which is a bad thing) except that he is a member of both the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and the conservative Republican Study Committee. Being a member of the RSC is a good thing and he describes himself as a conservative on fiscal policy, but he has favored extending unemployment benefits and the auto bailout.



● Rob Portman (R) (McConnell appointee): Portman is a former Bush budget director, which is not a good thing. He’s a freshman Senator from Ohio and I know little about him, except that he’s considered the weak link on the Republican side. He too has signaled a willingness to reduce tax breaks, but says that those cuts should be used to lower rates.

The Ugly

● Max Baucus (D) (Reid appointee): Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is a wild card. He has shown an ability to act in a bipartisan manner when he worked with Chuck Grassley on a jobs bill which the Democratic left flank hated because it included tax cuts. But he also came up with Obamacare. He is likely to fight to protect farm subsidies and Obamacare. Interestingly, former Republican Senate Alan Simpson, who chaired Obama’s deficit reduction committee of which Baucus was a member, call him an awful choice. He described Baucus as being lazy, unhelpful and out of touch.



● John Kerry (D) (Reid appointee): Kerry is a troubling pick. First, he lobbied to get on the committee because he’s looking for a legacy. That’s always a bad sign. Secondly, he has proved to be a standard liberal ass. Third, he just accused the Tea Party of being the cause of the downgrade and he made the Orwellian suggestion that the media should ignore the Tea Party. That said, he was one of the first to attack Obama’s Afghanistan policy, claiming that we should not stick with a policy just because it exists. And Alan Simpson strangely suggests that: “Kerry will do good work, he really will. I know him well.” If he wants a genuine legacy, then he will need to move right, but we'll see.

The Ugliest

● Patty Murray (D) (Reid appointee): Patty Murray is the most cynical choice. She is the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This means that her job is to protect the 22 Democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2012. Their current campaign strategy is to scare old people by slandering the GOP by claiming Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare. Of this pick, one Republican official said: “It is shocking that Harry Reid appointed his chief fundraiser to a committee that will be the central focus of every lobbyist in town.”



● Pelosi: Pelosi has yet to appoint her three clowns, but you can pretty much guess they will be total losers.

At this point, Baucus and Kerry are where we will need to look to get a good deal. At the same time, we will need to watch Portman. My guess is that we end up with a little tax reform, the ending of some deductions and subsidies, a reduction in rates, a trimming of entitlement numbers without an actual plan to cause the cuts, and some minor discretionary cuts.

Super Committee Not So Super

View Detail