No Republican Could Ever Get Away With Such Lies

Can you imagine if George Bush were president and he bragged about having "saved or created x [fill in the blank] number of jobs"? He'd be howled off the podium with scorn and derision.

So what happens when Barack Obama actually does that, as he did yesterday in claiming that he had "saved or created 150,000 jobs" with the stimulus bill? The lapdog, fawning liberal media sucked it all in and praised the great man for his accomplishment.

Meanwhile, remember how Obama promised that the stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent and that, without it, unemployment would rise about 9 percent? Got news for you, Obamaites, unemployment is now at 9.4 percent nationwide, and while you claim to have "created or saved 150,000 jobs," the economy has actually lost another 1.6 million jobs since inauguration day.

Nice job.

Though the media will never call the Obama administration out on this particular deceit, one from the Democrats' own ranks did during a hearing with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Again, just imagine what would happen if some Republican tried to get away with such self-evident acts of deception?

Income Distribution in the U.S.: True Lies Exposed

I found this (now-purloined) graph prepared by an economist writing about health care in the United States in the New York Times. His purpose was much different than mine. I'm reproducing it to show how politicians blatantly lie everytime they say they're going to tax the wealthy and leave the middle class alone. Yeah, right, and har de har har. All the money is in the middle, as the graph clearly shows (totals include cost of benefits and Social Security/Medicare contributions borne by employee and employer):

R&D, and It Ain't Research and Development

Rather, it's the two words the Democrats crafting so-called health care reform won't mention, and if they're uttered around them, will instantly dismiss as fanatical right-wing hallucinations--rationing (R) and denial (D) of medical service or medicines.

Just this week, Obama vowed to cut $300 billion over ten years from the Medicare budget by streamlining administrative procedures and rooting out waste and corruption.

Two more words, "Yeah, right."

The only way he'll save a penny, other than cutting payments further, is to do what every other respectable left-wing government does with its health care--ration it (long lines and waiting periods) and deny it ("you're too old for a hip replacement, so live with it").

I hate to disillusion all you "free health care" daydreamers out there, but this is change we can live without. Let's hope no one really believes in all the ridiculous promises being made.

(N.B.: Even the liberal New Republic has come out and demanded that the "reformers" level with the public about what's going on. Read "The Public Remains in the Dark.")

UAW Suspends Subsidized Viagra, Controls GM

So much for the great concessions made by all sides in the negotiations for Government Motors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In labor's hip pocket, Obama first refused to let Chrysler and GM merge to combine operations and save huge costs because--you guessed it--the United Automobile Workers (UAW)--wouldn't agree since it would mean loss of jobs and, and mostly, loss of those lovely union dues.

Then, while publicly saying that all sides would make sacrifices to ensure GM's survival, Obama and his team let the UAW completely off the hook while screwing every single investor of his money (bondholders get worthless stock in exchange).

What did the UAW cede? Nothing really. The union agreed to "suspend" (har de har har) overtime pay for less than 40 hours worked, subsidized Viagra, and the JOBS bank that paid employees full wages not to work (good deal if you can get it, eh?). At the same time, the UAW retained veto power over GM's foreign operations, meaning the company can't do more work in Mexico without the UAW imprimatur.

Hourly rates and all benefits for current UAW workers remain locked in, though it may be necessary to screw retirees if the union can't sell its 17.5-percent stake in Government Motors to fund health care in the future.

Now, given that great sacrifice, how long do you think GM will survive?

Answer: As long as Obama and the Democrats are in power. Congress and the White House are now captive nations of labor--especially the UAW--and will write checks forever (at taxpayer expense) to keep GM afloat.

What about selling the government's 60 percent stake on the open market?

Answer: Fat chance. At its peak, GM was never valued at more than $52 billion, roughly the cost of Uncle Obama's current 60 percent share, so a half-size Government Motors would have to rise to $80 billion in valuation before the government could sell out.

More har de har har....

In This VAT, There Be Billions

Scrambling to come up with money (i.e., take it from us taxpayers), Congress and the White House are experiencing a taxing time figuring out sources of revenue that won't have serious political repercussions.

One that is almost sure to be enacted in the name of "healthcare reform" (since when did health care become one word?) is a tax on employer-provided health benefits, which will probably be skewed toward those with the highest wages and/or highest priced plans.

Inevitably, however, the good ol' value-added tax, or VAT, has resurfaced. In this tax scheme, a tariff is assessed each time a value is added to a product--when it's made, when it's shipped and when it's bought or consumed. Some 130 nations currently employ VATs, and one wag even argues that a VAT of 24 percent (!) would enable the federal government to balance the budget and drop all income taxes to zero for those earning $100,000 or less and to 25 percent for high-earners.

Of course, it would also horrifically raise the cost of everything from eggs to excess consumption--and everything in between.

Now, if Congress would actually incorporate a VAT in the name of ending most income taxes, I'd say it's worth a look, but I doubt you could get many Democrats to go along in the face of a) "lost" revenue from income tax and b) constituent outrage over soaring living costs. Plus, Republicans, theoretically at least, are opposed to all taxes, especially those proposed by donkeys. (Not that the elephants have much power anymore.)

The most commonsensical and best approach is, as always, an across-the-board flat tax on all incomes above..., well, fill in the blank. Or we could revisit Richard Nixon's plan for a guaranteed income for all and thus end the welfare debacle.

However, things that make sense can never make it past Democrats, whose sole purpose in life is to create constituencies that will be indebted to them forever and therefore always vote Democratic--even if the world is falling apart around them.

The Democrats, after all, have a program for everything--and a solution for nothing.

Countrywide Leads the List of Top 25 Bandits

I don't usually agree with AlterNet, which is generally a left-leaning (to say the least) site, but The Center for Public Integrity has a well-reasoned piece on "The Bad Guys of Subprime Lending Are Raking in Bailout Billions."

The article details the woeful and sordid spectacle of non-banks (for the most part) dishing out $1.4 trillion in subprime (paradoxically, actually meaning higher than prime rate) loans that could never be repaid, with ever-lowered standards of loan qualification.

Now, with 20 of the top 25 lenders either out of business or swallowed up, many of the worst culprits are now zinging Uncle Same to bail them out. I'm reprinting the chart that lists the top 25 bandits at right (click on image to enlarge).

Interesting, but how did $1.4 trillion in bad loans cause $3 trillion of federal expenditures in response? Wouldn't it have been easier just to buy up the foreclosed homes and take them off the books?

Answers: Government never takes the easiest or most sensible route since the goal is to buy support and votes, not necessarily to solve any problem.

Weird Weed Being Smoked in Budget Office

Budget Director Peter Orszag's proclamation over the weekend to CNN that health care reform will not increase the federal deficit must mean the administration plans to create health care collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and sell them to hedge funds to get the trillions needed and keep the debt off record.

Otherwise, Mr. Orszag has found some kind of noxious weed to smoke while on the job. Clearly, insuring an additional nearly 50 million people ain't gonna be paid for by passing individual mandates or even employer mandates. The fed guv, like Massachusetts' Commonwealth Care, will find itself either subsidizing tons of people or exempting them from the mandate.

Let's get real here, folks. Otherwise, make that weed available to the general public so we can all live in the same unreal world.