The Lone Elm

Did Orszag Really Say This?

Stephen Dinan and David Sands report for the Washington Times about the issues with President Obama's Budget.  Specifically, many people are highly critical of the proposal to cut back the tax advantages of charitable contributions for "wealthy" (individuals with income over $200,000, couples with income over $250,000) taxpayers.  Apparently, this provision is estimated to generate additional tax receipts of about $180 billion over ten years.  Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center points out that philanthropic giving will decline as a result.  Apparently, Budget Director Orszag's response was that the federal government would compensate for those reductions!

First, his point contradicts the whole point of the tax revenue impact of the proposal.  But more fundamentally, this is patently ridiculous. Is this what he really believes?  That the government is better at making decisions that individuals are?   We are going to pay more taxes, and donate less, so the government can get more involved in deciding which philanthropic organizations should be supported?  We now will have an expensive intermediary (the government) who will also impose its policy views on what are "good" or "bad" activities to support.  And, no doubt, the government will hang on those donations various "restrictions" and criteria for the money's use.

It is going to be a very long four years.

Congress is Packing a Barrel of Pork

I woke up this morning to hear on NPR Nancy Pelosi lauding the hard work that the House appropriation committee members have put in to developing the massive $850 stimulus bill. It is hard when you are trying to accommodate the dearest wishes of hundreds of Democratic congressmen and probably some Republican ones to boot.  This bill is a melange of something for everyone, and awesome in its size and scope -- tax cuts for the select groups of individuals, tax credits, grants to local governments, spending aid ....  Amanda Carpenter at TownHall has a shopping list of some of the items that have been tossed into this salad.  The amounts of money tagged and the variety of topics is staggering.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the emphasis is on government spending as being "the best and fastest way to create jobs."  Sorry, but that is just not credible.    Congress wants to direct the spending because they can't be sure that the private sector or individuals will spend the money the "right" way - we might save it or use it to pay down debt, which don't create jobs, but might get us out of this economic slump a little faster.  In addition, all economists know that government spending is one of the least efficient ways to pump money into the economy.  For goodness sake, why can't they just figure out a dollar value of stimulus, and send us all checks?

Election Reflections

Well, while I am disappointed, I can't say I am surprised about the electorate's decision to send the Republicans a message, with the result that the Democrats now control both the House and the Senate.  However, I think it would be a big mistake for the liberal arm of the Democratic party to think that it now has carte blanche to implement its radical policies.  The key reason that the Democratic party gained control is because they put up moderate candidates.  The most obvious rejection of the moonbat wing of the party was the resounding decision of Connecticut voters to send Joe Lieberman back to the Senate, despite his running as an Independent.  And Lieberman claims that he intends to remain a Democrat, presumably to counterbalance the more whacky aspects of his party's inclinations.

So, what particularly interests me is the psychological issues that underlie the voice of the people.  I am particularly impressed with Gagdad Bob's dissection, hat tip to The American Thinker. To quote:

"So a national opinion poll -- including an election -- doesn’t necessarily provide much in the way of objective information about objective circumstances, but subjective data about how it “feels” to be part of a historical group at a particular time. In fact, deMause turns the presidential approval rating on its head. He doesn’t believe that it actually measures approval but disapproval about how effectively or ineffectively a fantasy leader is “containing” the public’s anxiety. Since the group is largely driven by fantasy, it naturally follows that they will look for a leader who can reassure them about the world and diminish their anxiety."

Thus, the public has lost confidence in the administration, including the "leader" -- President Bush.  The President's failure is closely tied to the corruption and failures exhibited by the Congress, and in my view, the President's lack of strong moral leadership to identify such behavior as unacceptable -- note that he was quite able to state the clear moral standard relative to the rogue nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and at that point had far stronger support.

Deep, Deep Denial

Sister Toldjah reports on a post at Huffington Post (HuffPo) about what the liberals/Democrats are going to do when they lose in October (again).  The poster attributes the predicted loss to the nefarious and devious conduct of the Republicans, led by the evil Karl Rove (George Bush is too dumb to accomplish an electoral victory).  Well, first, the outcome of the election remains in doubt as we have a couple of weeks to go.  The poster should be out working on getting out the vote and generally working to ensure her party does as well as it can do -- that's the way the system works.  But, even more disturbing is the idea that when the Democrats fail to achieve their goal of winning over both houses is that "If for whatever reason we don’t win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets."

Yup, that sure is a mature answer.  These people are in serious denial and, more importantly, are unwilling to take responsibility for their failure to develop a political stance attractive enough to the American people to result in a victory at the polls.  Rather than blame Karl Rove, how about going back and doing some hard thinking about what their party stands for and figuring out how they can win back the confidence of Americans?  That process might force them to try to understand what we all want, which isn't the liberal agenda.

Riehl World View reports: "I had a conversation similar to the one below with a moderate Dem recently, one who has hated the Iraq war since the start. Without selling any ideology, at the end I simply asked them, so come November what is it you are going to do? I detest the war, they said. But the Democrats are going to raise my taxes and they don't even want us spying on these people who want to come here and kill us. I'll be voting Republican in November."  Yes, when sane people get to the ballot box they will vote against the tax-and-spend left, and hope that we can get the Republicans back under control.

The New Editor reports that the author of the HuffPo post is the wife of Norman Lear, hardly someone who is scratching out a living each day on the minimum wage. She and Barbra Streisand can go out and lead a demonstration!

The reader may find it worthwhile to review Dr. Sanity's Psychology 101 posting discussing the various functional and not so functional ways of dealing with life's challenges.

For the myriad of serious questions to consider as you go to vote, see Dan Scott's post at The American Thinker.

Summer at Lake Tahoe

Victor Davis Hansen has interesting insights into Americans today, as he views society at Lake Tahoe.  All is not what it seems -- Hansen says, "[t]aste, perceived values, and lifestyle issues determine outlook as much or more than one's financial status."  And yet disparate groups of bicyclists/motorcyclists and sailors/motor-boaters do get along and are able to enjoy their leisure time as they wish. 

The International World

The flap over Dubai is over, but the fact is that our current world is full of corporations with international ties, good or ill.  Take for example this discuss by Richard Brand at Real Clear Politics about the takeover of Sequoia Voting Systems by Smartmatic International.  Smartmatic machines were used in Venezuela's recent election, and were allegedly rigged in Chavez's favor.  Guess what? Smartmatic is ultimately owned (after you get by a few layers of companies) by the Venezuelan government!    Consider the concealment of Smartmatic's ownership, and the ease with which "foreign" companies can own U.S. entities.  Also consider the possibilities for a Venezuelan company to affect U.S. elections.  Not good.

Political Partisans don't think rationally....

Dick Meyer in a CBS News column summarizes research that has been done on the processing of contradictory information within the brain.  His summary says: 

"When 30 self-described partisans were presented with contradictory quotes about the candidates (President Bush supporting, then denouncing Ken Lay; Sen. John Kerry supporting, then denouncing a Social Security overhaul), it was the portions of the brain that process emotion, not rational thinking, that became active. "The thinking caps went off and the feeling caps went on," is how Westen [the researcher] put it to me.

Normally, Westen says, a brain faced with contradictory information will fire up the zones where reason or rational thought happens. The 30 partisans in this study were presented with contradictory quotes from Bush and Kerry, but also from Hank Aaron, Tom Hanks and the writer William Styron. They processed the information about the non-politicians with the reasoning centers of the brain. It was politics that short-circuited them. ("This is your brain; this is your brain on politics.")

It would be reasonable to ask whether all brains — not just partisan ones — respond to political information emotionally. Westen says the answer is clearly no, that research does demonstrate that centrists or independents are more able to process rational and non-emotional political information."

Even worse, the other researcher that Meyer discusses says that the number of partisans is increasing!

Shrinkwrapped and The Anchoress have some excellent discussion.  See also Maxed Out Mama.

Story of an Earmark

OpinionJournal has the story of a $50 million earmark of Federal money for a rainforest in Iowa, that has yet to even get close to fruition, while the money is slowly leaking away to pay exorbitant salaries for the Project Director and who knows what else.  Senator Grassley has finally put the brakes on the project pending private donations.  Read it and weep.  Think about how much better you or I would spend the money, or, where else the money could be better spent on the poor and needy.  There is a blog dedicated to the subject of this boondoggle - Iowa Pork Forest.

Behind the Scenes of the Alito Nomination

The Washington Post has a very interesting behind-the-scenes story about the political tactics involved in the campaign to get Alito through the Senate confirmation process.  The lack of a coordinated approach on the Judiciary Committee, within the party and by interest groups is quite apparent -- more of an every person for himself rather than a sense of working for the good of the Party.   Yesterday, Alito split with conservatives on a death row case.  See here, here and Captains Quarters.
 

National Security is the Big Political Issue...

Belmont Club has a very fine post discussing the need for the Democrats to address national security head on, rather than ignore it.  According to an account in the Chicago Tribune, Rahm Emmanuel, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was pressed hard by Ohio Democrats regarding the need for the party to address national security -- Emmanuel thinks that it should not be a political issue.  Well, that's great if you are not on defense, which the Democrats are.  In addition, the base is certainly making it an issue -- I don't think Cindy Sheehan or the others making a racket outside the Capitol during the State of the Union Speech are going to retreat into a cave for the next year.

Wretchard comments:  "Defense has become the third rail of liberal politics. Touch it and you die. At a time when headlines are dominated by the Iranian nuclear weapons crisis, Hamas' election to Palestinian Authority leadership and a clamor to punish Danish cartoonists for daring to depict Mohammed, it has become imperative to studiously ignore the front page and go straight to the funnies.  National defense on the Democratic platform has assumed the status of a black actor in a 1940s movie. It has become the Invisible Man."  But, President Bush and the Republicans have their own problem as evidenced in the State of the Union address --  that we cannot name and clearly articulate the enemy. In fact, as Ralph Peters describes, we really don't understand the enemy - the religious fundamentalist that is willing to kill himself to kill others. 

So, Emmanuel's list of top five issues are health care, education, energy independence, technology and fiscal discipline.  Those are great, but only if we are secure!