The audacity of liberals' stupidity

A week ago, Frank Rich tried the self-contradictory trick of painting John McCain as liberal but reminding us of his conservative position on Iraq. Via Yahoo News, I came across an op-ed Rich wrote in February in which he blamed Hillary's problems on her support for Iraq:

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It's not just that her candidacy's central premise — the priceless value of "experience" — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — "It will be me," Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

If Rich actually knew something about politics, he'd know that Hillary's troubles are s all because of her negative baggage over the last 16 years, not because she's a woman. Despite the claims of a misogynistic media and unfairly critical media, her gender is irrelevant. The American people really do look past that. Some Americans maybe still cannot put their fingers on it, but many Americans know something about her makes them distrust and dislike her. Rich himself provides the most obvious. Ironically, his opening paragraphs are a contradiction to his stated thesis, as so well document Hillary's arrogance. It's true that the Clintons reorganized and restored the Democratic Party, which in their eyes made it their party to run as they see fit. That's why Obama and John Edwards' serious candidacies are such an affront to Hillary: she was the anointed one, dammit, and how dare anyone else oppose her when it was her time?

Then there's the common perception that Hillary willfully ignored her husband's obvious philandering over the years, and not out of "love," but to stay in power. As someone said, "Hell, look at Hillary- she (publically) dotes on an asshole slimeball philandering motor-mouth pus-bucket retard fascist genetic error...only because he managed to hornswoggle 43% of the voting public. She'd be kicking him the gonads if he were just the ex-governor of a backwater cousin-mating nowhere state like Arkansas. It's all glitz and PR. There's nothing real left." The guy said that back in 1996, before the Monica Lewinsky thing, and before it became obvious that Hillary was willing to overlook it.

Americans who have paid more attention see Hillary as secretive, from the White House files to the secret HillaryCare meetings, and for those who noticed, the squelching of anything about Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich pardon after his wife so coincidentally contributed to Hillary's campaign. Earlier this month, Clinton Library archivists blocked the release of any papers about pardons that Bubba issued. He may have opposed that GWB's 2001 executive order "broadened former presidents' prerogative to block the release of internal White House records," but Bubba certainly hasn't minded taking advantage of it. And who's naive enough to believe that First Lady "We are the president" Hillary wasn't just aware, but involved in releasing these records? As co-president, they were theirs after all, right?

Most damningly, Americans have seen in Hillary's presidential campaign that she really will say anything, like flip-flopping in the space of two minutes in the same debate, much like, as Maureen Dowd herself admitted, Bubba would flip-flop in the same day as he sought to curry favor with Muslims.

Even worse, as has been pointed out for months, Hillary has been poorly imitating local regional accents to the point that I forget what her natural "Shrillary" voice sounds like.



And this is how a lot of Hillary's own party views her! Hillary already chained herself to her huge ball of negative qualities, and if Rich paid any attention to debates, op-eds and her opponents' speeches, Iraq simply wasn't an issue. It was never necessary for Obama, Edwards or even Dodd to hammer her on the fact that her own "withdrawal plan" could take years. Hillary may have had tremendous financial backing and existing party loyalty, but it wasn't enough when she found herself competing against someone with tremendous charisma. Rich himself revealed a week after this op-ed that

[Obama's] upbeat notion of a yes-we-can national mobilization for the common good, however saccharine, speaks to the pride and idealism of Americans who are bone-weary of a patriotism defined exclusively by flag lapel pins, the fear of terrorism and the prospect of perpetual war.

As I pointed out previously, Obama's followers are chanting just like Germans several decades ago would shout "Sieg heil!" It's much like a lot of the GOP hoped Fred Thompson would be a "blank slate" for them to imbue with conservative qualities. Obama is that "blank slate" for those Democrats who wanted not so much a fresh face, but an alternative to the Clinton machine. These Democrats turned out to be more "Anybody but Hillary" than Republicans.

The rest of Rich's op-ed does accurately talk about the Clinton campaign's inferiority to the cohesive network behind Obama's campaign, but like his later op-ed where he says McCain is as liberal as Hillary but watch-out-for-McCain's-position-on-Iraq, then what the hell was Rich talking about in the first place?

Read her lips: no new bureaucracy!

Hillary did a Sunday morning talk show blitz, appearing on all five that are nationally broadcast to defend her socialist health care agenda. I didn't watch any of them, as is my normal practice, so I can only wonder how she "giggled." Is it really a laughing matter to her? I guess it's all fun and games to her that she wants to take money forcibly from those who produce things of economic value, and give it to those who don't produce as much (if at all).

Remember that the supposed 47 million Americans aren't as numerous as is claimed. Many Americans voluntarily choose not to have it, because while they can afford it, they'd rather pay out of pocket. Many of these "uninsured" are illegal immigrants (who should be deported into the Pacific, along with others who leech off taxpayers, before the rest of us are coerced into giving them so much as a goddamn penny). Under Hillary's plan, those of us who work will have to pay for every Pablo and Maria who come here for our welfare state, and every Akisha on welfare with her five out-of-wedlock children. But of course, Hillary will raise taxes only on the richest Americans, right? Never mind that, as I said below, everyone else's jobs depend on the saving and consumption of "the rich." When "the rich" are taxed more, and assuming the unlikelihood of them continuing to produce as much economic output, they'll have less to spend and save. As Bastiat taught us, in the end the money merely shifts. Instead of hiring yard workers, going out to dinner, and buying fancy clothes, cars and jewelry, "the rich" will be paying taxes for everyone else. So some landscapers, waiters, Mercedes-Benz car dealers, jewelers in the Diamond District on 47th Street, et al, will be out of jobs when "the rich" cut back -- but at least they'll have health care, right?

Notice how Newt Gingrich, often hailed as a real conservative, and the architect of the bullshit called the "Contract With America" (the lies the GOP told in 1994 to regain control of Congress), actually said, "Some things that she proposes are interesting and useful." There's nothing "interesting" or "useful" about her plan. That's the problem with Republicans: for all their talk, they also want a bloated government, just with different programs than Democrats want. What happens is that both sides compromise, leading to further expanded government.

I didn't see the interview, so I don't know if she repeated her claim that there would be no new bureaucracy necessary for her plan. Who really believes that a plan costing $110 billion a year (meaning we can count on easily double that estimate) will require no new bureaucracy? Oh no, she says, no new bureaucracy, even though government will need a way to force you into the plan unless you want to work an underground job. Or is she technically speaking the truth, in the same way that Bill didn't create new taxes (or did he?). He merely increased them. So Hillary won't create a new bureaucracy -- she'll just expand the existing Department of Health and Human Services.

But forget the argument about logistics and economic efficiency. Her plan is based on the immoral notion of a "moral imperative" to coerce people into giving up their property for others. That's all there is to say. Only a state-worshipper can fail to understand.

A tale of two Hillarys

A few days ago, the headline "Sen. Clinton Slams GOP Immigration Bill" and its subtitle "Sen. Clinton: GOP Immigration Bill Would Require 'Police State' for Enforcement" nearly made me choke on my morning coffee.

WASHINGTON Mar 8, 2006 (AP)— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants.

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke out on the U.S. immigration policy after largely staying away from an issue that has roiled Congress in recent months and spurred a number of conflicting proposals.

Speaking at a rally of Irish immigrants, Clinton criticized a bill the House passed in December that would impose harsher penalties for undocumented workers.

"Don't turn your backs on what made this country great," she said, calling the measure "a rebuke to what America stands for."

The House measure would make unlawful presence in the United States, which is currently a civil offense, a felony.

Clinton said it would be "an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do."

She called instead for immigration changes "based on strengthening our borders in order to make us safer from the threat of terrorism."

The senator also sent a four-page public letter to constituents outlining her views on immigration. In the letter, she shied away from specifics but said she does support allowing at least some of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers to earn citizenship.

Such changes should include "a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar for becoming a citizen," Clinton wrote....

President Bush has argued for a temporary worker program that would allow illegal immigrants to keep their jobs in hotels, restaurants, nurseries, agriculture and other businesses that depend on low-wage laborers....

Was she replaced by a clone or a twin? (I would say "evil twin" but that would be extremely hard to imagine.) This is not the Hillary Clinton we've seen in recent months, specifically the one who's harped on how the U.S. must tighten security along our southern border.

And she's completely wrong, anyway, about the White House's proposed bill. If anything, as Michelle Malkin and other conservatives have pointed out, the bill makes it even easier for immigrants to get legal status. The bill will not suddenly begin deporting illegal immigrants, but it will require them to register and make it easy enough to do. Hillary is up to her old trick of rhetoric and scare tactics, and unfortunately people tend to believe her.

So what happened? Did Hillary get visited by the three ghosts of immigration? That's not far from the truth, really. She needed to backtrack somehow from her "border security" hawkishness, trusting in voters' generally poor memories, because her advisors realized that she may be alienating too much of the Hispanic electorate. Recent polls show her not doing very strongly in a 2008 presidential race, and she can't afford to throw away any support. Democrats are finding that they can no longer count on very high percentages of the black vote, and is the Hispanic vote next?

I wrote in my entry on the politics and economics of illegal immigration that I support very liberalized immigration. And when federal agencies "crack down" on illegal immigrants, too often it's on the wrong people. However, in the wake of 9/11, with many terrorists trying to sneak into the U.S. through the southern border, I believe immigrants must be regulated and documented. If we make it easy enough for the honest ones who merely want to come here and work hard (and not take advantage of social services), then we'll know those trying to cross the border illegally will be up to no good.

Previous on HillaryWatch:
A tale of two hypocrites
The queen of state-worshippers, part II
The queen of state-worshippers

Caught between Scylla and Charybdis

(Oops! I changed the time but forgot to change it to PM, and I didn't change the date either. Writing about the SOTU at 2 p.m. on Tuesday? Call me psychic.)

Transcript: President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address

Transcript: Gov. Tom Kaine delivering the Democratic response

President Bush said some good things tonight in his State of the Union speech, but some bad things too. And as I fully expected, the Democratic response, instead of challenging President Bush on the actual Constitutional limits on the federal government, relied on partisan politics and new myths like "energy independence" and that the federal government should "serve us."

As I'm writing this up from my quickly typed notes, Fox News showed a clip that I didn't notice before. John Kerry turned to his left and said something to Dianne Feinstein. The side of his face was toward the camera, but Feinstein was facing it, and it wasn't hard to read her lips. She replied, "I know." Maybe he said something like, "That should be I up there!"

The President began well with a good indirect jab at the Democrats, criticizing the partisanship in Washington. The Democrats' behavior throughout Justice Alito's confirmation hearings was so disgusting that even Robert Byrd said, "The people of West Viriginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings." Byrd could have been stronger and said he was pointing fingers at unnamed members, but what would you expect from a partisan Democrat? Byrd could have a very tough campaign this time, so he needs to sound less extreme and more centrist. He's probably taking lessons from Hillary.

"We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline." Take that, John Kerry. Wide and straight is the road of protectionist economics, and it leads only to impoverished economies.

"There is no peace in retreat, and there is no honor in retreat.... But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." As one who supported invading Iraq to topple Saddam and turn the most willing Iraqi people into friends, I'm naturally biased, but I rather liked that. Contrast Bush's refusal to surrender with the anti-war left who want to cut and run, come what may to Iraqis, and not because they have a sincere desire, but because it's to take the opposite position.

I was watching the speech on Fox News, which then cut to Charlie Rangel. He looked like he didn't particularly give a damn. Cut to John Kerry, whose countenance screamed, "Damn it, I should have been giving the speech tonight!"

"In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections." As I wrote last March, even the United States, after declaring independence in 1776 and formally gaining it in 1783, had much civil unrest (to the extent that George Washington thought a civil war was imminent) and an ineffective federal government until 1788. With our help, Iraqis have accomplished so much and so fast that it borders on miraculous.

"Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." Very good: peace through victory.

"...there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy." Another good jab at the anti-war Democrats. God knows we've made tactical errors in Iraq, but that is the nature of war. My father reminded me more than once how we bombed our own troops in Italy during World War II. It's one thing to examine mistakes and try to improve our military -- it's another to say that because we made mistakes and will inevitably make mistakes, we should never go to war and simply surrender.

"...the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace." I fear that's just a pipe dream. Hamas is all about working toward the destruction of Israel, using terrorism against innocent civilians.

"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." A bit of a platitude, but good to inject.

"...Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end." With all the focus on Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons, I'm glad Bush reminded us that Iran's very government has long since been a major sponsor of global terrorism.

"I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America." I sighed here, because this compassion is the false notion of government charity, which of course is paid for by other people.

"So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America." I more than sighed here, because not only does the Constitution of the United States not give such powers to the executive branch, the Fourth Amendment requires warrants. In these days of instant digital communications, obtaining a warrant within minutes should not be difficult.

Gathering intelligence on terrorists is certainly essential. I and other libertarians (currently derided by many conservatives as "civil liberties Chicken Littles") do not oppose the intelligence gathering, but the methods. As someone recently asked me rhetorically, why won't the administration submit requests to FISA? Are there so many terrorist-connected calls coming out of America that it would overwhelm the system? Is the administration is trying to save taxpayer dollars by cutting down on paper usage? Or are they not wiretapping who they say they are, so no court (even FISA) would actually grant such warrants? I'll also add, in all fairness, the possibility of an overzealous and misguided attempt to protect Americans.

The camera cut to Hillary Clinton, the queen of state-worshippers, who was smiling insincerely and slightly shaking her head.

"Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy, a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom." The camera cut to Hillary again, who was no longer smiling and clapping just halfheartedly.

"In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined." That was a sobering statistic illustrating Japan's travails (and not from a lack of effort) and the EU's stagnation (which is from a lack of real effort in reforming their tax policies and welfare states).

"In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. And this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy." I very much liked this. Bush can talk like a real free-trader when he wants, but he's disappointed me a few times with things like steel tariffs.

"We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy, even though this economy could not function without them." Though our welfare state attracts many immigrants who want a free ride, that is all too true. Many illegal immigrants really do do the jobs that Americans won't, and they're people who simply want to come to this country peacefully and work hard.

"All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction: toward a stagnant and second-rate economy." The road goes in only two directions, and the other way is toward prosperity.

Bush touted his tax cuts, as he should have. "In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families. And they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." That's $880 billion spent by people on what they judged was necessary and efficient, not politicians' latest projects.

I still maintain that the timing of Bush's tax cuts was a stroke of luck, otherwise our very mild recession (unemployment not even at 7%, when "normal" unemployment in a stagnant but "happy" economy like France's is 10%!) would have been much worse. Bush added, "I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent."

I would like to add that I urge Congress and the President "to act responsibly" and cut federal spending -- by a lot. When Bush spoke of "another $14 billion next year," I could only laugh bitterly and say, "Big deal!" That drop in the bucket will make no difference in the deficit, let alone halving it by 2009.

Once Bush mentioned the word "earmarks," McCain vigorously applauded. Bush then called upon Congress to give him the line-item veto, which Clinton briefly had. I fear that, even with a Republican Congress, President Bush expressed the same hopeless desire that his father did.

Bush then turned to massive growth in "entitlements" (how I hate that term, because it implies obligation on government's part). By 2030, nearly 60% of the federal budget will be on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To put it in perspective, our current entitlement spending is about $1 trillion out of a $2.5 trillion federal budget, and at 60% it would be an even more staggering $1.5 trillion. If you follow that link, one error I'd like to note in the newspaper article is that the $2.2 trillion figure is budgeted federal spending, but actual federal spending in 2005 was $2.47 trillion.

"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." Good, very good. Emphasize that the longer we delay, the more wealth we lose and the more painful we make reform.

Then Bush said, "So tonight I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Oh, for the love of heaven, we already know the full impact! Numerous thinktanks of all political persuasions have all done projections and arrived at more or less the same figures about how many elderly will be retiring and how many workers will be supporting them. Where they differ is how to deal with it.

"One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American." It's a good statistic to show the regular American how free trade may send some of our jobs overseas, but we create new jobs to make things for our new trading partners.

But it really scares me Bush talks about "a level playing field." Is that a sly reference to China's alleged currency manipulation, which GM and Ford have recently used as an excuse for their failures?

Bush then got to the meat of his "compassionate conservatism": "Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care," and "Government has the responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly." I again was reminded that he might sound Reagan-like in promoting tax cuts, but Bush is still a big government conservative.

"We will make wider use of health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors." If private companies could already use the technology to control costs, though, they already would have. Companies would jump at the chance because they could continue to charge the same prices, increasing their profits...at least until one company charged less to get more customers, and others followed suit.

He promoted "health savings accounts" as he did during the 2004 campaign, and that they should be "portable." But such accounts wouldn't be necessary if we didn't tax savings -- if we had a more sensible tax system that didn't discourage savings (which fuel investment), people could simply save that money without the need for more government regulations.

Medical liability reform is a must, but I have no confidence in this being passed anytime soon. It's been proposed for years, and nobody does anything significant.

What is significant is Bush's attempt to brag that, "Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources." In other words, we've spent $10 billion so that we can use more expensive forms of energy, like wind, solar and water. If these were more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels, then we'd already have been using them. The President sadly does not understand this aspect of the free market, because he continued in proposing his "Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas."

How much more of our money can the federal government spend so that we can use more expensive, less efficient ethanol? How much must we spend so we can use hybrid, electic and hydrogen-fueled automobiles, which, as our friend TKC pointed out, don't really save money overall?

Federal subsidies for ethanol are something I've criticized several times. When President Bush proposed federal funding for "additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass," to "make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," I wanted to tear my hair out.

What he said next sounds like a good idea, "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025," but as I pointed out here, it's not a bad thing to import something for cheaper than you can make it yourself. We could ban all imports of Middle East oil, but at what price? "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Again, at what price? When we've made oil so expensive with bad supply-limiting policies that we stifle our economy?

Next, the proposal of the "American Competitiveness Initiative," i.e. another big government program to skew the labor markets. "I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years." In other words, double the spending, but what exactly are the "most critical" programs? Who will determine them, business investors who carefully weigh what they're pouring their money into, or government bureaucrats who dole out other people's money while under the influence of industry lobbyists?

The "research and development tax credit" is a good start toward real tax reform, because it sounds general enough. Specific tax incentives are bad policy, simply because they skew markets by favoring one industry (or company) over another. What I want to see is a full repeal of all taxes on businesses, because they do not pay taxes. I explained toward the end of this entry that businesses merely pass taxes onto consumers, which requires overhead, so it's actually better to have individuals bear the full tax burden.

"We made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country." Even conservatives like Michelle Malkin are more than dismayed at the huge mess and boondoggle of NCLB. With all those billions wasted, and schools in fact rarely left better off, how can we trust the federal government, as Bush called for tonight, "to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs"? As I discussed here, schools cannot attract professionals who can make much more in the private sector, and many school districts are like NYC's, unable to pay those salaries because they're too busy paying so many bad teachers.

"I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act and provide new funding to states so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America." This is fundamentally redistribution of wealth, and it is self-defeating. Giving more money to states will encourage greater supply of the medicines, it is true, but it will divert pharmaceutical companies' efforts from other ventures that they'd have undertaken. They will make less medicine for influenza, less insulin, etc., so this is another example of government skewing the free market's determination of what is most important to people.

"Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility, and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss and never betray." Actually, I thought he and Congress made pledges "to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States."

And now for the Democratic response:

I was immediately suspicious when Tom Kaine began by mentioning his missionary experience. It's just like liberals to blur the important distinction between individual charity and government powers. Indeed, he wasted no time: "Our faith and values teach us that there's no higher calling than serving others. Our federal government should serve the American people."

Could there be any bigger poppycock in the world than liberals' belief in the nanny state?

"As Americans, we do great things when we work together." Perhaps he should ask, oh, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committe, who disgraced themselves at Justice Alito's confirmation hearings.

"When there is a natural disaster, you expect a well managed response." A nice generality, but the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do what it has for Louisiana and Missippippi in Katrina's aftermath.

"...you have a right to expect government to be fiscally responsible, pay the bills and live within its means. Tonight we heard the president again call to make his tax policies permanent, despite his administration's failure to manage our staggering national debt...huge surpluses to huge deficits..." Again I ask, where was the Democrats' "fiscal austerity" were in the 1980s when they were refusing to go along with Reagan and cut non-military spending, when Democrats controlled Congress and produced several budget deficits higher than today (as a percentage of the economy)? Moreover, not only were Clinton's two "surplus" years achieved in teamwork with a Republican Congress, the surpluses were not that large as a percentage of the budget or the economy.

In fact, federal debt has increased but is not as bad many think. Forget the absolute numbers and look at Steve Conover's January calculations. U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP is quite favorable compared to other nations, especially those in our range but whose economies are performing dismally. I'll post more on this another time, but federal debt is actually quite manageable right now. How many people do you know have a high debt ratio, but also get consistent pay raises of nearly 4% a year, pay between just 4% and 5% interest on their loans, and can borrow all the money they want because there are so many who are offering to lend money?

Kaine's nonsense about the United States' "credit rating" reflects either his ignorance or his partisanship: a country's credit rating is reflected in the interest rates it pays on its government bonds. The still-low interest rates on Treasury bonds are why paying interest on the national debt no longer consumes a quarter of the federal budget, unlike in the early 1990s. Foreigners have become so eager to save their money by buying our bonds, and they earned the dollars by selling goods and services to us.

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to educate 100,000 new engineers, scientists and mathematicians in the next four years." Ah, Bush proposed 30,000, so the Dems will more than triple that to prove that they're still the premier party of big government!

"The White House has made efforts to cut Medicaid funds for our most vulnerable citizens. Our seniors were promised that the new federal Medicare drug plan would make it easier and cheaper to obtain their medication." The Medicare prescription drug plan was bad, but Democrats don't see why it really is. To them, it's bad because they were beaten to it by a Republican President and Republican-controlled Congress. In reality, it's bad because the drug plan, and in fact Medicare/Medicaid, are not part of the federal government's constitutional powers.

"In Virginia, we've worked to provide health insurance coverage for nearly 140,000 children who weren't covered four years ago." But the age-old question: at what cost? Who's paying for it, and what are the taxed people not buying (meaning jobs are destroyed all over, little by little) because they are paying for others' health care?

"...Republicans and Democrats alike have come together to fight the administration's efforts to slash Medicaid and push more costs onto the states." And that is why both parties can be so wrong. The federal government under the real U.S. Constitution, not Robert Byrd's revised edition that allows spending on whatever they damn well please, is one of specific, limited powers. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that everything else is reserved to the states or to the people.

Kaine drudged up the old "inaccurate information" accusation, a nicer way than some Democrats' claim that the President deliberately misled the American people, when Democrats (among whom were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) since the late 1990s warned that Saddam was still pursuing WMD programs and couldn't be trusted. I look at the War on Terror this way: the Taliban are gone, a regime that harbored al Qaeda. Saddam has been toppled, a dictator who permitted al Qaeda and other terrorists to operate training camps in Iraq. Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. Instead of two countries whose governments call for our destruction, Afghanistan and Iraq's governments are now friendly to the U.S., with about 50 million people now able to determine their own destiny. That sounds like pretty good success to me within four years.

What will be curious in the next while is the verifying of an Iraqi general's claims that Saddam sent chemical weapons to Syria on stripped-down civilian planes.

"Working together, we have to give our troops the tools they need to win the war on terror." Is that why John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

"Last summer, I joined Democrats in Washington and in other states and called on oil companies to share in our sacrifice and return some of their record-breaking excess profits." The Democrats ignore the fact that if oil prices hadn't gone so high, oil companies and oil-producing nations wouldn't be working so furiously to develop new oil fields so that we don't run out of oil. For more on the Democrats' myth of energy independence, click here. For the reason that Hillary and other Dems' desire to tax oil companies to hell will backfire by causing even higher prices for consumers, click here.

Beware: the Democrats' plan for energy independence will only make everything more expensive for us all by reducing our access to less expensive fossil fuels, by increasing our use of expensive alternative fuels.

"But at the same time, we have to ensure that our homeland defense efforts begin with consistent federal action to protect our borders." After how many years, Democrats are starting to talk like Republicans on immigration.

"The administration is falling behind in other critical areas: preserving the environment, keeping our workplaces safe, protecting family farms, keeping jobs in America." The environment is doing quite well. Because of technological advancement that allows us to do more with less land, as well as conservation spurred by the free market, we don't need to cut down as many trees, and we thus have more forest today than at any time since the 1940s. How are workplaces not safe, other than post offices that seem to produce a lot of lunatics? "Family farms" tend to be old-fashioned and inefficient, and they should be allowed to go under or be bought out. And "keeping jobs in America" is the tired old Kerry line from the debates, which is ignorant economics.

When Kaine talked about "rights endowed by our creator," is he talking about what liberals claim as rights? The right to health care, i.e. getting medical care at others' coerced expense? The right to work, i.e. the right to force a business to continue your employment no matter how unfit you are? What liberals' "rights" come down to is using the government to help yourself to others' pockets.

If Kaine and other Democrats really do want to "replace the division that's been gripping our nation's capital," then absolutely "we need a change." But in no way, after watching their shameless antics since President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada, are "Democrats are leading that reform effort" like Kaine claimed. If Democrats are serious about eliminating the partisanship, then their leadership can start by obtaining Congressional resignations from, in no special order, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan (I include Dorgan for his belief in taxing oil company profits above $40 a barrel).

"...working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results."

Before telling others to take the specks out of their eyes, Democrats would do well to remember names like Henry Cisneros, Ron Brown, Susan McDougal and Marc Rich.

A tale of two hypocrites

It was the best of wartimes; it was the worst of wartimes. It was the age of bloggers; it was the age of mainstream media becoming the New Media. It was the epoch of voter gullibility; it was the epoch of voter cynicism. It was the season of economic growth; it was the season of foreboding recession. It was the spring of prosperity; it was the winter of the "unsustainable" and "bubbles." We had continued good fortune before us; we had civilization's collapse before us. Muslim terrorists believed they were going to heaven; Pat Robertson believed a lot of Americans were going to hell.

And to directly quote Charles Dickens, "in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." Nothing ever changes, in other words, and as politics' biggest loudmouths continually talk about the present relative to the past, they do so only in the most exaggerated manner. When dealing with typical Democratic hypocrisy, however, only mild comparisons to their past actions are needed.

On Monday, Al Gore criticized President Bush's NSA wiretapping policies: "What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law [rising applause] repeatedly and insistently... A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." He also said he wants Congressional members to "start acting like the independent and coequal branch of government you're supposed to be."

Gore's former boss, the one for whom he worked from 1993 through 2001, could have used a dose of that advice. Byron York detailed last month how Bill Clinton did largely the same type of wiretapping, except that he did it without warrants. Initially, Clinton refused to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, eventually acquiescing to Congressional demands. I'm not saying obtaining warrants from the secretive FISA court is any better than none at all, but this is another example of Democrats' double standard. Though I think the wiretapping of American citizens is unconstitutional, I'm glad the White House isn't just taking it. It fired back with quite strong language for the realm of politics. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said, "I think [Gore's] hypocrisy knows no bounds."

Indeed. Gore also stated, "The disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to Americans in both political parties." Somehow I don't think he referred to Bill and Hillary's unconstitutional plan for universal "Hillarycare," their support of other unconstitutional federal spending, or the Clinton White House's push for unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment. Clearly President Bush himself has pushed for much unconstitutional spending, but how can Democrats pick up stones when they themselves are full of the same sin?

What really irks me is Gore's perenially minimal understanding of the Constitution: it sets up the executive, legislative and judicial branches as checks on each other, but that does not make them equal or coequal. I may not have the Robert Byrd edition of the Constitution that most Democrats (and too many Republicans) seem to use, but reading through mine, I fail to see any "equality" between the branches. This may seem like semantics, but because each branch is given different powers so it may serve different functions, there's no common basis of measurement by which to call them "coequal." The only equality they share is that they're all subject to the limitations of their Constitution authority.

And now Hillary Clinton, queen of state-worshippers and my junior senator, said the House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation," where was the outcry? After all, Mayor Mike Bloomberg was called "racist" simply for calling the 70%-minority NYC transit union "thugs," so Hillary Clinton should be called "racist" for her insult to all black Congressmen. Why doesn't she follow up by applying the same demented phrasing to the White House, so she can become an honorary member of the Ted Rall Club?

Let's never mind that Hillary's "apology" for the federal government's post-Katrina response is a testament to her worship of the nanny state, which takes care of people at everyone else's expense. And as I said Monday, the plantation really didn't go away -- it's transformed into servile dependency on big government. Hillary, though, took it as far as she ever has: she declared that the House of Representatives "has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

That's a strong accusation she made without citing specific examples. The stifling of presenting legislation isn't altogether a bad thing. Perhaps if we'd had a little, things like the monstrous transportation bill wouldn't have been filled with so much pork. And is Hillary claiming any personal knowledge of how the House is being run? After all, she's a Senator. In fact, if anyone is threatening to block others from being heard on the floor, it's her fellow Democrats in the Senate who mumble threats of filibustering Samuel Alito.

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence...I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." The latter is a matter of opinion, but regarding the first, let's not forget the Clinton Administrations own "shortcomings." Beyond Bill's escapades and perjury, if you want examples of corruption, cronyism and incompetence, look no further than Ron Brown and Henry Cisneros. Unlike Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, Brown and Cisneros were not just advisors, but Cabinet members who wielded direct political authority in the executive branch.

As I said to a friend last night, Gore may have been correct in some things. Hillary can even be correct...once in a very great while. I just pray the American people can see past this Democratic opportunism and not elect them into office just for a bit of appealing rhetoric.

The queen of state-worshippers, part II

Previous: The queen of state-worshippers

Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?

- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

The word "energy" is ironic, considering the topic of this entry. Hillary Clinton is a true worshipper of government, and chief among those of whom Bastiat warned. This New York Post article listed her latest political maneuvering, which you can be assured is strictly to position herself as the populist candidate in the 2008 presidential race:

LET'S $OCK IT TO BIG OIL: HILL

October 26, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday called for fees on oil-industry profits to fund clean-energy research and ease the fuel "crisis on our hands."

"The country that put a man on the moon can be the country to find new lower-cost and cleaner forms of energy," Clinton told a group of alternative-energy backers.

Clinton proposed a "Strategic Energy Fund" that she said could bring in as much as $20 billion a year in oil-company fees to fund development and give rebates to folks struggling to pay rising heating bills and transportation costs.

She said oil companies should post signs at gas stations reminding motorists to check their tire pressure.

Could Bastiat have been any more right to ask why "worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act" when there is no law to compel them? Don't people already have the free exercise of common sense, that they already know to check their tire pressure without being prompted by signs? A vegetarian group has called for laws requiring labels on milk, warnings for those who are lactose intolerant. As the saying goes, you cannot make this stuff up. What will be next, requiring chocolate stores to post warning signs about obesity and diabetes?

But no, no, the federal government never engages in mission creep, right?

I debunked the Democrats' claim of an energy crisis, and the claim that we should cut back on oil imports in favor of domestic sources of alternative entry, in my previous entry "The Democrats' myth of "energy independence'." Note that in no wise do I advocating importing all our oil: I'm merely saying we should import oil when it's cheaper than producing the equivalent energy ourselves.

Why would a rational person spend $2 on an item when a substitute can be had for $1, and just as readily? With all factors like equivalence and ease of obtainability being equal, a rational person would not, but that's precisely what Hillary is asking us to do. By relying more on wind, solar and other "clean" sources of energy, people will spend more money to get the same amount of (or less) energy. Meanwhile, she wants oil companies to be taxed more heavily. When will state-worshippers like Hillary and Paul Krugman, those who believe that businesses don't pay enough taxes, realize that businesses do not pay any taxes? Business' customers pay the taxes, because as anyone who has managed a business can tell you, a business passes its taxes on to its customers.

Hillary is again advocating the redistribution of wealth, just in a different form: taking from those who produce things of great value and giving to those who do not produce as much. If oil companies' "excessive profits" are taxed heavily, that in itself will likely not produce higher prices at the pump. It indirectly may not even cause higher prices, but it will hurt consumers in two ways by preventing their energy costs from going down. The taxes will subsidize scientists' inefficient programs and studies on wind, solar and hydroelectric energy; there's a plain and simple reason we don't already use those sources, and it is because, through the free market, we know they're too expensive compared to oil. And the oil companies will lose billions of dollars that they could have invested in new oil fields, new equipment, and other things that would increase supply and reduce demand. Who can rationally argue that it's good to increase our supply of more expensive energy and reduce our supply of cheaper energy?

Also, oil company employees (at all levels) will not be paid as much as they could have been, and their shareholders will receive dividends less than what they could have been. Whether these people are working class and trying to build up an IRA, or "big oil" executives whose spending habits sustain dozens of jobs, that money is lost to them. The government supposedly will have that money to spend, but there are two problems: taxes are a disincentive to produce, and government spending by nature is inefficient. The latter itself is proved by Hillary's plans to spend it on alternate energy research.

Hillary claims that if we can put a man on the moon, we should spend money on "new lower-cost and cleaner forms of energy." I won't debate the worthiness of space travel, as I have mixed feelings on its scientific value (especially today, when it is nil) versus its cost, but when it comes to federal spending money on alternate sources of energy, Hillary's essentially asking American taxpayers to burn money -- literally. The Department of Energy will spend $380 million in 2005 on "energy efficiency and renewable energy"; it seeks "only" $353 million for 2006. Add to that a few billion dollars annually to subsidize ethanol that's not worth the price, and I prefer more than ever that I keep all my money, so that I can buy what I believe is my best energy value for my money. Unfortunately Hillary, most of Congress, and even President Bush don't feel the same way: one way or another, like the bad energy bill passed earlier this year, they facilitate the federal government doling out our money to energy pork projects.

Now look at this from New York Newsday:

Clinton takes on Cheney

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday blamed Vice President Dick Cheney for bungling U.S. energy policy - and proposed a $20 billion-per-year tax on oil profits to subsidize clean-fuels development.

Tapping growing anger over skyrocketing fuel costs, Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized oil companies for reaping billions in profits from hurricane-driven price spikes.

She also laid partial responsibility for rising prices on Cheney, the former head of industry giant Halliburton, who chaired a secretive White House energy task force in 2001. "The vice president basically sets energy policy in America," Clinton told a meeting of alternative energy development investors. "And it's not been to the benefit, I think, of our long-term or short-term interests, and I hope that can change."

"Senator Clinton should go ask her husband and his administration why they never passed a comprehensive energy bill," responded Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Still, Clinton's comments came on a day jittery House Republicans huddled to discuss ways to address growing anger on the issue.

The oil and gas industry - which gave four times as much to Republicans as Democrats in 2004 - is expected to post a record $28-billion profit for the third quarter, analysts have said.

The temporary oil profits fee proposed by Clinton would be collected on "unanticipated" windfalls, like the profits resulting from price hikes following the hurricanes, Clinton said.

The money would be used to develop wind turbines, solar power and hybrid cars, and to increase funding for programs to assist low-income Americans with winter heating costs, she said.

So, according to Hillary, our energy crisis is all Cheney's fault. Strange, however, that it was President Bush who signed the 2005 energy bill that Congress sent him -- the energy bill for which Senator Hillary voted "yea." So just who is setting energy policy?

Update: I forgot to add that Cheney's supposedly secret task force was meaningless. Regardless of what secret policies and agreements the moonbats think came from it, it didn't and could never free oil companies from market forces. However, most Americans seem to believe the reverse, and completely erroneously: that oil companies should set "fair" prices, regardless of market conditions. On the contrary, the globally high demand for petroleum and gasoline (I separate them because they have their own supply shocks) means that their producers and arbitrageurs are especially subject to market forces.

And the oil industry gave four times as much to Republicans as it did to Democrats. Big deal -- what's the ratio with lawyers? According to opensecrets.org, for the 2004 campaigns the entire energy industry donated over $39 million to Republicans, and just under $13 million to Democrats (so a 3:1 ratio for the entire industry). But, again for the 2004 campaigns, lawyers and law firms donated three times as much to Democrats as they did Republicans, and in much larger numbers: $135 million to $45 million. In fact, this "New York Times on the Web" article from March 2000 talks about law firms donating money in the hope of preventing then-Gov. George W. Bush from being elected, because he was a direct threat to their bread-and-butter.

Let's be fair: both parties get donations from different industries and lobbying groups, so it's hypocritical for a liberal rag to point fingers at just Republicans. However, I'll say again that the problem is not with the special interests. It's that our federal government has assumed so much unconstitutional power that it sustains the special interest groups -- the plunderers perverting the law.

The queen of state-worshippers

If Paul Krugman is their patron saint, who else could be their queen?

Hillary Clinton calls for 9/11-type 'Katrina Commission'

US Senator Hillary Clinton has urged President George W. Bush to set up a "Katrina Commission" to probe the government's response to the killer hurricane that has ravaged New Orleans and its surroundings, possibly killing thousands of people.

In a letter sent to the president Sunday, the wife of former president Bill Clinton said the panel should be fashioned after the 9/11 Commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

"It has become increasingly evident that our nation was not prepared," Clinton said in the letter.

She added that the slow pace of relief efforts "seems to confirm that our ability to respond to cataclysmic disasters has not been adequately addressed."

Clinton said she also planned to propose legislation to separate the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Department of Homeland Security and convert it into a cabinet-level agency.

Like all other believers in statism, Hillary never finds government's current size "sufficient." To her, there's always room for one more program, one more set of hearings, one more reason for government to spend people's money. Billions of dollars would be wasted turning FEMA into a bigger bureaucratic behemoth than it already is. Why don't we also elevate the ATF and Secret Service? Well, Hillary has given the answer to Michelle Malkin's question this morning: "What is the President supposed to do--fire all of the city's inept officials and replace them with FEMA bureaucrats?"

A "Katrina Commission" would waste untold millions of dollars on "research" and "expert testimony" that would illuminate us no more than we are today. We already know that no amount of government could have prevented the hurricane, and that Louisiana did not follow its state emergency plan of using buses to get people out. Capital Freedom correctly predicted that big government deciding to house disarmed civilians in the Superdome "for their own safety" only made them easy prey for criminals. What more is there to know except that big government failed, and that leftists like DailyKos are fools to say that this crisis proves we need big government?

Would a "Katrina Commission" admit that government failed people, not only in protecting them, but in preventing non-government groups from assisting the disaster victims? If Hillary wants to point out the slowness of relief efforts, let her blame Louisiana's government for hindering private organizations. Quincy alerted me to Cafe Hayek blasting officials for keeping the Red Cross and Salvation Army out of New Orleans.

But let's stop pretending: Hillary's "call to action" just reeks of political opportunism. She'd no doubt maneuver to get her political allies on the commission, who would then turn it into a massive witch hunt, looking for any way to blame the federal government when the "emergency response plan" was up to Louisiana's state government. Meanwhile Hillary would fall back on the "Blame Bush" mantra, putting on a "I feel your pain and Republicans don't!" facade. She wouldn't even need Senate hearings (which she'd nonetheless love, especially since she'd naturally chair them) to gain more prominency as the next DNC presidential candidate. All she needs is an image of the candidate "who cares the most," who uses the power of government to help people...without telling them that it's hardly a gift, since they're ultimately footing the bill.

Can't the American people see right through her? Jeanine Pirro is trying to warn us, but the American people in 2008 might just believe Hillary's state-worshipping. After all, we elected Bill, and again in 1996, after falling for his January 23, 1996, State of the Union speech:

We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.

The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.

It's not a village they're talking about. The entire Clinton philosophy can be summed up in, "It's not big government...it's teamwork!"