For some bizarre reason, Rep. Keith Ellison thought that it was a good idea to get Rep. McDermott’s opinions on the public option on the public record. Who am I to pass up such an opportunity?

Yes, he really is advocating a policy that, to quote a colleague, “prevents insurers from calculating rates or willingness to insure based on risk; all must be served, and for no higher cost than anybody else.” And no, nobody he’s close to will ever have to face the consequences of McDermott’s policies.  What, do you think that these people plan to live by the rules they’d impose upon the rest of us?

Moe Lane

PS: Gresham’s Law: “Bad money drives out good.” It’s a common problem in any system where one competitor for resources has coercive powers and the others do not. Conservatives handle this by punishing abuse of the coercive power; libertarians wish the coercive power removed altogether; and liberals don’t understand why this is automatically a problem, at least when they control the competitor.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Governor Rick Perry has upped the ante after remarks during his appearance at the Tea Party in Austin, Texas. According to news accounts, the Governor acknowledged that independence is theoretically an option, but that it’s not currently necessary.

…An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

…Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot…”

Some folks will no doubt be concerned that this statement is too strong and will marginalize the growing movement of citizens opposing the actions of our national government in Washington. Some may even characterize it as unpatriotic.

I completely disagree.

Read More →

Moe wrote about the Washington State lunacy the other day. To recap:

Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

As the Associated Press notes, there’s just one problem:

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe’s left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

Washington State has turned its residents into a group of drug runners — crossing state lines to buy dish washer detergent with phosphate.

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?

At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems.

If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. But it is going to have to get back to “leave me the hell alone” style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.

Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.

[UPDATE]: (Via Ed’s original post) John Huang?  John Huang?
OK, that’s it. Somebody from the White House give me a call. I will personally pick out a Commerce Secretary for you. It will be a liberal Democrat, with no skeletons in his or her closet - I’m actually leaning towards her at this point - and nothing that will make the GOP freak out. As God as my witness, I will not play any partisan games. This is a legitimate offer.
Because you people are embarrassing me with this, that’s why.

Kind of the point, really.

Via Hot Air we hear a story that sounds hauntingly familiar about Obama’s third-time’s-the-charm pick for Commerce (former WA Democratic governor Gary Locke):

LET’S SAY YOU’RE Gov. Gary Locke’s brother-in-law. You bunk at the governor’s mansion. You commute to your nearby job as an executive of a private technology firm.

uring your two years with the firm, the governor signs a bill giving your company a tax break, personally intervenes in a dispute involving your company, shows up for a party there, and signs a federal loan application for your company, whose founders—your bosses—pay at least two visits to the mansion.

At the same time, your company rakes in millions in state aid, lands a fat state technology contract, and is allowed to use government credit authority to float new loans (an authority illegally granted, as a state auditor’s report will reveal this week).

Are you getting gubernatorial favors that average citizens don’t get?

Naaaw, says the governor.

So, where have I heard this before?

Read More →

That sentiment isn’t exactly a surprise; however, the fact that McDermott was referring to an amendment that dropped the tax liability on unemployment benefits makes this a bit more of a head-scratcher. Then again, reality is whatever these folks and their willing accomplices in the media want it to be these days.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX): Mr. Chairman, just yesterday President Obama said he agrees with that concept, and that we shouldn’t be taxing people on their unemployment benefits. I would hope that it’s an oversight on y’all’s part, and [that you] would accept this amendment.”

Rep. “Baghdad Jim” McDermott (D-WA): “Certainly Mr. Johnson’s amendment has press appeal, but it follows an old pattern of giving the tax benefit to the people on the top of the income scale, even though they only get 34% of the benefits. If you don’t pay taxes, you get nothin’ out of this amendment. It is not good for people on the bottom who are the ones who are most likely to be affected by the unemployment insurance….[inaudible]”

On behalf of those who are receiving unemployment benefits because they lost their jobs in this economy and need the income to get by while looking for some other opportunity to feed their families, I have to ask: What the heck is McDermott talking about?

Read More →