How low the Democrat party has sunk since the heady days when President Harry S. Truman adorned his desk with that now-infamous slogan!  “The buck stops here.”  Now that is leadership.  I, of course, wasn’t alive during the Truman presidency and honestly haven’t studied his administration well enough to say one way or the other whether the words on that plaque were just that, or whether they were words he lived by.  But the sentiment espoused in those four words – that is the very definition of leadership.

The Head of State — the Commander-in-Chief — in many ways, IS America.  Her failures are his, and his successes, hers.  At least, that’s how it used to be.  Now? …

I suppose we modern Americans should’ve known we were in trouble when Bill “it wasn’t me” Clinton refused to cop to an affair he actually had — going so far as to specifically deny ever having “sexual relations with that woman” — until the stain showed up on her blue dress and he was finally forced to … uh … wax pseudophilosophical about the definition of “is.”  And then, of course, rather than mainstream politicians and media asking how we could trust a man who would so willingly lie to the people who put him in charge, they acted as though the ones who told the truth were the monsters, and that the long-suffering clinton was some sort of martyr and hero.  The Patron Saint of Cheaters and Liars.

Yeah.  We probably should’ve known then that we were no longer dealing with “Buck Stops Here” Democrats.  And, I suppose, many of us did.  Even so, almost none of us were jaded enough to expect somebody like Barack Obama to come along.

Here’s a guy — a President, if you will (and 52% of us DID) — who, to hear him tell it, has never made a mistake in his life.  Sure, he pays lip service to mistakes; but ask him to name one.  This, in spite of the fact that he’s had more on-the-record “clarifications” of his statements than any “clean, articulate black man” in the history of the world.  Including Kanye West.

President Obama hasn’t taken responsibility for anything at all in the first year of his Administration, and I have doubts he ever will.  The economy?  Bush’s fault.  Afghanistan?  Bush.  His total failure to get an operational majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress to come together on a health bill?  Republicans, of course.  And, I’m sure, Bush.  Somehow.

So, again, it should come as no surprise that, flying home after a failed bid to secure Chicago as the location for the 2016 Olympics, Obama again shrugged off responsibility.  Listening to his speech on the matter, I was very nearly lulled into believing he may actually own his responsibility on that matter: “One of the things that I think is most valuable about sports is that you can play a great game and still not win,” he began.  You can see, I think, how I thought for a second he might actually take the ball on this.  But then he kept going:

And so although I wish that we had come back with better news from Copenhagen, I could not be prouder of my hometown of Chicago, the volunteers who were involved, Mayor Daley, the delegation and the American people for the extraordinary bid that we put forward.

<snip>

Again, I want to thank everybody who worked so hard to put America’s bid together — not just Mayor Daley and the delegation, Pat Ryan, but most especially the thousands of Chicagoans who volunteered over these past few years. They put in their heart and soul into this bid. I have no doubt that it was the strongest bid possible, and I’m proud that I was able to come in and help make that case in person.

(emphasis mine)

I suppose we should be grateful the President even admitted he was there at all.  But you notice how quickly he distanced himself from the bid itself.  Not his bid.  Their bid.  “America’s Bid.”  In a speech riddled, like most of Obama’s speeches, with the word “I,” it’s always interesting to see where he deliberately does not use it.

Of course, Obama surrogates and apologists are doing their part as well to remove responsibilty from Obama.  All of which is kind of silly, given the relative unimportance of the issue.  But, by God, you just can’t let it appear that THE ONE has failed.  And so.

MSNBC — a “news” channel that is so in-the-tank for Barack Obama they’d probably consider changing their logo if Rahm Emanuel asked them to — softballed a conspiracy theory to David Axelrod, giving him the opportunity to blame political backscratching within the IOC for the failing bid.

(about two minutes in)

And now, of course, you have other apologists doing the inevitable and blaming Bush (about 8 paragraphs from the bottom).

The thing of it is, Brazil has never hosted an Olympic games.  The U.S. had.  Frankly, it was Rio’s turn, and, in spite of our problems here, they probably needed this more than we did.  I find it interesting that, in their fervor to blame somebody, Obama’s people haven’t looked to this simplest of explanations. 

Probably, suggesting that the President may have just had bad timing in this case is somehow racist.

Former Republican Presidential Candidate (and my personal pick for the job, if we’re to be completely honest about it), Fred Thompson sent out a letter to supporters of his political action committee, urging support of NY-23 Congressional Candidate Doug Hoffman.

In that letter, Thompson refers to Hoffman as the “True Conservative” in the race for NY-23 — an assessment with which, given the record of the “Republican” in this race, Dede Scozzafava, I have to concur –and sees the race as “an opportunity to send a message to Washington, to the Obama Administration, and to the politicians who have made careers of ignoring the will of the people they represent.”

Aside from Thompson, the Club for Growth has also thrown in for Hoffman.  In a press release issued today, CFG President Chris Chocola all but denounced both Democrat candidate Bill Owens AND Republican pick Dede Scozzafava as being partisan liberals:

After months of runaway spending, bailouts, and record deficits, the last thing we need in Congress is another rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and the liberal Democrats.

The CFG also posted a poll of three hundred area voters which suggests the race is in a dead heat between the three candidates.  Though that poll was pretty clearly partisan and probably not to be trusted as a true and accurate source, it is clear that Hoffman, though not running as a Republican, can count on Republican support as Conservatives seek to reclaim Congress.

With the date for the election now set for Nov. 3, I sincerely hope that all the Republicans in NY-23 will stand up for Real Republican values and vote, not for candidate-select Scozzafava, but for Conservative candidate and the REAL Republican in this race, Doug Hoffman.

As for the eleven who put their ignorant perceptions of “electibility” over policy and values… I propose we deal with THEM as soon as possible.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

MoveOn.org sent out an email to supporters today, about “going on the offense” in the health care debate. In spite of a recent poll they cite further in the email, it seems MoveOn feels its cause has been hurt by constantly being on the defensive against Republican attacks. To that end, they plan on attacking Republicans they feel are “vulnerable” with a series of ads pointing out the money they were given by Insurance companies:

Quote:

But to win, we have to go on offense and take the fight to Republicans—expose how they’re taking millions from health insurance companies, and make them pay a political price for obstructing reform and opposing a public health insurance option.

That’s why we’ve produced a new series of powerful TV ads to run in the districts of vulnerable Republican representatives. But to get them on the air, we need to raise $185,000 from MoveOn members across the country…

Of course, these ads will fail to mention the millions of dollars Democrats receive in donations from the Union lobby — strong advocates of the “public option” — but also the money which prominent Democrats have recieved from none other than … insurance companies.

Though it is undeniably true that insurance giving has favored Republicans for nearly two decades (or more), it is equally true — and perhaps more telling — that in 2008 giving nearly leveled off (to within 10%) between the two sides and that the most recent giving has favored Democrats 56% to 44 (via Open Secrets). The picture becomes clearer as we examine recipient detail from this election cycle and that of 2008.

During the 2008 election cycle, John McCain was the top recipient of Insurance donations with $2.4 million. Right behind him with nearly $2.3 million was Barack Obama. In third place with about $1.2 mil? Mrs. Clinton. In fact, of the top twenty recipients of Insurance lobby money, half were Republicans, while half democrats — with not a whole lot of disparity between the spread.

For 2010 so far, Chuck Schumer has already pulled in over $153,000 — second only to a single Republican, Rob Portman of OH, with $193,000. Of the next five recipients, the top four are Democrats, including Harry Reid and Chris Dodd.

At this point, one may well ask: what’s my point? To which I would respond: “Exactly.” MoveOn is attempting to impugn the motives of Republican politicians with Zero evidence beyond dollar amounts. Dollars they won’t even admit are being just as happily accepted by Democrats.

Of course, when Chris Dodd was given sweetheard deals by mortage firms, and was the top monetary recipient of the mortgage lobby, that was a distraction. Barney Frank’s relationship with a ranking official at Freddie Mac of course had nothing to do letting the utter incompetent all but run the firm into the ground. And how dare we bring that up?

But give Republicans a couple hundred thousand more than the democrats one cycle — and a couple hundred thousand less the next — and it’s all the evidence MoveOn.org needs connect the dots and declare all opposition to ObamaCare morally evil.

(Cross-posted at The Minority Report)

In any economic evaluation, you have to balance long-term goals and short-term goals in a way that will ultimately benefit the “Bigger Picture.” In other words, though it isn’t always the case, sometimes you have to sacrifice short-term prosperity in order to benefit greater in the long run. Recent decisions by New York State, however, seem to suggest a willingness on the part of the State to not only favor the short view, but positively decimate the potential for future prosperity.

The first of these decisions, by the unelected bureaucrats of the State Dept. of Taxation and Finance, includes a new registration and fees for businesses to be able to collect sales tax for the state. You read that right. The State still requires a sales tax to be assessed at cash registers across the state — money which goes directly to the State coffers — but now, retailers have to pay for the priviledge. Par for the course, T&F offers not so much an explanation for this monstrosity of authoritarianism, as a “justification:”

Department spokesman Thomas M. Bergin said the department estimates there are 600,000 active businesses. The $50 fee therefore would generate about $30 million for the state.

“We have never gone through these filers to see who’s here and who’s not,” Mr. Bergin said. “But it also will raise revenue that the state is badly in need of.”

In addition to weeding out defunct businesses, the recertification process could help the department find businesses that owe sales taxes.

In other words, the over-paid bureaucrats at T&F are incapable of actually doing their jobs, so they are charging these businesses in order to be able to make record of retailers they have failed to keep track of. The Government hacks suck at their jobs and the people who perform a service for them (charging and sending sales taxes) have to foot the bill to cover. That Jamie Woodward, the acting commissioner of that department, still has a job, is astounding. Not particularly surprising, but troubling, nonetheless.

I should not have to explain why charging small businesses an additional fifty bucks per quarter (or cycle) is a bad idea in an already troubled economy. I try to avoid explaining common sense — I also refuse to pepper my blog with warnings not to drink Drano or stare directly into the lens of a 5,000-candle-power projector. I’m sure, if you stare at the above sentences long enough, you’ll be able to muddle through. Unless you happen to work for the state.

Alas, the state’s assault on small businesses didn’t start there, and it doesn’t end there. Not by a long shot.

Another recent development involves everyone’s favorite scapegoat, TOBACCO(!!!!!!!!!!)(cue Snidley Whiplash theme). As has been pointed out by this blog before, New York State under “governor” Paterson seems to have found itself a cash cow in the less-than-healthy lifestyles of many New Yorkers. So long as the State is careful only to go after the unpopular minorities of society (like the smokers and the fatties), they figure people won’t mind (or won’t notice) that their freedoms are being eroded.

This time around, though, the State is going after tobacco retailers (and therefore, smokers) in a more roundabout way. Rather than hitting cigs with another tax, they’re jacking the price of the tobacco license. A lot. Where it once cost retailers $100 to get a license to sell tobacco, it will now cost a minimum of $1000. That’s right. A 1000% fee increase, at a minimum. True, my memory can be short, but I can’t think of another fee increase that massive over a single year.

And who’s going to get hurt by this? Big business? Not likely. Big Tobacco? Probably not. Small business and the consumer are going to take the hit, again.

So, good ole Greg & Molly’s out on Route 11, who does a pretty good business in general, but has been suffering in the downturned economy like everyone else, now has to come up with another $1000 a year (or more) and another $50 a cycle. They can probably deal with it, and maybe even manage to come back out of it a stronger business.

Folks who haven’t been around as long, who are perhaps still struggling… well, they’re SOL. Honest folks, in general, who are just trying to make their own way. But then, it is becoming more and more clear that “making our own way” is exactly what New York State doesn’t want to see happening. And as they kill off the businesses, finances and dreams of their constituents, the elected officials of New York State will soon find that they haven’t the revenue left to keep operating. And with no more smokers, fatties, rich folk or small business owners left, who do you suppose they’ll have to shake down next?

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

Promoted from the diaries by Jeff

Tell any pro-ObamaCare Democrat that socialized healthcare doesn’t work, and you are sure to receive the smug reply that “countries with a single-payer system have a higher life expectancy.”  Technically, that’s true.  But, as the saying goes, there are “lies, damned lies and statistics.”  The lie in this particular set of stats is indeed not in the stats themselves, but in the inference you are asked to draw from them.  You are told, for example, that Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom rate higher in life expectancy than the U.S. because of their public healthcare systems.

You’re asked to believe that all this happens in a vaccuum.  That the only — or at least largest — factor in life expectancy is the mode and quality of health insurance.  But that isn’t the case.  The Life Expectancy figure is based upon an average of death ages from any cause; and that includes non-medical causes.

But you are asked to ignore other, non-medical causes of death.  Causes like violent crime, household accidents, car accidents, etc.  These are numbers which should not be ignored in this discussion; if average age of death is seen as important to the issue of healthcare, certainly the circumstances surrounding those deaths, and whether a single-payer system would actually effect those rates, are equally important.

Read More →

(start video around 2:45)

Democrats like to say a lot of things about healthcare, in order to calm the jitters of the voting public. Of course you can keep your current health insurance, they say. The public option will simply keep those private companies in check. Furthermore, they say, fears of rationed care are unfounded — and clearly the fear of mandated euthenasia is pure paranoia.

But are these the facts? Do these calming words have any basis in reality?

As has been noted here and elsewhere, a public option will almost certainly evolve into a single-payer system — and, indeed, that is what it’s designed to do. Rationed care? A necessary symptom of the single-payer system. When a single payer is responsible for the health needs of everybody, there are bound to be some conflicts.

Just ask Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel — Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel’s brother — also works with the Obama administraiton, as a presidential health care advisor. He published an article in January, in a British Medical Journal called ‘Lancet,’ in which he examines, not only the possibility of rationed care, but how to make beaurocratic decisions on who should get limited treatments. (via RightSoup)

E. Emanuel is also, as of March, a member of the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research — tasked with determining a “Federal system for withdrawing care.” He seems more than up to the task.

Writes Emanuel:

Quote:

“Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services… Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Scary enough. It gets worse.

Quote:

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.”

Under the Ezekiel Emanuel plan, the infants and the elderly sit rather uncomfortably at the bottom of the food chain, while young adults take precedents over adolescents. And then, incredibly, Emanuel even stipulates that job and social standing will have to be accounted for:

Quote:

“Social Value Allocation” prioritizes specific individuals to enable them to promote other important values, or rewards them for having promoted these values. In view of the multiplicity of reasonable values in society and in view of what is at stake, social value allocation must not legislate socially conventional, mainstream values.”

…

“Allocators must also avoid directing interventions earmarked for health needs to those not relevant to the health problem at hand, which covertly exacerbates scarcity. For instance, funeral directors might be essential to preserving health in an influenza pandemic, but not during a shortage of intensive-care beds. For instance, former organ donors seem to deserve reciprocity since they make a serious sacrifice and since there is no surplus of organ donors. By contrast, laboratory staff who serve as vaccine production workers do not incur serious risk nor are they irreplaceable, so reciprocity seems less appropriate for them.”

In short, if you’re an electrician, and both you and a surgeon need the same liver — guess what? If the Government decides it needs surgeons, you’re what they call in the Insurance business SOL.

More on this can be found at the Washington Times. But one has to ask: if it’s true that regular folks don’t have to worry about things like rationed care under a Federally-run system, then why even submit the theory? And what the hell is going on in Georgia?

Are fears of a “Logan’s Run” kind of world under the Obama administration unfounded? When folks like this are the ones making the decisions on the Administration’s health policy, don’t bet on it. It’s time to get our representatives to read these bills they’re trying to pass. It’s time to let Obama and Company know that we aren’t stupid. Stand up against the Trojan Horse of “public options.” And remember not to eat the green crackers.

(Cross-posted at The Minority Report)

Promoted from the diaries by EPU

The Confirmation of Representative John McHugh as Obama’s Secretary of the Army is still yet to occur, but NY-23 Republicans and Democrats are preparing for the inevitable race for his seat in Congress.  And amidst talks that the District 23 Republicans may push off making their nominations, The Jefferson County GOP has made their selection known, and a final tally now seems set for Thursday.  In their pick of Dede Scozzafava, Jefferson County admits to weighing “experience” over substance.  Jefferson County’s GOP Chair Sandra Corey told the Watertown Daily Times criticism that Scozzafava is too liberal “isn’t a problem for me, because I’m a Republican.  I’m not a Conservative or a Liberal.”

The prevailing wisdom, certainly inside the Franklin GOP, seems to be that any Republican victory is important — even if it’s a center-left moderate.

Conservative candidate Josh Lynch, who has found supporters among the Jefferson County voters and throughout NY-23, disagrees.  “I see a ripe opportunity,” says Lynch.  An opportunity for a “Common-sense Conservative” who can run a “positive, issues-based campaign

There’s an aspect of the modern day campaign and on the new media side [in which] I would excel.  I would continue to do it the way I did here.  I want to be the consensus candidate.  A candidate that appeals to new coalitions.

Still a Senatorial Aid, Lynch is essentially working two full-time jobs — his second being the campaign for Congress.  In a late-night phonecall, I spoke with Josh Lynch about something the local GOP seems to be ignoring in favor of (flawed) perceptions of electability: policy.

Read More →

Now that Congressman John McHugh has been tapped as Secretary of the Army by President Obama (and there is little doubt he’ll be confirmed), the race has begun for his seat in the House.  Though Congressional District 23 is one of the largest (and most underrepresented) districts in the nation, in general, this isn’t one that people pay much attention to.  Except, this isn’t like a normal race, is it?  With the Democrats in total control of two of the three branches of government, Republicans are hoping to keep this seat, and perhaps even strengthen it.  Dems, meanwhile, would love to tighten their hold on the House by replacing McHugh with one of their own.  And, of course, for political junkies, it’s the only game in town.  All of which is to say that the NY-23 race is, in fact, being watched on a national level.

For now, I’m not overly interested in what the Democrats are doing with this.  Speculation is that State Senator Darryl Aubertine will be the (D) nominee.  And, certainly, GOP leadership seems to be looking for a candidate who can beat him. 

According to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, the Republicans may select a candidate as soon as this week.  Now, Republicans are touting the fact that they are keeping the candidate-selection process very, very open and ethical.  Which, I suppose they are, at least as much as is possible without actually getting the voters involved.  The primary selection will actually be made by a weighted vote by the GOPchairs in the district’s eleven counties.  Because of this, it’s pretty hard for the average voter to get to know the candidates until after the selection is made and the GOP starts reformulating their message for the voting public. 

More information about the candidates will be posted to this blog, hopefully within the next day or two.  Even now, there are clear frontrunners, according to the media; and a source within the county GOP seems to confirm, at least for herself, that the two frontrunners are moderate Dede Scozzafava and the more evidently Conservative Paul Maroun.  However, there are other options as well, such as the 26-year-old Josh Lynch.  Though he’s young, and this would be his first elected office, the Conservative Lynch is no stranger to election politics, or even to Washington DC.  Lynch worked with Sam Brownback as an assistant, and during Brownback’s presidential bid.

It would be, I suppose, too much to hope that the District GOP would flout what has become known as “conventional wisdom” here.  I say that because, though actual conventional wisdom is based on what has been proven to work, recent GOP “conventional wisdom,” has been proven specifically to NOT work.  It is this new “wisdom,” for example, which suggests we need a moderate to win and keep the seat.  Since, you know, that worked out so well with McCain.

Moreover, we should not be merely thinking about winning this seat back, but about helping to effect change in Washington.  It should be remembered that the overregulation we’re experiencing, the quickly-passed and worthless “stimulus” package and the overbearing and equally pointless “Cap & Trade” bills are the works of liberals and moderates.   “Conventional Wisdom” can say what it wants; Common Sense says introducing more of the same to Washington will not bring about positive change and could, in fact, just make it worse.

This is going to be a tough battle for the North Country.  North Country politics, as I’ve learned since my arrival here about four years ago, is often about short-term reciprocation rather than solid, long-term solutions.  When talking with many voters in Northern New York, there appears to be a disconnect between stated values and the actual voting process.  Person A may better fit the political values of a voter, but the vote will often go to Person B, who “has done a lot for the area.”  Unfortunately, what is often unseen is how those good works in the name of the home county will actually effect the voters with regard to both finances and liberty.  If a politician, for example, signed something that brought a hundred jobs to such-and-such county, a voter may not notice, or may even wilfully ignore that the same politician also signed a whole bunch of taxes and regs into law which prevented them from getting raises, decreased their benefit packages or even lost jobs for the county.

And it is this, in part, which gives rise to the idea that we need moderates in order to win.  The GOP, clueless as usual about what goes on in the minds of voters, takes this willingness to see only the positives as a rejection of Conservative values.  They allow Democrats and the media to define the narrative about what the voters want, without actually listening to the voters themselves.  On the other hand, if the GOP leadership would listen — really listen — to the average voter, they would realize that results are important, but that the voters also need to be educated in what really happens in a way that the media — the outlet charged, in the minds of many voters, with that task — simply won’t do.

The fact is, here in District 23, the GOP can run a Conservative, and win.  But they need to be willing to take on the Democrats who try to define the message.  They need to show how what looks like a boon for the North Country isn’t always what it seems, and that though even liberal politicians can occasionally make good decision, these are far outweighed by those decisions which fly directly in the face of North Country values.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

I’ve been thinking about Obama.  About the things he does and is doing.  I’ve been thinking he reminds me of somebody.  I don’t know, though.  I can’t put my finger on it.

Maybe it’s the way he pals around with oppressive dictators who suppress dissidents.

Maybe it’s the way he fights for a healthcare system that could ration the elderly right out of coverage.

Perhaps it is his desire to control the weather.

I don’t know… I think maybe…

Anyone else impressed by the prescience exhibited by G4 here?

Since I’m such a valuable member of the MoveOn community (read: I have an email address to which they can keep sending requests for money), I was sent this little morsel.  An email both warning me about the dangers and evils of Corporate Banking(!) and explaining to me how Government can help.  I’ll reproduce their email, titled “The Fine Print” [cue ominous music]:

Dear MoveOn member,

Have you ever read your credit card agreement? Really read all that legal jargon in the tiny font?

Me neither. The big banks count on us not to because that fine print is where they hide the “gotchas” that cost consumers billions of dollars each year on credit cards, mortgages, and student loans. 

Now, President Obama and Congress are stepping in by creating a new “financial products” watchdog agency to protect consumers. In the same way that we keep stores from selling exploding toasters, this agency will have the power to keep lenders from offering “exploding” loans.¹

Of course, the big banks hate this idea. And their lobbyists are swarming congressional offices trying to kill the new agency.² 

That’s why it’s so important that Rep. McHugh hears pushback from regular folks now. Can you call him today and ask him to support a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency?

Dear Move On,

Or — OR — you could just read the fine print.  I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but exploding toasters don’t come with legal copy and a required signature that says you understand the toaster might explode; correct?  This isn’t even an apples/oranges comparison, MoveOn.  You’re comparing Apples to Orangutans.

No, I don’t believe I’ll be calling John McHugh and begging him to support another piece of crap legislation.  For one thing, I’m sure he doesn’t need my prompting anyway, if Capntax is any indication. 

Your email suggests something that I sincerely hope more people begin to understand: you honestly believe that the people on your side are complete idiots.  You are honestly out there, advocating for continued consumer ignorance, under federal protection by the Mighty Hand of Obama.  This isn’t protection from the Big Bad Banks.  Theoretically, the Fine Print ought to take care of that.  No, what this is is simply protecting Consumers from the consequences of their own willful ignorance.  Again, a complete lack of respect for your patrons.

Normal people don’t consider as equals those who must be protected from themselves.  In general, we call those people “children.”  And I have the sneaking suspicion that you do, too.

Palin resigned.  Did you hear the news?  No?  Well, where the hell’ve you been, Skippy?  Clearly not here at RedState.  Sanford screwed up.  Probably heard about that, too.  But in all the hubbub and handwringing going on regarding 2012 here in RedState, we’re quickly losing focus of something far more pressing: It’s only 2009.

We have a HUGE game still to play, and it’s way too early to start talking about the end of the season.  The 2010 election is vital.  Not just, “say, you know, it would be super-duper if we got some Republicans in the Legislature again.”  No.  Vital.  As in, “Say, if we don’t get some Conservatives on the Hill in 2010, we can pretty much wave a sad farewell to the Country we know and love.”

Am I overstating the case?  Obama runs GM.  The House passed a giant enviro-bill that will create new regs and costs for everybody from the “big bad corporations” to the working guy trying to buy a pack of smokes.  There are healthcare plans on the docket right now which will effectively gut our current system and pave the way for a single-payer system.   Like Canada, but run by the geniuses who brought you Walter Reed.  And that’s all inside the First Year.  Overstating my case?  Sure.  How’s that sand taste?

We have one thing we need to focus on right now.  One.  Putting Conservatives into the Legislature.  That’s it.  That’s the game we’re playing.  Not the 2012 election.  We don’t even have a player list for that one.  I don’t know who’s going to run in 2012, and I don’t give a damn — and neither should you. Because it is a distraction, and only a distraction.

We have enough problems for 2010 without everybody starting the infighting and loss of focus over Palin, Sanford or whoever else you wanted to draft for the POTUS campaign.  This is the one that matters.  Here.  Now.  Get your damned head in the game, or step off the field.

Many people have already heard about or read about California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and her assertion that Conservative talk show hosts are “terrorists.”  If not, you can check The Corner at NRO.

It was during an interview with the LA Times.  The portion of the interview that, rightly, has many people up in arms is this:

Q: How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

A: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

As a matter of fact, though the question was about talk radio, it’s clear she’s actually talking about the Republican Party in general, and its members.  What she’s talking about is simple protesting.  When you protest government, what are you telling them?  In essence, you’re here because we allow you to be; muck it up and you’re gone.

Bass appears to be under the impression that the Legislature is not answerable to the folks who put them in power.  Bass, it would appear, has never heard the phrase “Consent of the Governed.”  Perhaps she knows a Constitutional Scholar would could explain it to her.  For an elected official to equate the simple practice of the First Amendment with “terrorism” should start raising alarm bells in people.  That she would then suggest that believers in “Government by Consent” — a key founding principle of our nation, by the way — should be silenced, ought to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

But then, in keeping with the Liberal tradition of “Freedom for me, but not for thee,” Bass reveals that, actually, she’s okay with reminding Government who pays the bills — as long as you agree with her personal ideals.  From the Times interview, with absolutley NO clipping in the middle:

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Do you get especially exasperated when your own people — Democrats — don’t agree with you?

You know, I was a community activist, so I’m used to standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting.

(italics added)

So, just to be clear: Community Activism, which Bass defines as “standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting” is fine and dandy, so long as you’re name is Karen Bass.  Using radio, television, letters and email to carry out your right as an American Citizen to make your voice heard by reminding your representatives who pays their mortgage – especially as a card-carrying Republican – that’s terrorism.  Got it.

According to an article by the Associated Press today, the Supreme Court overturning of Sotomayor’s discrimination ruling will cause “confusion.”  That, according to “civil rights” advocates and union attorneys like Wade Henderson.  Henderson, the President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has suggested that a ruling in favor of the white folks (and two hispanics) in the New Haven case will create “confusing standards on how to meet that obligation.”

“Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination,” Henderson said. “Employers are looking for bright lines … they’re looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions.”

The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. “It puts employers in a real quandary,” he said.

Shirley Wilcher, who is the executive Director of the American Association for Affirmative Action (could there be a more useless organization?) also chimed in, saying that the Obama Administration should be creating guidelines on how to deal with the ruling.

“In the meantime, we’re scratching our heads,” she said. “We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate … and it’s not clear how to do that.”

There’s more, and I suggest reading the full article.  But we’ll stop there.  Several things bugged me about this piece.  But first thing’s first.

I need to address a pet peeve of mine.  I know I’ve heard Limbaugh use the phrases “Reverse Discrimination” and “Reverse racism.”  Many times, Conservatives use that termanology to differentiate between racism against non-whites and racism against whites.  “Progressives” have the same use: to them, there’s “real” racism, and then “reverse racism” — that against those who are racists by default.  This termanology needs to be expunged from our vernacular.  “Discrimination” and “racism” are not defined by ideology or by which group is being victimized.  Discrimination is simply the preference of one group over another.  Racism is simply ideological discrimination based on race.  Period.  White, black, red, tan, pink-and-orange — racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination.  Okay?  Moving along.

Now then, to Henderson and Wilcher.  What they seem to be saying — indeed, what Wilcher just comes right out and says — is that people don’t know how not to discriminate without instruction from … other people.  This idea is, let’s call it problematic, on many levels.  First, the obvious.  Does election to public office automatically enable one to answer a philosophical social question that an unelected person is (according to Wilcher and Henderson) funamentally unequipped to answer?  How does that work?  That takes care of the clear idiocy of Wilcher’s suggestion.

The bigger problem, though, is intent.  Let’s start with a basic statement of reality: If you need somebody to tell you how NOT to discriminate, you’re doing it wrong.  When I was a substitute teacher, my students were shocked when they found out I’d never experimented with illegal drugs, had never been drunk, and had been celibate before my wedding (hey, they asked, and they were in high school — I figured they could use a good, adult example).  “How,” they asked, “did you go through College without doing any of that stuff?”  “Simple,” I joked.  “I’m lazy.”  Then seriously, I would say, “Look, it’s actually very easy to not do something.  You just… don’t do it.  Inactivity is the default state.  Temptation is the hangup of people who seek approval from others.”

The same argument can be made for discrimination.  You don’t have to be told how to not discriminate.  You just don’t do it.  In a work situation, you make the choice to select the best candidate.  Period.  Yes, it’s actually that easy.  And, of course, while I’m not in favor of antidiscrimination laws in the private sector (I believe people should have the right to be a**holes if they so choose), there can be absolutely NO place for discrimination of any kind in the public services. 

What Henderson and Wilcher are really saying, then, is not, “How do employers know how not to discriminate” but rather, they are asking what the question of Affirmative Action has been all along: “How do they know who it’s okay to discriminate against.”

To a liberal, racism and discrimination are facts of life.  It is always going to go on.  Nobody gains through work, experience and acheivement — gain is always at the expense of somebody else.  This worldview is evident in nearly every single socio-economic policy liberals have ever introduced.

For Henderson and Wilcher, discrimination is always a zero-sum game.  In order for black individuals to NOT be discriminated against, white people must be.  And THAT is why they are so confused, and why they think employers will be.  Because they don’t understand that some people actually make the honest effort to be color blind.  An effort, for the record, which would actually be much easier if “progressives” weren’t so damned hung up on making it an issue.

(sent as an email to the office of John McHugh, and cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for selling out your constituents, and your countrymen, by supporting the Cap & Trade bill. A bill which you, like your colleagues, could never have had the time to read before the vote. A bill which even 44 Democrats crossed the aisle to prevent because even they understood that the mandates contained in the bill would be disastrous for business, for our economy, and for both workers and consumers.

Congressman, this is the second letter I’ve written you inre your failure to read a bad bill, and your willingness to vote for it anyway.

Mr. Congressman, if I get a response, I suspect that response will be, much like the one I got for the above-mentioned letter, a form letter extolling what you view as the virtues of this legislation — or at least, the fact that they included your own amendment. Kindly allow me to rebut in advance:

So?

Mr. Congressman, if you’ll allow me to be so blunt, neither I, your constituents, nor indeed most thinking Americans, could give two sh*ts whether your amendment prevents acid rain, saves the whales or turns corn starch into dandelion-excreting fuel alternatives. And why don’t we care? Because the REST of the bill, Mr. Congressman, presents us with far more pressing problems. Problems like how we plan on feeding our families, or driving to work.

There’s this thing that should be taken into account, sir, before agreeing to pass legislation. A thing upon which the lives and livelihoods of your countrymen depend far more than bad science and mandates. It’s called Economics. Perhaps, at some point during your career as a Legislator, you’ve heard of it?

As relates to the Cap & Trade bill you so cavalierly signed, it works like this:Producers’ costs go up, as demanded by following the C&T mandates. That cost is passed on to Consumers. (Consumers, just so we’re clear here, are your basic taxpayers. Folks, like those in your state of New York who have less money every year thanks to tax and fee increases). Consumers have to make choices about what they buy, because they can no longer afford to buy everything they otherwise would. Thanks to the price increases. So… producers must find ways to cut costs. How? By cutting production. Which means cutting personnel. Which means — have you figured it out yet? — unemployment goes up. And with Cap&Trade, we’re not talking about a percentage point here. We’re talking about an astronomic increase in good, taxpaying men and women who suddenly don’t have a means of supporting their families.

All thanks to you and seven other turncoat Republicans.

I hope the fact that those of your constituents you sold out don’t have the option of voting you out of office helps you sleep at night.

Yours, sincerely

(edit: I fixed a bit of profanity I forgot to edit before cross-posting.  My apologies to Mgmt)

In his speech to the AMA yesterday, President Obama decried criticism of a public health plan as partisan paranoia.  “What are not legitimate concerns,” he said, “are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. ”

Not legitimate?  Well, let’s see.  A “Trojan Horse,” of course, refers to the legend of the Trojan war in which a giant horse was delivered as a gift to the city of Troy, but which in fact held the city’s destruction.  In the President’s view, then, critics of the health plan would suggest that the plan, which is presented as a supplement, even a compliment, to the current (free-market) system, in fact is a means of the current system’s undoing.  Fair enough.  So, are those critics wrong, as Obama is suggesting they are?

Well, let’s simply examine the surface.  Something, perhaps, the Trojans would have done well to consider.  What is its function, its purpose?  Does it do the job it is purported to do, or is it hollow enough to be hiding destruction in its guts?  Now, when we’re looking, it’s important to remember that it’s still under construction.  What we’ve been privvy to are the public discussions of that construction.  That information which is being allowed to slip out.

What we know is that Obama wants a plan that involves a public health option.  A government-run, taxpayer-subsidized, publicly available insurance.  This plan would be inserted into the current market, ostensibly to provide care for those who need it and can’t get it elsewhere, and to compete with the private firms, to “encourage” them to create better, more affordable plans. 

There is a reason Conservatives strongly discourage government entry into the free-market system.  It creates monopolies.  This is something that even a community organizer should be able to understand.  And, even if not Obama himself, at least somebody on his financial staff understands how monopolies work.  And, I’m sure, the conversation has come up.  Democrats love discussing monopolies, after all; it helps define the enemy for the drudges of the class war.  Surely, they understand how monopolies are made.

In short, here’s the problem: it creates an unlevel playing field in the marketplace.  On the Capitalist side, you have privately funded groups which are in business to make a profit for themselves and for their stockholders.  Insurance is hard work; nobody does it for free.  The capitalist system is built on making profit.  That’s how companies stay afloat.  And, surely, Obama (who assures us, after all, that a public health plan is NOT designed to destroy the free market) wants these companies to stay afloat… right?  On the other side, though, you have the “Public” health plan.  A plan that is government sponsored, which means, in many cases, taxpaying Americans are already paying for it, even if they aren’t using it.  Further, this plan is a government beaurocracy — designed specifically to not make a profit, and being operated by government employees who, by and large, get paid less than free-market executives (after all, why become an executive if it doesn’t pay well?).  Plus, as with all government entities, should it fail to meet the bottom line (in this case, to simply cover operating expense), it has the benefit of being taxpayer-funded, so the government will simply foot the bill.  This will, of course, sink the US further into debt, but that’s neither here nor there.

Obama has said the idea is to get the private Health industry to compete with this new government monster.  What he has not said is that such competition is impossible.  You don’t compete against somebody who’s holding all the cards.  You’re not even in the game.  This new “competitor” in the healthcare industry will have the power to make all the rules in the game, will have no stockholders to be held accountable by, no need for profit, or even sustainability.  And the President thinks the private industry will compete how?

The truth is, he doesn’t.  The truth is, he knows damned well what a publicly-funded system will do to the private industry.  He knows that what he’s presenting as a boon and a gift to free-market healthcare, in fact houses a bellyfull of destruction — and that, when the dust settles, there will be one entity standing.  A single-payer government system.

Reuters’ James Pethokoukis isn’t fooled.  As he pointed out yesterday:

New York District 20 rep John McHugh, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is apparently being chosen by Barack Obama as his new Secretary of the Army.  Fox News says Obama will officially name McHugh to replace current Secretary Pete Geren.

McHugh is another Republican pick for Obama’s defense staff.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates worried Obama supporters because they believed a Republican pick would bolster opinions of Democrats as weak on defense.
UPDATE: remarks from Obama…

“… My administration has increased funding for our military, including the army, and increasing the size of the military two years ahead of schedule.”

That’s gotta sting some Code Pinkers.

“Today I’m proud to announce the distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe, and who will help keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their familes.  The next Secretary of the Army, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John McHugh.”

<snip>

“… but it is his service over the past 16 years in Congress, as a champion of our men and women in Uniform that uniquely qualifies him to help lead America’s Army.”

<snip>

“John is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.”

And… where the politics come into play…

“Finally, John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home.”

Translation: John is a token Republican who I probably won’t listen to, but at least the media can point to when people claim I’m not being bipartisan.

This, of course, followed by the standard “It’s an honor to be nominated” stuff by McHugh.

Yesterday, Obama called for a speedy confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  Any opposition, he claimed, was built along purely partisan lines, and not on drawing “old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”

Obama seems to be missing the point, but fair enough; enough Republican pundits and pols have played the race card with Sotomayor’s comments that he can perhaps be forgiven for being confused on the issue.  So, in the spirit of fairness, let’s look at Sotomayor’s comments, and then the Administration’s interpretation of those comments, so that we can look at them in Obama’s “proper context.”

Sotomayor, of course, made the now-infamous remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

For those painting the comments as “racist,” the sticking point here would appear to be the “better conclusion” remark.  And they have a point.  But there is a context here which lends itself to the Administration’s interpretation.  The argument can be made, and should be made, I think, that what she’s really saying is simply that her life experiences give her a perspective into the lives of the people involved in the individual cases, and better inform her judgements.

Okay?  Fair enough?  So let’s diffuse this racist thing and boil down what she’s “really” saying.  She’s not saying “Latina women are smarter than white men.”  No, what she’s saying is that because of her experiences, she has the ability to render judgements on individual cases, not according to the law and constitution, but based on subjective standards based on her subjective life experiences.  As Obama said, hers will be decisions based on empathy and understanding.

One problem with that, of course: any subjective coloring of her decisions based on her life experiences is a clear violation of her oath of office.

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(from about.com)

Without respect to persons.  Equal right to the poor and rich.  Faithfully and impartially.  This is the point Obama seems to be missing.  This is the point hidden by the “race” controversy.  A Justice should not be swayed by subjective experience.  At all.  The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to judge, not based on her idea of “fair,” not based on what she personally thinks would be best for one party or the other.  But on the law of the land and on the Constitution.

No wonder Obama wants a quick confirmation.  Perhaps he fears that, given enough time, the racial undertones of Sotomayor’s comments will give way to the reality of her views on the position of the courts as unelected activist legislators.

There is a reason for the courts being set up the way they are.  Put simply, the Highest Court exists as a safeguard against (often well-intentioned) idealism or ambition turning into tyranny against the citizens of the United States.  To be sure that the laws of the land apply equally to all, and not differently depending on your race, income or social status.

And even if you take Sotomayor’s comments in the context the Administration suggests, that’s really what it comes down to.  She — and Obama — believe that her experiences give her the insight into how to apply the law in the way that best fits their subjective version of “fairness,” as applied to each individual.  Which is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court oath demands.

Hopefully, Republican leaders can learn from the recent past and understand that when this administration calls for a quick decision, it’s often because there’s something to hide.

In letters to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer – as well as to Congressman John McHugh – Nancy Foster, Chairwoman of the Lousiville Republican Committee is urging new laws on legislative accountability and transparency.   The text of that letter follows:

Along with millions of other Americans we were absolutely appalled that our government representatives voted on the $787 billion dollar American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) without personally reading the legislation in its entirety. We have since learned that it is not uncommon for our elected officials to vote on bills they have not personally read. Instead, they rely on staff recommendations and committee reports. No matter how dire our circumstances seem to be, members of Congress cannot abdicate their responsibility to their staff or committees.

The American public has become increasingly frustrated with a government whose rhetoric does not match its actions. We were promised transparency but have gotten a maze of convoluted trails that seem to be contrived to bar the public from following how, where, and when our tax dollars are being spent.

Not only is legislation rarely open for public scrutiny before it is voted on, it is written in legal language and references volumes of material not provided to the public when they are able to view a bill.

Although President Obama promised he would “…not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days” that has not happened. Government is losing the trust of the American people. You can help ebb that trend by authoring and supporting a bill that will guarantee, except in cases of extreme national security emergencies:

1.  The distribution of all legislation to the members of Congress seven days prior to a vote on said legislation.

2. The posting of all legislation, including references, to an internet site accessible to the public at the same time it is distributed to the members of Congress. Such posting shall also include a straightforward summary of the major points of the bill.

3. No last minute additions or changes shall be made to pending legislation without providing members of Congress and the public an additional seven days for review of the proposed additions or changes.

4. Most Americans view the practice of inserting identity free earmarks in the dead of night as unacceptable cowardly acts unworthy of our government representatives. All legislation must mandate author identification of all earmarks.

The American taxpayer needs reassurance that our government representatives are working on their behalf. Authoring and supporting a bill which includes the above components would be a very positive step in regaining an ebbing trust.

Given Obama’s own promises while on the campaign trail, and an out-of-control Congress, this is common sense legislation that every New Yorker — and every American — should not merely request of their representatives, but demand.  It is high time we remind our legislators who they work for.  They don’t work for the President, and they don’t work for the DNC, or George Soros, or Moveon.org.  They work for us.  For Americans.  Americans who are sick of the mountains of waste and debt being laid at the feet of our children.

The concepts contained in this letter are not partisan in nature.  Every Legislative session, whether run by Republicans or Democrats, ought to follow the rules outlined here.   And every voter – whether Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian — should expect nothing less from their representatives.

Remember, we’re not asking for anything that wasn’t promised by Candidate Obama before his election.  It’s time to hold our leaders accountable.  Call your represetatives, and demand this legislation.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

You’d think Senator Gillibrand would have important things to do, as both a member of the US Senate and as a member of the Agriculture Committee. Things like dealing with the economy, for example (not that I necessarily want her to and her Democrat allies to be passing legislation and such, but, still). But evidently, what she and others find to be of surpassing importance is a bill to require calorie counts on chain restaurant menues.

Well, I for one wish her all the luck in the world. After all, clearly the only reason I’m fat is because I just don’t understand how many calories I’m putting into my body. Well, that, and because soda is just a few cents too cheap. Please, Federal Government, save me from myself. If only I knew how fattening these foods are, I could stop putting them in my body. Just like how everybody quit smoking after the Surgeon General made them put all the cancer warnings on packs of cigarettes. And the children! How are parents supposed to know that chicken wrapped in starch and fried is actually not the healthiest thing their kids could eat, without proper labeling on the menues to tell them?

But, you know, why stop there? If the government is to be in charge of my safety and well-being (like all good governments should), why even give me the option? Why not just outlaw fatty foods? And cigarettes. Driving faster than 35 mph? Driving at all?

(warning: some strong language)

(cross-posted at SLCLiberty [digg link])

It took a recommendation by the Property Tax commission to do it.   David Paterson has issued an executive order to the State Legislature requiring that all new legislation with attached costs must also come with a plan to pay for it.  Traditionally, Albany has simply issued mandates without such a requirement, leaving local municipalities to foot the bill.  Meaning, in general, insanely high property taxes.  Because, evidently, we still have too much money in our pocketbooks after all the other insanely high taxes here in New York.

But, says Paterson, that is no longer the way of Albany.

“We will now have a pay -as-you-go philosophy in Albany,” said Paterson. “You pass a bill and it costs us money, you also have to show how we’ll pay for it. If not, we cannot do it at this time.”

I would echo the NY Republican leadership here, that Paterson’s new order flies in the face of his own actions:

But Republicans say the governor’s mandate relief announcement is counter to what his budget actually does. They say by passing measures like the Rockefeller Drug Law reforms, which pushes more costs down to counties, and by eliminating programs such as the STAR rebate checks, New Yorkers are hurting now more than ever

But, even if that were not the case, I am not convinced the new Executive Order actually solves any problems.

My wife and I have a policy where we never buy something we don’t have the cash for.  If we can’t afford it today, we don’t get it.  We own debit cards, and not a single credit card between us.  This ensures our policy sticks, in the face of temptation.  We are forced to recognize that buying one thing means not having money available for something else.  In general, not only is this sound financial policy for families, but also for business and, yes, governments.

The problem is, for too long, states like New York have tended to act as though the taxpayer is a limitless source of income.  Need to pay for something?  Put it on the taxpayer.  Paterson addresses a part of this tendency: Albany’s traditional policy of pushing the cost of new mandates onto homeowners.  In and of itself, this seems like a good start.  In reality, it treats a symptom of the greater disease, and with potential side effects that are just as bad as the symptom.  It’s like treating a tension headache with a medicine that causes ulcers.  It neither addresses the tension at the root of the headache nor provides the patient with real relief.  It just shifts the burden.

Putting taxpayers on the hook at a hundred bucks a year for some mandate takes that money from the taxpayer.  Whether it comes through property tax, income tax, or some new usage fee is beside the point.  Unlike the government, the average taxpayer does not have an income source that can give out more when he lives beyond his means.  And, in the case of usage fees, which seem to be Paterson’s modus operandi, what that means is that where such fees are attached, services are used less.  Which means, ultimately, the money will come from somewhere else anyway.

Certain people, who either haven’t bothered to educate themselves about the truth, or are being deliberately obtuse, have painted the Tea Parties of this month as mere “anti-tax” rallies by people who want government services, but don’t want to pay for them.  It may make for a good soundbite, but this clear nonsense obfuscates reality.  What we want is responsible government.  We want government who realizes that we don’t work in order to fund state programs, but to provide for our families and to live our lives.  We want Albany — and Washington — to understand that government is meant to be peripheral, not central, to our daily lives.  And, that said, we want them to start using our money — that’s our money, not theirs — more wisely.

We don’t want empty words from Paterson, finally making the suggestion that Albany behave as though they understand they actually have to pay for the things they put into law.  We want action that shows that Albany understands the citizens of New York simply can’t send all their money to the State Capitol to fund every pet project that comes along.

Personally, I’d like to see an extended moratorium on all new spending.  But I’m not holding my breath.

I’d settle for a State — and national — government that looked for real areas to cut spending.  A lot of spending.  Not these drop-in-the-bucket cuts like those suggested by Obama for Washington and Paterson for Albany, but real examinations of current spending, followed up with real reductions in beaurocracy and spending. 

What we, the taxpayers, would settle for, is a government that stopped talking up fiscal responsibility, and started acting like it was a priority.