180x150Best Podcast in the Universe


If you’re ticked off at banks, this actually makes some sense

Occupy Wall Street has made little sense to us from its inception — Wall Street is, in our opinion, not nearly as culpable in the current economic downturn as are Fannie, Freddie, Chris and Barney.  But where banks have done wrong (and there are some good arguments here), we applaud the “vote with your feet” method of voicing consumer displeasure.  This from the AP:

A grassroots movement that sprang to life last month is urging bank customers to close their accounts in favor of credit unions by Saturday.

The spirit behind “Bank Transfer Day” caught fire with the Occupy Wall Street protests around the country and had more than 79,000 supporters on its Facebook page as of Friday. The movement has already helped beat back Bank of America’s plan to start charging a $5 debit card fee.

via News from The Associated Press.

What we find ironic, however, is that the leftist/Marxists of the OWS protests are getting actual traction from a purely free-market solution, i.e., if you don’t like it, don’t support it.  No company wants to lose customers.  If your bank displeases you, pull your account.

The Solyndra scandal should never have happened

Dick Morris reports on how the Solyndra scandal goes pretty much to the top, but here’s what we think is the ultimate point: Governement subsidies in the “green jobs” are morally and economically indefensible. Here’s Dick:

The Solyndra scandal is a gift that keeps on giving. It shows that not only was Obama’s stimulus package and baloney about green jobs a fraud but that it was also good old Chicago politics at work.

And the entire concept of the loan program is bogus. How can you make an energy company that is not viable work by lending it money? If the program can generate energy at competitive prices, why would it need federal aid? And, if it can’t, how would it ever be able to repay the federal loan?


We need a better bedtime story — Noonan in WSJ.

Peggy Noonan talks about failure of leadership — in both parties — but this astonishing excerpt from Ron Suskind’s Obama interview is what particularly grabbed me.

I return to Ron Suskind’s book, “Confidence Men.” As noted last week, Mr. Suskind has been criticized for getting quotes and facts wrong. But the White House hasn’t disputed his interview with Mr. Obama, who had some remarkable things to say.

It turns out he too is obsessed with The Narrative. Mr. Suskind asked him why his team had difficulty creating a policy to deal with unemployment. Mr. Obama said some of it was due to circumstances, some to the complexity of the problem. Then he added: “We didn’t have a clean story that we wanted to tell against which we would measure various actions.” Huh? It wasn’t “clean,” he explained, because “what was required to save the economy might not always match up with what would make for a good story.”

Throughout the interview the president seems preoccupied with “shaping a story for the American people.” He says: “The irony is, the reason I was in this office is because I told a story to the American people.” But, he confesses, “that narrative thread we just lost” in his first years.

via Once Upon a Time in America – WSJ.com.

Have Europe’s wealthy jumped the shark?

Tax Me More, Europe’s Wealthy Say – NYTimes.com. First it’s Warren Buffett, now this.  For most of these folks (check the article), they have the option of paying more if they really want to, so why don’t they?  Hitting the super-rich with more taxes plays well at cocktail parties and down at the union hall, but it has no real benefit in terms of easing government deficits long term.  That’s because even if we flat-out confiscated all the money the glitterati have, it wouldn’t go that far.

Real fiscal reform that’s long lasting is what’s needed, and it simply means the government stops spending and stops casting smaller increases as “cuts” in the budget.

This article is, in our opinion, a semi-fabrication in service of a political agenda, and it’s a drumbeat the NY Times has been playing for a while now . It’s goofy on its face — if the super rich want to be taxed more, they can simply send the IRS more money.  But they don’t.  So how serious can this be?

Why the health care law is on the way out

The Court Explains it All

WSJ has an explanation of the recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that makes it plain why the health care law is flawed on Constitutional grounds.  It’s really a monumental power-grab-by-precedent if allowed to stand.  Here’s the money quote from what article authors Rivkin and Casey call “the most comprehensive judicial opinion to date.:

The court’s bottom line is this. Congress cannot use its power under the Commerce Clause to eliminate distinctions between national and local authority, reducing the states to administrative units that implement federal policies and programs. Here, the opinion explained, “[a] state’s role in safeguarding the health of its citizens is a quintessential component of its sovereign powers.” Health care, and health insurance, are areas of traditional state concern where states enjoy a broad police power.

via WSJ.com

Donnelly votes against logic and his own constituents regarding the light-bulb ban

Joe Donnelly: He knows more about light bulbs than you do.

Joe Donnelly: He knows a lot more about light bulbs than you do.

Joe Donnelly, ever the phony Blue Dog, today voted against HR 2417, which would have repealed the phase-out and banning of incandescent light bulbs in favor the more dangerous and less-popular CFL bulbs.

The alternative to Edison’s light bulb is the mercury-loaded compact flourescent, which does have some advantages but is not preferred by most consumers. And, it’s a far bigger environmental hazard than the incandescent bulb.

None of this matters to Nancy Pelosi, who marshalled the Democratic caucus to halt the bill that would have given consumers right to choose the product they prefer. And true to his generally amoral form, Donnelly went along.

Light bulbs may seem like a small issue, but arrogant disregard for peoples’ freedom, desires and the facts is not.  And, as Gateway Pundit explains, Donnelly’s vote helps send more jobs to China, because that’s where the CFLs are made.

We don’t need this guy in the Senate.  He’s done enough damage in the House as it is. Politico has a brief article on the specifics of the bill here.

Court: Calif. can’t ban violent video game sales

Very interesting split between the Supreme Court judges.  ER is somewhat biased against this ruling, mainly because we  don’t really think the Supreme Court SCOTO should inject itself into a state legislative matter. It seems to us that minors are very often denied certain Constitutional rights on the basis that they are too young to exercise them wisely — although age is certainly no guarantee of responsibility.

Freedom of expression is important, but does this give perverts online the right to approach minors with lascivious chat or e-mail?  We’re big fans of Scalia and Roberts, but it seems to us this opens a rather large wormy can.  Check out the article (linked below).  Hat tip to Drudge.

Court: Calif. can’t ban violent video game sales – Yahoo! News.

After a near-miss, Joe Donnelly shoots for the Senate

Congressman Joe Donnelly, Indiana 2nd

Congressman Joe Donnelly, Indiana 2nd

Joe Donnelly won reelection last November by a very narrow margin, and probably won only because Jackie Walorski’s campaign (and candidacy) was fairly unstellar.  Donnelly’s win was not a squeaker, but was much closer than he probably expected.

Taking his drop in popularity as a sign, Donnelly has now decided to run for U.S. Senate, hoping to unseat Richard Lugar in 2012.  We’re not always in agreement with Lugar, but he’s still far better than the phony Blue Dog Donnelly, whose votes for the Obama health care bill,  TARP and so-called “stimulus” packages (also known as union bail-outs) are already taking their toll on our economy and our freedoms.

We’ll talk more about this as the campaigns get closer, but it seems to us that Donnelly is running from his record in our district only to impose it more widely in the US Senate.  We shouldn’t let him.