The Road to Economic Demoralization

by Larry Kudlow

Townhall.com Columnist

There’s no question that current government policies for taxes, spending, and regulation are causing the U.S. to lose competitiveness in the global race for capital, prosperity, and growth.

Of course, China has been moving in the direction of free-market capitalism for years. To some extent, this shows the positive benefits of America’s free-trade policies and its open-mindedness in helping nurture not only China growth, but also middle-class prosperity worldwide.

But what’s particularly galling about Obamanomics is that we may well be losing our competitive edge with Europe. While Europe is ever so slightly moving toward Reagan and Thatcher, the U.S. is shifting toward an overtaxed and overregulated model that smacks of François Mitterrand. That’s something no one should want to tolerate.

Heavy government controls at home, along with an income-leveling social policy couched in economic-recovery terms, is no way to run a railroad. At the simple stroke of a computer key, world investment flows to its most hospitable destination. That includes a reliable currency. But in President Bush’s last year and President Obama’s first, the U.S. has become a less-hospitable destination for global capital. That should worry everybody.

But let’s first look to the China story.

We know that China is already our principal banker, to the tune of nearly $1 trillion. As President Obama’s record spending and borrowing continues -- he’ll be the greatest bond salesman in American history -- our financial reliance on China grows daily. But that’s not all.

Fortune magazine recently reported that the number of U.S. companies in the world’s top 500 fell to the lowest level ever, while more Chinese firms than ever made the list. Thirty-seven Chinese companies now rank in the top 500, including nine new entries. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. firms has fallen to 140, the lowest total since Fortune began the list in 1995. This is not good.

China also surpassed the U.S. as the world’s biggest automaker in the first half of 2009, with June sales soaring 36.5 percent from a year earlier. The Chinese registered 6.1 million car sales for the first half of the year. That way outpaced American sales, which were only 4.8 million.

And China has no capital-gains tax. It only has a 15-to-20 percent corporate tax. The U.S., on the other hand, is raising its cap-gains tax rate to 20 percent. It’s also increasing its top personal tax rates.

In fact, the scheduled income-tax hike along with a much-discussed 4 percent health-care surtax will balloon the top U.S. tax rate all the way to 51 percent. And there’s more. In order to finance so-called health-care reform, congressional Democrats are now talking about raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends by another 1.5 percent while installing a value-added tax (VAT) that would begin at 1.5 percent.

Accentuate the Positive

Streetcar Line

Conservative War Room Strategy

By Quin Hillyer

Barack Obama is a disaster for the country because his economics are straight out of Mussolini's playbook, his foreign policy is that of Ramsey Clark, his Justice Department is that of Ramsey Clark as well, his ethics are pure Chicago thuggishness, his hostility to Christianity in the public square akin to that of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and his ego like Napoleon's.

Yeah, … and trying to make those complaints will get conservatives exactly nowhere. Nor will complaints that the establishment media have put their journalistic ethical manhood in collective hock, trading in their watchdog roles for not just a lap dog role where Obama is concerned, but more like lap dancers for the president while asking him exactly what he wants them to show him.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy are hypocrites and cheaters; and yes, Barney Frank's economics are a threat to the republic; and yes, making "empathy" a criterion for choosing judges is about as relevant as making calculus skills a criterion for picking a hockey team.

To all those points, much of Middle America asks "so what?" Why should that make them pay attention to conservatives instead of paying attention to dead weirdo musicians and to their own credit card debts? Oh, much of Middle America will indeed give a passing thought to conservatives when those conservatives are flaking out in Argentina, Alaska, or airport assignations. But otherwise, conservatives just don't seem relevant.

A huge part of the problem is that our elected leaders don't seem to have a clue about how to mobilize conservative grassroots, much less the general public, behind positive themes or principled conservative ideals. The number of Republican congressmen not seriously afflicted with Inside-Baseball-itis can probably be counted on a broken abacus on which the beads don't move. And the congressmen who actually understand that good principles are good politics, rather than an occasional tool for political ends, are as rare as the latest confirmed sighting of a hairy-nosed wombat.

But none of that excuses the rest of us for our failures to win political battles.

The conservative movement somehow lost its ability to elect enough of its own to office. The movement certainly lost its ability to stay connected with enough of the politicians it helped elect to office. And it -- we -- clearly failed to maintain the constructive hold that conservatives once enjoyed on state and national Republican Party apparatuses.

To understand how bad things are, one need only watch Republicans in the Senate fumble the chance to win a real public relations battle concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. On every level, polls give conservatives the edge on issues related to judges. Yet Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions has been allowed to wage a mostly lonely battle -- a valiant and well-thought-out battle, but still a mostly lonely one -- while most of his colleagues act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Sotomayor will be confirmed.

You can't win by acting as if you can't win.

And that's a shame, because if the nomination battled is waged well, there actually is, or could be, a serious chance, even if decidedly difficult, to defeat Sotomayor.

But I digress. The point here is that conservatives need to relearn politics.

Now that's a tall order. Relearning politics from top to bottom involves all sorts of campaign technology, media savvy, personal skills, and myriad other challenges -- far too many challenges to be discussed in one column.

But one fairly simple lesson from past conservative successes can be emphasized concisely. The lesson is this: To capture the public's imagination, a movement needs to push a galvanizing, positive policy change.

In the late 1970s, a flailing Republican Party rallied around what became the Kemp-Roth tax-cut plan, along with calls for a strong defense. In 1994, conservatives rightly embraced the Contract with America. In 2002 especially, but also in 2004, conservatives effectively campaigned on the issue of judicial nominations. And in 2004, it is almost certain that various state initiatives to outlaw homosexual marriage helped carry President Bush to re-election while helping save or win seats for a number of Republicans, conservative or not, who benefitted from high social-conservative turnout.

In each case, conservatives clearly provided something to vote for. Yes, it also helps immensely to have something to vote against. Parties and candidates can win elections on the strength of being against something or someone bad. But principled movements can't elect enough principled politicians to office, and keep them in office, merely on a negative message. They need to offer something positive -- something either inspirational or at least deeply felt. Something for people to support.

Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers

So why should we trust him with health care?

By KARL ROVE

In February, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while making lavish promises about the results. He pledged that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America." He also said the stimulus would "save or create up to four million jobs." Vice President Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would "drop-kick" the economy out of the recession.

But the unemployment rate today is 9.5% -- nearly 20% higher than the Obama White House said it would be with the stimulus in place. Keith Hennessey, who worked at the Bush White House on economic policy, has noted that unemployment is now higher than the administration said it would be if nothing was done to revive the economy. There are 2.6 million fewer Americans working than Mr. Obama promised.

The economy takes unexpected turns on every president. But what is striking about this president is how quickly he turns away from his promises. He rushed the stimulus through Congress saying we couldn't afford to wait. Now his administration is waiting to spend the money. Of the $279 billion allocated to federal agencies, only $56 billion has been paid out.

Mr. Biden has admitted that the administration "misread" the economy. But he explained that away on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday by saying the administration had used "the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there" to draw up its stimulus plan. That's not true.

The Blue Chip consensus is an average of some four dozen economic forecasts. In January, the consensus estimated that GDP for 2009 would shrink by 1.6% and that unemployment would top out at 8.3%. Team Obama assumed both higher GDP growth (it counted on a contraction of 1.2%) and lower peak unemployment (8.1%) than the consensus.

Instead of relying on the Blue Chip consensus, Mr. Obama outsourced writing the stimulus to House appropriators who stuffed it with every bad spending idea they weren't previously able to push through Congress. Little of it aimed to quickly revive the economy. More stimulus money will be spent in fiscal years 2011 through 2019 than will be spent this fiscal year, which ends in September.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden, backpedaling from his drop-kick comments, said that "no one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money."

This fits a pattern. The administration consistently pledges unrealistic results that it later distances itself from. It has gotten away with it because the media haven't asked many pointed questions. That may not last as the debate shifts to health care.

The Obama administration wants a government takeover of health care. To get it, it is promising to wring massive savings out of the health-care industry. And it has already started to make cost-savings promises.

For example, the administration strong-armed health-care providers into promising $2 trillion in health savings. It got pharmaceutical companies to promise to lower drug prices for seniors by $80 billion over 10 years. The administration also trotted out hospital executives to say that they would voluntarily save the government $150 billion over 10 years.

None of this comes near to being true. On the promised $2 trillion, everyone admits that the number isn't built on anything specific -- it's an aspirational goal. On drug prices, a White House spokesman admitted that "These savings have not been identified at the moment." It is speculative that these cuts will actually be made, when they would begin, or whether they would reduce government health-care spending.

None of this will stop the administration from arguing that its "savings" will pay for Mr. Obama's $1.5 trillion health-care plans. By the time the real price tag emerges, it will be too late to do much more than raise taxes and curtail spending on urgent priorities, such as the military.

The stimulus package is a clear example of how Mr. Obama operates. He is attempting to employ the same tactics of bait-and-switch when it comes to health care, only on a much larger scale.

Mr. Obama has already created a river of red ink. His health-care plans will only force that river over its banks. We are at the cusp of a crucial political debate, and Mr. Obama's words on fiscal matters are untrustworthy. His promised savings are a mirage. His proposals to reshape the economy are alarming. And his unwillingness to be forthright with his numbers reveals that he knows his plans would terrify many Americans.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.

Obamanomics Supporters - Cracks in the Dike

While the media stopped to cover Michael Jackson's death,several tremors rocked the foundation of something that actually affects us all -- Obamanomics.

First, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the President over his Republican rival, criticized Obama's spending, saying "we can't pay for it all." Powell said: "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them. ... One of the cautions that has to be given to the President -- and I've talked to some of his people about this -- is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all."

Second, a few days ago, respected British economist Tim Congdon dusted off a 2003 paper -- written pre-Obama spending -- by the Federal Reserve's senior economist. It warned of the nation's growing debt and deficit, calculating their impact on long-term interest rates. The Fed's conclusion? "A percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points. ... Similarly, a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio raises future interest rates by about 4 to 5 basis points." In plain English, this means, as Congdon puts it, a "debt explosion." Applying the 2003 paper's calculations and assumptions to our debt and deficit numbers under Obama, Congdon sees the "horrifying" consequences of bank bailouts and increased public spending.

Third, billionaire/Obama supporter Warren Buffett warned of impending inflation caused by increased government spending. "A country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP," he said, "and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it's going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt. ... Every country that's denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end they inflate. And that becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar investments."

Fourth, the Obama-supporting/George W. Bush-hating/billionaire benefactor of hyper-liberal MoveOn.org, George Soros, predicted that the administration's spending and borrowing will trigger inflation and higher interests rates. "As markets revive," he said, "fear of inflation will drive up interest rates, which will choke off recovery." (Emphasis added.)

Our country rushes ever closer to a Canadian/European economic model, where government spends a greater and greater percentage of the nation's income -- whether on education, "bailing out" private companies, "assisting" states that have imprudently run their affairs, supplying "free" health care and health insurance, or the creation of "green jobs" to battle "global warming."

President Obama and the Democratic Party's congressional supermajority represent nothing less than a grave and gathering threat to that which made America great -- free enterprise, competition, allowing people to keep as much of their own money as possible, and the assumption that people know better how and on what to spend their money than does government.

The Truth Is Out There!

By Digital Publius Blogspot

The truth is indeed out there, if you are inclined towards it, it can be found. The problem is not that the truth is or is not knowable, but rather that it is so often ignored when it conflicts with ones deeply held ideologies. This is the case often, when you endeavor to hold civil discourse with those that lean more towards their ideologies than reality and who are committed to remaking the world into a reflection of those ideologies despite the truth. This is how I would define the average liberal.

Interestingly enough, not all Democrats are liberals. Many of the people who vote Democrat that I know, share the same conservative values that I proudly trumpet. Unfortunately; there is a disconnect, they can’t see that when they support the Democratic party for the social issues they may believe to be virtuous, you become a de facto liberal because you cannot support the party of affirmative action without supporting the unGodly party of abortion on demand and Gay marriage.

Where your average liberal is often favorably disposed towards irrational beliefs and doctrines of devils, your average Democrat is simply to lazy or racist to look into the truth as they have made up their minds based on those aforementioned ideologies. Democrats however can on occasion be reached, yours truly would be an example of that particular truth. Democrats when confronted with the proof they are often to lazy to look into themselves, will on occasion admit that they were making a grave error when supporting a character like Barney Franks. They even sometimes, like me, become Ex-Democrats. A liberal never ever sees beyond the unicorns President Obama promised him he would have to ride around the autonomous collectives we will all live and work on.

For the liberals out there I’m joking about the President promising literal unicorns, I wish I could say that his actions thus far hadn’t made the autonomous collectives look so likely though.

As for racism, without it there would be no Democratic party. Racism drives the democratic party. You have the liberal Democrat, (White or Black) who is perhaps the most racist human being on earth who is so convinced of the inferiority of the minorities in America (even when he is one) he is compelled to help them by lowering standards so they can compete with there betters. This of course ends when it comes to rubber meeting the road programs like school vouchers where it would put their little Suzy in direct contact with a child from a family really seeking to improve that child’s lot by allowing them to contend on an even playing field, can’t have that.

Then you have the Original Democrats, these are folks that know the origin of the Democratic party. They know that it was the Democrats who started the Klu Klux Klan, with the express purpose of terrorizing black voters and to keep them from voting for the party that freed them. The O.D.s are the ones that still remember it was the Democrats during the civil rights movement that turned on the fire hoses and loosed the dogs on the civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s. It was the Democrats that raised the Confederate battle flag over all the municiple buildings in the south.

The O.D.s know that the party simply changed tactics when they lost the civil rights struggle, instead of beating and lynching people, they began to implement programs that stemmed the tide of independent minority progress both socially and economically, while appearing to be the party of the black man. Since we began to vote en masse for the democrats can we as the black community honestly say we are better off? With 70 percent of our children now being born out of wedlock and the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country? With our young men disproportionately represented in the nations jails and prisons and killing themselves in violent criminal activity in staggering numbers? This was not the case during my parents time nor was it the case when I was a kid in the 70’s when the liberal programs were just getting started, we are only now really seeing the bitter harvests that those programs are yielding.

Then you have the Black Democrat who if he is an elected official just may fall under the liberal umbrella depending on the level of indoctrination he fell victim to, I think our President falls under this category. The other elected official category is the Black Democrat who knows these programs are no good for the black community but he has sold himself out to the O.D.s for special favors. These are the real house negroes in the black community and they are represented in large numbers.

The Black Democrats are ofttimes virulently racist as well, so racist in fact that they do not think themselves capable of racism. I have heard such nonsensical rhetoric as, it is impossible for the black man to be racist because we don’t have the power to impose our racism institutionally. Let that be a comfort to you white folks if your Beamer stalls out on the corner of Mack and Beewick in Detroit and you are not their buying drugs.

The Black Democrat votes for the party primarily because they believe the Republican party is the party of white folks. The Democratic party has worked tirelessly to foster that belief and the Republican party has done little to combat that perception, despite a rich history of being the true party of equality.

Democrats can sometimes be reached with facts, liberals are completely indifferent to them, unless of course in those rare occasions where those facts have the virtue of agreeing with their varying realities.

I wrote an article last election day entitled, “The Bush Economy and the Politics of Ignorance”, which illustrated the unfortunate propensity liberals and democrats have to ignore empiricism in favor of rhetoric, emotionalism and racism if you haven’t read it you may find it worthy of your attention, I do hope everyone who voted democrat in that election reads it, as well as an article I wrote called, “Rahm and Hegel Sittin’ in a Tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G.” which includes a timeline of President Bush’s statements in warning of the then coming financial crisis and his attempts to stave it off. These articles and the following C-Span video offer enough evidence of the culpability of the Democrats in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie which triggered this economic malaise that Obama’s policies are only deepening.

It is time to stop calling this financial crisis the Bush economy and place it at the feet of those who truly are responsible. Democratic voters wake up! Liberals, well, take another Percocet.

Behold, You desire truth in the inner being; make me therefore to know wisdom in my inmost heart. Psalm 51: 6

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

---

---

LAW OF THE LAND


Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'

---

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!

Ginsburg responded:

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.