The latest episode of the “Consider This!” podcast is out. Conservative commentary in 10 minutes or less. Keep an eye on Matt Sissel and the Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuit against ObamaCare. They are taking a tact that’s not been used before, that ultimately the Supreme Court will likely have to look into. Listen in for details. The problems with the Veterans Administration health care system may not | Read More »
This week we have seen the Inspector General of the VA deliver a devastating critique that lays direct blame for the death of some veterans on the VA’s practice of denying care to veterans for prolonged periods of time in order to make their appointment wait-times look better. A whistleblower in Texas equates the VA management with a crime family. Despite the avalanche of evidence | Read More »
Last month the left was all abuzz about a new book written by a French (I am not making this up) economics professor who attacked wealth “inequality” as the root of all evil and prescribed confiscatory taxes on individual wealth to ensure everyone gets poorer except, presumably French economics professors and other plutocrats. Paul Krugman, the left’s attack Schnauzer on economic issues, was nearly pornographic | Read More »
There are three recent events among the Left which have caught this writer’s eye and ear. The first is the apparent open embrace of Marxism. Much of this centers around the so-called “one of the top books of this century:” Thomas Picketty’s “Wealth in the Twenty-First Century.” By any other name, this 700 page tome of convoluted and twisted statistics and commentary is nothing but | Read More »
This is an article I have been meaning to pen for some time now although I doubt one article will do it, so we’ll see. It involves that “great defining issue of our time” according to Obama- income inequality. Actually, the idea first entered my conscience after reading Alan Greenspan’s “The Age of Turbulence.” In that book, Greenspan warned somewhat about the growing economic disparity | Read More »
Paul Krugman proves four things: (1) being a columnist for the New York Times, (2) being a professor at Princeton, (3) winning a Nobel Prize in economics, and (4) having a beard are no guarantees of one’s intelligence. Supposedly by these four facts, Krugman lends some intellectual weight to any Obama policy. Hence, he comes in at #8. First, the New York Times is hardly | Read More »
In Paul Krugman’s latest New York Times op-ed piece entitled “Rebels Without a Clue,” the Princeton economist proves three points. Being a (1) Nobel Prize winning economist from (2) a prestigious Ivy School college with (3) a beard is no guarantee of one’s intelligence or political acumen. I am quite sure that Krugman is a fine economist in the theoretical world of economics and such, | Read More »
The latest episode of the “Consider This!” podcast is out. Conservative commentary in 10 minutes or less. Just one topic this time around. I tackle the Detroit bankruptcy and what is has to say about political policies in other cities, in the US, and, actually, any country around the world. Detroit, Michigan, formerly the auto-making capital of the US, if not the world, filed for chapter 9 | Read More »
Decreases in annual increases of big government budgets do not “austerity” measures make and are not the reason that the, rightly-named-by-Nobel-Prize-winning-economist Paul Krugman, economic Depression continues in most of Europe and the United States. President Richard Nixon actually didn’t say that “We are all Keynesians now” after taking the United States off the gold standard in 1971 and otherwise ensuring that Hubert Humphrey-Democrats got the | Read More »
Yesterday, North Carolina became the first state in the country to forfeit federal long-term unemployment benefits. As her state budgets continued to balloon and unemployment remains uncomfortably high, the Republican controlled legislature ended the state’s war on prudent fiscal policy by exempting herself from receiving further federal assistance for people unemployed longer than 26 weeks, as well as lowering the maximum potential benefit. If you | Read More »
Paul Krugman wishes to disprove something I wrote the other day.In this post I wrote: The sage of creased pants bipartisanship, David Brooks, reports on Jesus’s letter to the Corinthians. Thomas Friedman, the guru of globalism reduced to ridiculous phrases with no meaning yells at train stewards for not clearing his plate fast enough. And the Washington to New York crowd laps them all up | Read More »
In honor of the recent opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Keith Hennessey tells us something about Former US President George W. Bush I never would have read in The New York Times.* He teaches an MBA class at Stanford U and one of the aspiring, bright leading-lights in America’s next colossal mortgage meltdown asked him if George W. Bush was smart. Dumb question. Particularly if the student was a snide liberal hoping Mr. Hennessey would him, haw and duck. Hennessey, to his credit, answered below.
President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting. I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
So George W. Bush, like most sentient, literate human beings, is smarter than the “smart-set” that ridiculed him in the blogs and the newspapers. Does that mean he was good? Does that mean I miss him yet? I’d say he got a bum rap. Like any intelligent person called stupid by Maureen Dowd or Joe Biden, he was pilloried unfairly unless you believe the old saw that it takes one to know one. But no, I can’t say I quite miss George W. Bush. I explain below.
Being the profoundly intellectual and curious individual we all know her to be, Senator Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath for answers.* Her null hypothesis clearly remains that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Otherwise, she never would have asked the following:
“If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up — that is, as workers are producing more — then the minimum wage is going to go up the same,” the Massachusetts senator said during the hearing. “And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question … is what happened to the other $14.75?” she asked University of Massachusetts professor of economics Arindrajit Dube:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released Enforcement Guidance in April, 2012 saying that employers who rely too heavily on criminal background checks to screen potential employees may violate the Civil Rights Act. Meanwhile, the President and his economic team want to saddle employers with a minimum wage increase, which will make those with a criminal record even less attractive to hire. Making it harder to | Read More »