Stop the hate, smear and lies On 10/28/10, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > [image: > TIADaily.com]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-v7JHqFjBajXzdfzjOg4Pc87SDRlN-ucVvMfUL7tdv5TE-4CSIb4QLcYq6XJ93U7q7hGchQa7IAZ8IenEur1xdu1FzuHch6hcA=> > > > > *TIA Daily* • * October 27, 2010 * > > What's at Stake > > If President Obama wants to keep fighting for a leftist agenda after the > election, he's going to have to fall back on the power of the executive > branch—and we're going to need a Congress with the guts to stop him. > > *Below is another reminder of the impending restriction of some TIA Daily > content. The current trial period, which you have been enjoying, ends after > the election, at which point more of TIA Daily's content will go to > subscribers only. To subscribe, go to www.TIADaily.com/subscribe.* > > ------------------------------ > > *Top News Stories* > > > 1. Rather Fight Than Switch <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+1> > 2. What's at Stake <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+2> > 3. Bet on Inflation <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+3> > 4. Tracinski's Law of Bailouts <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+4> > 5. When I Left, We Were Winning *(subscriber-only content)* > <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+5> > 6. "Marxist Politics Has Come to a Critical Juncture" *(subscriber-only > content)* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_Item+6> > > ------------------------------ > Submit articles, interesting links, letters to editor, or comments to > [email protected]. > ------------------------------ > > *Top News Stories* > > * Commentary by Robert Tracinski* > > 1. Rather Fight Than Switch > > The best indication of next Tuesday's election outcome is the fact that the > chatter among the political pundits has moved on to a discussion of who is > to blame for a big Democratic loss and what will happen afterward. > > For example, Michael Barone > argues<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-tLS973eqnkHJfptVB1UiVW3jZsVJNOAr_8xSz1U6nXHqz4Cd2bMTb5bRunrBTCC0Hj1g5-kSdR6OzLHkjPdLmjvT_dEJjE35kaJEIs_g899spQKCuvbzMfDjx2Ft9o2WFrULIjQb1eXRW_CLmG6jE7kKQJKkBK3BEK2F-yx77I3syKMnevs8RsCi-bJKFg818y8VCyePVZWAgNwNp_APfK>that > the Democrats are being punished for moving too far to the left. (It's > not his best column, but the last couple of paragraphs are worth checking > out.) So Paul Krugman > argues<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-tOGr4Jg4LoxPBBSEfwWmJ61E-P7hMu-MY9ypGdTCPL4hxab5VVWmEZlgRQGu70uaU_tG3tbDCYjYShZqIrb5-8p_y02nGd2JQsU8Ea8fvJI9z8wG78y1I1gw8zzA7drDwvH7fB90vU8WikeoJBfO85SsNeXK411Ig=>—preposterously—that > Obama didn't go far enough to the left because he didn't drive us into a > much, much deeper hole of debt with a far bigger "stimulus." > > And there are even leftist trying to portray the coming wipeout of > conservative Democrats as a good thing, since it will drive the Democratic > Party even farther to the radical left. Writing at the *New York Times*, Ari > Berman of *The Nation* > complains<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-tvyUqKz-7qIIbabfRY0rmkDWZDUVr3mwoYbc6szPsHPXh_XLGYYjUCrdumO2a8j9Kd5cSr8ii0lyxHa2T5ESq3AtqLZNKCYOLzDAgY-9yXLBgk6SqjMwHT3ZEebePQcaMBgbZEXOqT2_bHgCswmCWFPWLsLLeZnqk=>that > "Democrats aren't ideological enough" and anticipates that after the > election there will be fewer but better Democrats. > > He is actually onto something, because he names what I have been pointing to > for some years now as the basic contradiction behind the Democratic majority > in Congress. They got a majority by aggressively recruiting "conservative" > Democrats to run in right-leaning districts—and then expecting those > Democrats to come to Congress and be reliable votes for far-left party > leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. > > In 2005, Howard Dean, who was then the chairman of the Democratic National > Committee, carried out a campaign to elect as many Democrats as possible. In > long-ignored red states, both Mr. Dean and Rahm Emanuel, then the chairman > of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed conservative > Democrats who broke with the party's leadership on core issues like gun > control and abortion rights.... The party leaders did not give much thought > to how a Democratic majority that included such conservative members could > ever effectively govern. > > This isn't the whole story by any means, because the re-awakened cause of > free markets and limited government is threatening even established leftist > in left-leaning districts. But the impending wipeout of the conservative > Democrats will be a huge part of the Democrats' election loss. > > The big question is: what will Obama do after he loses Congress. My sense is > that he plans to keep fighting for a leftist agenda, setting up two years of > political warfare. > > Below, Jay Cost agrees and assesses the political consequences by looking at > two historical precedents. He argues—correctly, I think—that Obama has > fundamentally misjudged America. Obama thinks that America has permanently > "realigned" to the left, that this election is just a temporary protest > vote, and that voters will eventually reject a Republican Congress and come > back to support him. > > He is deluded, of course, but it indicates what is at stake in the next > couple of elections, starting on Tuesday. We have to defeat the Democrats by > a large margin over several election cycles, so that they understand that > this is not a temporary protest vote, that it's not just about the economy > or about personalities, that this is a *repudiation of statism*. > > "Would He Rather Fight Than > Switch?<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-sKPyMfJvDGQ984IkFoh9VbzDzUuSvSN2ojxxIysNjn_AeAtu1sVhK9zG0gswjqO0a8aTW1iYgtff1Ksaznpe1I8krjIdXYKSHlPK5PNxbb5h-erjARP9MEiEkFnJdR9ogSKsAdqVYiA5m5Eau0cZHg6A-eI6uYJCWom1hl-MIRY7am2tzhvUJAX4Pl4atnbXA=>" > Jay Cost, *Weekly Standard*, October 23 > > Truman's strategy made sense in the context of 1948. The last Gallup poll > before Roosevelt's death found FDR's approval rating at 65 percent, > astonishing for a president who had been in office 12 years.... In recent > years, analysts like Amity Shlaes have questioned how effective the New Deal > policies actually were, but what matters for our purposes is what the public > perceived—and the public believed the New Deal had worked. In an important > sense, then, the New Deal coalition was still alive and well after World War > II. Truman's vacillation in the early days of his administration swept the > Republicans into power in the midterms, but his reassertion of FDR-style > liberalism helped revive the Roosevelt majority. > > Matters were very different in 1994. The New Deal coalition had started to > fracture in 1968, when the North-South split in the Democratic party handed > the presidency to Richard Nixon. The disastrous candidacy of George > McGovern—which more than anything represented the revival of Henry > Wallace-style liberalism—and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter had > critically damaged the Democratic majority.... The success of the Reagan > administration vindicated conservative Republicanism and peeled off huge > portions of the old New Deal vote.... > > Thus, 1946 and 1994 were very different midterm elections. In 1946, a still > essentially liberal country voiced its frustration and exasperation with the > painful readjustment to peacetime. Once balance was restored to the economy, > the country was prepared to move back to the left. In 1994, the country was > no longer liberal at its core, and the 1994 midterms were an ideological > correction of the leftward bent of the early Clinton administration.... > > It follows that the success or failure of President Obama's response to a > new Republican Congress will depend very much on whether he accurately reads > the public's mind. If he thinks the country is center-right, he will > accommodate, as Clinton did. If he thinks it is center-left, he will "give > 'em hell," as Truman did. > > So far, the president has telegraphed that he intends to fight. He has > warned that a Republican victory would mean "hand-to-hand combat."... > > If this is what President Obama is thinking, I believe he has bet wrong.... > > [T]he idea of 2008 as a realigning election implicitly misframes the process > by which voters shift their allegiances. The election of 1932, for instance, > did not signify an electoral realignment. The realignment came during the > New Deal as FDR used the powers of the federal government to shift the > loyalties of the voting public.... [T]he Reagan Revolution lasted as long as > it did because of the tremendous prosperity of the 1980s. In each instance, > the president who pulled off the realignment did so by contrasting his > record of successful governing with the failures of his opponents. > > This essential ingredient is missing for Obama in 2010. > > > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > 2. What's at Stake > > If President Obama wants to keep fighting for a leftist agenda after the > election, he's going to have to do it without his party controlling the > legislative branch of government, which means he's going to have to fall > back on the power of the executive branch—and we're going to need a Congress > with the guts to stop him. > > Unfortunately, after a century of attacks on the Constitution, the executive > branch has an awful lot of arbitrary power. So the president can seek to > impose his agenda by using the unchecked authority of the regulatory > agencies—particularly the EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide > emissions, restricting the energy usage that powers the entire economy. > > But this also points us to one of the top priorities and most effective > actions the new Republican majority can take. Jack Wakeland pointed me to > the article below by a leftist who, in projecting how a Republican majority > could defund the regulatory agencies, offers them an excellent blueprint. > > Note particularly that this proposal relies on the ability of the House to > control the federal purse-strings. It depends only on a Republican majority > in the House and—since budget bills can't be filibustered—a bare majority in > the Senate. And since the president can veto a budget but can't originate > one, all that a Republican Congress needs is stubbornness and resolve. > > Jack adds: "Can a Republican majority in Congress repeal ObamaCare? No, not > against a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto. Can a Republican > majority in Congress prevent the premature withdrawal of American forces > from Afghanistan? No, that's the president's policy prerogative. > > "But it can de-fund the regulatory agencies. We can expect a Republican > majority in the House to do as much as they did after the 1994 election to > cut some funding to the regulatory agencies. What the Republican Party did > in 1995 with control of both houses of Congress was weak, but with a Tea > Party caucus active in their ranks in 2011, we should look for deeper cuts. > > "On November 3, we should all start lobbying for a *100% cut* in the budget > for CO2 regulations at the EPA and other regulatory agencies; a *100% > cut*in funding to such pseudo-scientific climate research projects as > those > going on at NASA's GISS. > > "On November 3, we should all start lobbying for a *100% cut* in the budget > for the development of regulations to implement ObamaCare at the Centers for > Medicare & Medicaid Services and other regulatory agencies. > > "On November 3, the incoming Republican majority in the House will need all > the urging, support, and encouragement we can give them. We shouldn't > complain too much about how little spine Republicans have when they're > pursuing the reform of government power. This is a republic. Our vocal > urgings and support are the calcium from which a congressional majority gets > a spine. After standing them up for election with our votes and sending them > to office with our approval, we have to help them stand up and face the fire > from the political enemies of liberty. We have to help point out the enemy's > weak points and exhort them to aim well, shoot back, and hit the vital > places in our enemy's ranks. > > "We have to push the Republican majority to not give up, to not give in to > their altruist urges. We have to urge them to stick to their guns." > > "It's the EPA and OSHA, > Stupid!<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-uZyEoRIO9Ah2G6-CyLTnNgO8tsVjOSV7leUns-va8p0XWR8ck7aAr9SQqsVHwJRfg_EiVkZ_EIVdX10m0uiZIRy3UYNl-C9ntF4MlO4OYw36s3xjm9Pq8MAm0IlPLMY9wnxPnY71_-LrCeKRAdMASnvr1Zx94POOe5-kQRDrBk6jLEUDTlbWNX5d7bD1ieYTPvosx-JdJabw==>" > John B. Judis, *The New Republic*, October 22 > > Democrats are warning that if Republicans capture the House—and perhaps also > the Senate—in this November's election, they would abolish cabinet > departments, repeal Obamacare, and privatize social security. They might > want to do these things, but they won't be able to overcome a Senate > filibuster or a presidential veto. What they will be able to do, however, is > undermine the work of regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).... > > That's exactly what happened after the Republicans captured the Congress in > November 1994 when Bill Clinton was president... > > In the budget that year, the Republicans—not constrained by a > filibuster—were able to get their way. They cut the EPA's overall budget by > 25 percent and cut its critical enforcement budget by 40 percent and put 17 > riders on the budget bill limiting the EPA's ability to police industries. > They cut OSHA's already barebones budget by 16 percent and put a rider > prohibiting OSHA from adopting new rules on ergonomic industries (like > carpal tunnel syndrome) that had first been proposed in 1990 by George H.W. > Bush's administration.... > > EPA director Carol Browner complained that from October 1995 to February > 1996, EPA inspections had been reduced by 40 percent because of budget cuts. > And there's a clear lesson there. If you don't have the people to enforce > regulations on pollution or worker injury, it doesn't matter how tough the > rules are.... > > A similar tale could be told of what happened in other regulatory agencies > after the Republicans won Congress in November 1994. And the same thing > could happen next year if the Republicans win back the House—or the House > and Senate—this November. That's reason enough to worry about the outcome of > the coming election. > > > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > 3. Bet on Inflation > > Since the beginning of the bailouts, I've been warning that the Fed's > expansion of its "infinite balance sheet"—basically, the Federal Reserve > printing money to pay for the bailouts—has created an inflation time-bomb. > Now investors are starting to openly agree, bidding up the prices of special > Treasury bills whose interest is adjusted for inflation. > > So there's another aspect of Tracinski's Law of Bailouts, another way in > which every dollar spent on government "stimulus" destroys at least one > dollar in private capital. And the destruction of our wealth through > inflation has barely begun. > > "In Bond Frenzy, Investors Bet on > Inflation<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-swEUWaB3O3pjWNGRO6mgfOYzt0w6ZzNhI-VC57xcYPuAUni-qntWgSzsaJZ-f6cLmw5Pe0TkegCBO7NBwwredpy3YrXYqZX6OLXJDCC7B6kT-7-jYdCORYU9AbQkogMNMZw6bHhNdqeI4MFggM-91WBenwv350a4M=>," > Christine Hauser, *New York Times*, October 25 > > At a time when savers complain that they are earning almost no interest from > their bank accounts, some investors on Monday bought United States > government bonds that effectively had a negative rate of return. > > Bizarre as it sounds, that is correct. In an auction of a special kind of > five-year Treasury bond, investors paid $105.50 for every $100 of bonds the > government sold—agreeing to pay the government for the privilege of lending > it money. > > The reason is that these types of bonds offer a guaranteed protection > against inflation. So, if inflation soars—as some economists worry might > happen, with the government seeking to give the economy a boost by flooding > it with money—the value of the bonds would go up accordingly. > > The investors who took part in the $10 billion auction are betting that > inflation, now at about 1 percent annually, will rise to a level that more > than compensates for the premium they paid. > > "It was good demand considering the negative yields," [Guy LeBas, the chief > fixed-income strategist for Janney Montgomery Scott] said. "They are > counting on the Fed to be successful in generating inflation."... > > It was the latest sign that financial markets are positioning for a rise in > inflation. > > > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > 4. Tracinski's Law of Bailouts > > Here's another aspect of how government spending destroys wealth: the fact > that the money spent on the bailout is utterly ineffective at any of its > stated aims. The editorial below describes an inspector-general's report on > the management of TARP funds, detailing how that spending achieved none of > its alleged goals and instead vanished into a morass of bureaucracy and > corruption. > > "TARP: Obama's Black Hole at > Treasury<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-u_5tJo-f17zPF0ZFOdqXT2FF64av8JZ05glR-x0ERISpdpBlSNHPitzba7nOII9W11BPGZ3cSFitBqkC3ME7tTGO-jkSzkQNaLQuirT_Q6RqLZwT6AQdAds-gG1oD9CJI6vVgwiWuRuuA3kpcXWOccReASasrxbCbcvxyeEEP_ZJ-fWBg2hQnIwE30n3ap-mPVHEya7nNzVkcDkcIl2LZh>," > *Washington Examiner*, October 26 > > A new report from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the > Troubled Asset Relief Program in the Treasury Department, says it all: > Americans have "entirely legitimate concerns about the lack of transparency, > program mismanagement and flawed decision-making processes that continue to > plague the program." Under President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, > Timothy Geithner, the department's management of TARP has made a mockery of > the Freedom of Information Act, even as the program has clearly failed to > accomplish its stated purposes. Barofsky cites numerous failed TARP goals, > including increasing lending, alleviating unemployment and preserving > home-ownership against the foreclosure meltdown.... > > "When Treasury refuses for more than a year to require TARP recipients to > account for the use of TARP funds or claims that Capital Purchase Program > participants were 'healthy, viable' institutions knowing full well that some > are not or when it provides hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP > assistance to institutions and then relies on those same institutions to > self-report any violations of their obligations to TARP, it damages the > public's trust to a degree that is difficult to repair." > > > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > 5. When I Left, We Were Winning *(subscriber-only content)* > > What are the consequences, in action, of announcing that we will "surge" our > troops in Afghanistan, at the same time we announce that we are going to > withdraw them? The consequence is simultaneous advance and retreat: a > brilliant tactical success in the battlefield, matched by spectacular > failure on the political and diplomatic front. > > *(This item is for paid subscribers only. To read the rest, subscribe to TIA > Daily at > www.TIADaily.com/subscribe<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-sVJYEi8DAhjwpUkYNXWaQY45AYRgAEi-TMTWFLB-gbHjfVkxFzPXgZ6Vcp-2Nj_pW_07OTNxHCE-iEIULiFbrp9-IN-YufjTVXxy8qIzgL_ftwxf1KzzJy> > .)* > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > 6. "Marxist Politics Has Come to a Critical Juncture" *(subscriber-only > content)* > > The headline above might sound like breaking news from 1989—which it is. But > it was actually said recently by a Communist politician in India's West > Bengal region, where the world's only *elected* Communists look to be on > their way out. > > *(This item is for paid subscribers only. To read the rest, subscribe to TIA > Daily at > www.TIADaily.com/subscribe<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-sVJYEi8DAhjwpUkYNXWaQY45AYRgAEi-TMTWFLB-gbHjfVkxFzPXgZ6Vcp-2Nj_pW_07OTNxHCE-iEIULiFbrp9-IN-YufjTVXxy8qIzgL_ftwxf1KzzJy> > .)* > > "Communists in India Fight to Hold On to > Mission<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-vfLvq-NguF6Nrx8ahANj7l_NUasDdCrU9iGBqr3TMbHuZcOE2Tch7Ens5iy0JutuANcXTyumqPweYvLLaQVhxHWDHQZwJLQLt--R1DpLSKpZAeeJbdXT0slu3FM2W8yUKcXsNjBBpC9b-7q_kKwouSY9FgKsHzS5-vTb3uAAZFRN4knQGGgUT-x0EJvhPLL3o1OTh0xd4snMA8zAkGEO11>," > Jim Yardley, *New York Times*, October 21 > > Lenin's statue still rises near the center of the city, and portraits of > Stalin and Marx still hang inside the biggest union hall. Anyone doubting > the local political dominance—and cold war humor—of India's Communists need > only visit the street in front of the United States Consulate: It was long > ago renamed for Ho Chi Minh. > > In the past 33 years, India's Communists have built a political dynasty here > in the state of West Bengal, staging one of the most remarkable runs in any > democracy by winning seven consecutive statewide elections.... > > Instead, the country's Communists are struggling to remain relevant. For > years, they have largely failed to capture the imagination and the support > of the masses beyond their regional strongholds of West Bengal and the state > of Kerala. And now even their three-decade hold over West Bengal is > disintegrating as critics accuse them of betraying the rural peasantry and > presiding over the decline of a state once regarded as an intellectual and > economic center of India. > > "I never thought I would write against them," said Mahasweta Devi, one of > West Bengal's most famous intellectuals and a social reformer who is now > deeply critical of the governing Left Front coalition, which is led by the > Communists. "Leftist politicians are losing the battle because they have not > cared enough to deliver the goods to the people."... > > Institutions like the police, schools, universities and hospitals have > become deeply politicized, critics say.... > > When the Communists won re-election in 2006, the chief minister, Buddhadeb > Bhattacharjee, campaigned on a pro-industry slogan of "Destination Bengal," > promising to attract factories and jobs. Since then, development officials > say the number of Internet technology jobs has nearly tripled to more than > 100,000, despite a perception that the state has largely missed India's > economic boom. > > But it was the highest-profile industrial project, a planned car factory for > India's most famous corporate conglomerate, Tata, that became a debacle as > farmers revolted against the land acquisition.... > > The Tata factory was canceled in 2008 and plunged the Left Front coalition > into recriminations and re-examination. Meanwhile, outside critics blamed > Communist leadership for a broader governance breakdown, saying that the > quality of institutions had eroded as party loyalty and ideology became > paramount.... > > "Marxist politics has come to a critical juncture," said Kshiti Goswami, the > public works minister and a member of one of the smaller parties in the Left > Front. > > > > *back to top* <#12bf45f5ceb64f44_TOC> > > ------------------------------ > > [image: > TIADaily.com]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=bropbvdab&et=1103841949737&s=8037&e=001QarQ3WdHk-v7JHqFjBajXzdfzjOg4Pc87SDRlN-ucVvMfUL7tdv5TE-4CSIb4QLcYq6XJ93U7q7hGchQa7IAZ8IenEur1xdu1FzuHch6hcA=> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. Have a great day, Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
