VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi, Genius

Posted on Comments

In which she explains that unemployment checks create jobs:

“Now, let me say that unemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest — this is one of the biggest stimuluses [sic] to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy and it’s job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit — it helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job-creator and so, uh, for that reason — for those two reasons at least — it should be passed, and I’m optimistic that it will.”
— Nancy Pelosi, July 1, 2010

This sort of gobbledygook is the logical end-point of Keynesian economics, with its obsessive focus on demand-side inputs — including government redistribution programs — whereas a far more effective stimulus to economic growth is capital investment, a/k/a, the supply side.

Also, notice the predictable demagoguery: At the end, she says, “It’s impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we’re not going to have unemployment benefits.” But nobody is talking about eliminating unemployment benefits. The measure Pelosi is arguing for would extend benefits for those who’ve already maxed-out at 99 weeks:

Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years — up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.

However sympathetic one may be to such people — hey, it’s tough all over — it is simply absurd to say that giving them another 13 or 26 weeks of unemployment checks is the way to “create jobs.”

(Via Hot Air Headlines and Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey plays “Let’s Count the Straw Men” with Nancy’s argument, and makes reference to the latest unemployment numbers:

The United States added just 83,000 private-sector jobs in June, a dishearteningly low number that could add to the growing number of economists who warn that the economic recovery is stalling. . . .

(That was no “recovery.” That was a dead-cat bounce.)

The economy needs to add about 130,000 to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with new workers entering the market. The labor pool is already packed with 15 million Americans looking for work. . . .

(A solid argument for reducing illegal immigration.)

The week or so leading up to Friday’s report offered a grim rat-a-tat-tat of statistics pointing to a slowing economy. Auto sales were off more than expected, as sales plunged 30 percent in May, a far greater drop than expected. And unemployment claims rose by 13,000 to 472,000, which is far higher than usual if one is looking for signs that private payrolls are growing in a sustained fashion. . . .

(Why would you be “looking for signs”?)

The Obama administration has put much political currency into its effort to grow the economy, and most to the point, jobs. Only a month ago, after an April jobs report that showed employers added 290,000 jobs — a number revised Friday to 313,000 — President Obama declared the numbers “particularly heartening.”
And just two weeks ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. christened this “Recovery Summer,” with an emphasis on the jobs created by the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus measure passed in February 2009.

“Recovery Summer” is withering on the vine. Instead of seeking advice from Nancy the Job-Creator, how about recalling that I predicted this failure from the outset?

So-called Scholars Beclown Themselves

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Joe Gandelman The Moderate Voice says:

A poll of 238 of the country’s top scholars has ranked Barack Obama among the the best Presidents — number 15 to be exact. George W. Bush has dropped from 23 to 39.

While not wasting time over-rating W, how can you possibly put BHO in the top third(-ish) with less than 50% of a completed term?
Oh, there must be some grants involved. Got it: “Pimp My Department.”
Confederate Yankee consults Mr. James on the theory that the scholars, while not addicted to cocaine, like the way it smells.
Hot Air delves into the details.

Update: TrogloPundit emits a strange goo at the notion of his. . .hero(?) only being 15th.

Connect The Dots

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Via Insty a few days back, Hoosier Daddy on Althouse has one of the
most insightful comments of the year:

Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.
I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.
After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.
I’d like to know what Kagan’s opinions are on those
cases.

Here is a handy summary for the less nerdy: Continue reading Connect The Dots →

Rock Star Attorney General Going To Bat For Virginia

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Ken Cuccinelli, VA AG and all around tough guy, made it to Federal Court today, reports CNSNews:

A federal judge in Richmond heard arguments Thursday on the administration’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the new law. The Justice Department claims Virginia lacks standing to sue and that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the law.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said he will rule on the motion within a month.

Of course, Eric Holder’s Department OJ is so blind as not to grasp the truth in Panthergate, so maybe an imbecile opinion here is simply falling in character.
Sudden idea: how about getting “Nation of Cowards” Holder a job as a FIFA official? This would minimize his impact on justice in the US. Discuss.

Update: Just in, via email from AG Cuccinelli, emphasis original:

Dear Friends,
Today marked an important landmark in Virginia’s case to overturn the individual mandate contained in the recent healthcare bill: the first oral arguments in the case. While most of the arguments are similar to those we have laid out for you in previous emails (link to those arguments here) – there was at least one very interesting development.

Some of you might remember a conversation between the President and George Stephanopoulos back in September of last year where President Obama denied that the healthcare bill was a tax. Here is a segment from that conversation (link to the video here):

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Well, today, during the first oral arguments on Virginia’s healthcare case – Judge Hudson asked the attorneys for the US Government if the healthcare bill was a tax bill or a healthcare bill. The answer they gave was both!
Overall, we are pleased with how the case is proceeding, and we’ll continue to update you with its progress. If Virginia’s case survives the motion to dismiss, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. to decide if the federal health care law is unconstitutional. Stay tuned.

That’s all for now!
—-
Sincerely,
[Ken’s Signature]
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

It Isn’t So Much Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality As His Political Views That Disappoint

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Salon quotes an NYT interview where LG reports: “I ain’t gay”.

Nice tangential datum, Senator, but what matters more is your objection to the taste of Tea in your mouth:

On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . . Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”

In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

“they can never come up with a coherent vision”, Senator? Really?  For starters:

  • Federalism
    • States support their constituents
    • States only tax their constituents
  • Balanced budget
  • Decreasing national debt
  • Separation of powers
    • No more wars without proper declaration
    • Elimination of redundant, Progressive cabinet posts

In summary, Senator Graham, the vision is that of the Founders: 50 states delegating a minimal set of powers to a Federal government to keep the whole safe from enemies foreign and domestic.  And this is the vision that you’ve sworn, in the Air Force and Congress to uphold.  Thus, your confusion is confusing. What is your problem, Senator?

Update: More at Liberty Pundits

Update II: Dan Riehl infers more than I would about the good Senator.

Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings Resume; Media Failure Continues; UPDATE: Yoest Calls for Investigation UPDATE II: Yoest Video Added

Posted on Comments

UPDATE 8:55 p.m.: Video of Charmaine Yoest’s testimony:

She was introduced — and subsequently cut off at the 5-minute mark — by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-EadBabies).

UPDATE 7:45 p.m.: From the testimony of Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life:

First, I urge this Committee to officially investigate the discrepancies that have arisen this week between Ms. Kagan’s testimony and the written record about her actions related to lobbying the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists during her tenure in the Clinton White House. The questions surrounding this period are troubling and call into question Ms. Kagan’s ability to adopt an impartial judicial temperament. . . .
We are asking this committee to investigate Ms. Kagan’s record related to her interaction with both the AMA and ACOG during her tenure as a policy advisor to President Clinton.
I’d like to focus attention tonight on her apparent efforts to influence and distort the record on the medical science related to partial-birth abortion. In a December 14, 1996 memo, Kagan addressed the pending release of a proposed statement by ACOG that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. The release of such a statement, she argued, “. . .would be a disaster . . .”
In response, White House documents show that Kagan drafted an amendment to ACOG’s statement, dramatically altering their language, which stated that partial-birth abortion: “may be the best or most appropriate in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” ACOG subsequently adopted Ms. Kagan’s handwritten change into their final statement.
Kagan claimed before this Committee that she was simply a scribe for changes coming from ACOG. But Kagan’s response raises more questions than it answers.
And this was not an isolated case. We have further evidence that she pursued this same strategy with the AMA.
Similar to ACOG’s original position, the AMA issued a policy stating that no situations had been identified where partial-birth abortion was the only appropriate method of abortion and that ethical concerns surrounded it.
In a White House email dated June 1, 1997, Ms. Kagan wrote that she just came from a meeting which focused on “whether the AMA policy can be reversed at its convention on June 23.”
Kagan then concluded: “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we …could contribute to that effort.”
Elena Kagan was so opposed to the passage of a ban on partial-birth abortion that she appears to have advocated for ACOG and the AMA to suppress or modify their view. She made a deliberate decision to advocate for partial-birth abortion, even to the point of working to deceive the American public about the medical science related to the procedure.

Whole thing here. Earlier today, Yoest sent an e-mail to a quarter-million pro-lifers asking them to contact their senators and call for an investigation.

PREVIOUSLY: Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan resumed today at 4 p.m. ET, but unless you’ve got C-SPAN 3, you can’t watch the testimony from witnesses. PBS, which covered the first three days of hearings live, won’t be carrying today’s testimony. And if you’re relying on network news . . . well, let’s let Scott Whitlock of Newsbusters explain:

Wednesday’s evening news shows and Thursday’s morning programs continued to minimize or leave out important moments of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings. . . .
The New York Times on July 1 reported the intense questioning by Senator Orrin Hatch on an abortion memo written by then-Clinton White House Counsel Kagan.
Hatch demanded, “Did you write that memo?…But did you write it? Is it your memo?”
Kagan’s memo worried that a American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) report on abortion could be a “disaster” for the Clinton administration.
None of the morning shows on Thursday mentioned the exchange between Hatch and Kagan. On Wednesday, only CBS’s Evening News raised the subject.

It’s pretty sad when the New York Times does a better job of reporting than any of the Big Three networks, which lost a combined 1 million viewers in the past three months. Maybe these two phenomena are related?

UPDATE: More on the MSM failure:

What was the big story in Wednesday’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan? According to the New York Times, it was “Republicans Press Kagan on Social Issues,” while the Washington Post focused on how Kagan “charmed her critics.”

And look: Democrats use Kagan hearings for fund-raising!