Politics, Government & Public Policy: November 2010 Archives
It's hard to imagine a more corrupt transaction than the Obama Administration's blatant pay-off of its union allies by passing taxpayer money through General Motors.
Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it — putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing.The boon for the union fits the pattern established when the White House pushed GM into bankruptcy and steered it through the courts in a way that consistently put the interests of the union ahead of many suppliers, dealers and investors — stakeholders that ordinarily would have fared as well or better under the bankruptcy laws. ...
The union's health care and pension trust fund earned $3.4 billion through the sale of one-third of its shares in GM last week. Analysts estimate that it would break even if it sells the remaining two-thirds of its shares at an average price of $36 — close to where the stock traded shortly after the offering hit the market. GM shares closed at $33.45 on Wednesday.
For taxpayers to break even, by contrast, the stock would have to rise to at least $52 and by some estimates as high as $103 — levels that would take years to achieve.
And what the UAW will do with that "windfall"? You only get one guess! That's right, they'll turn the money around and donate it back to Obama's and the Democrat's political campaigns. It's called money laundering. Everyone involved with this operation should be in prison.
I've been reading a lot about the proposal issued by the chairmen of the Debt Commission. Here's a roundup by Jake Tapper.
I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that the proposal isn't 100% tax increases. Unfortunately there are some pretty substantial tax increases in there. I like the idea of broadening the tax base, because I think it's dangerous that a near-majority of citizens pay zero or less in federal taxes. I like the proposed reduction in the federal workforce, the sale of federal land, the freezing of federal pay, the lowering of the tax brackets, and several other reforms.
However, I'm extremely wary of accepting tax increases now in exchange for "peanut butter" spending cuts that are spread thinly across so many areas. I'd much prefer to see 100% cuts to isolated government functions than a few percent shaved off everywhere. Why? Because it's much easier to restore those few percent later than it would be to reincarnate a whole department once it is eliminated. It just seems to me that tax increases stick around forever, but spending cuts never actually get implemented.
If the UK can cut their spending by 19% in a single year, why can't we?
The British government this past week announced the steepest set of spending cuts in decades, vowing to slash department budgets by close to 20 percent and eliminate a half-million public sector jobs -- all in the name of closing the country's stubborn deficit.The sweeping proposal has given way to bickering in London, but it already has observers on this side of the pond wondering, what if?
Update:
Thanks for the link from 24th State! However, I'm not keen on my views being categorized as "extremism" even when the term is used in a positive sense.
Republicans won a huge majority in the Missouri Legislature last week and are promising some major changes.
Gleeful Republicans in the Missouri House of Representatives said Wednesday that they will use their historic majority to make state government smaller and Missouri more business-friendly.Speaker-elect Steve Tilley said their agenda will include a measure eliminating the state income tax and replacing it with a higher sales tax. The so-called "fair tax" is a priority of retired St. Louis financier Rex Sinquefield, who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers, Tilley among them.
Republicans picked up a record-breaking 17 House seats in Tuesday's election. They knocked off 10 Democratic incumbents representing every corner of the state and seized seven open seats held by retiring Democrats.
The results gave the GOP a 106-57 lock on the chamber. Never before has the party held that many House seats.
Tilley said legislators have a mandate to pursue the GOP's top priority: creating jobs. He said the House will focus on revamping state taxes, business regulations and the legal system.
Should be an interesting time. The Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in the State Senate, so whatever they want to do will have to get past the Democrat governor or get some Democrat votes in the Senate.
(HT: RB.)
@AO: Your tears of lamentation are a sweet, delicious nectar that lightens my heart and rejuvenates my soul. Perhaps you can distill your wounded smug self-righteousness into powdered form so that I can enjoy it at my leisure and not only after a crushing election victory! Please continue explaining about how you and your comrades have a monopoly on intelligence, empathy, sanity, and reason. How does it feel when the cruel Neanderthals reject your enlightened wisdom in favor of self-determination and individual liberty? Why don't they recognize the inherent rightness of your cause and submit to your gentle, beneficent authoritarianism?
The most important low-profile story from yesterday is the large number of state legislatures that switched to Republican control.
- Going into the 2010 elections, Democrats held 60 partisan legislative chambers and Republicans held 36, with a couple of ties.
- It looks like the GOP has picked up an astounding 20 chambers, including both houses in Alabama, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Wisconsin and additional chambers in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
- In total legislative seats, it is possible that after all the results are posted, Republicans will have won a nationwide majority.
- Republicans haven’t enjoyed this much power in state capitals since the 1920s.
These legislatures will be redrawing House district lines in accordance with the 2010 census, and could create up to a dozen new "safe" Republican House seats before the 2012 elections.
Update: More redistricting details.
Looks like my predictions this morning of Republicans gaining 60+ in the House and 7-8 in the Senate were a bit high. I'm especially disappointed that Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Jerry Brown won their elections. Reid because he has been instrumental in advancing the President's agenda in the Senate, and the other two because I actually had some hope for the rejuvenation of California. The mess of propositions that are passing also look inauspicious for the state.
On the bright side, yes, Republicans have taken control of the House. Plus, they've taken Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois and gained Marco Rubio in Florida. Definitely a good night for conservatives, but not the tsunami that some pundits had been predicting. From what I see, Republicans haven't won a single come-from-behind victory against the latest polls. Maybe the pollsters just did a really good job this year?
Still unknown: how many state legislators have the Republicans taken over? The legislatures will be gerrymandering House districts next year, and control of more state legislatures will mean a few more "safe" Republican House seats in 2012. Hopefully someone will have these numbers crunched when I wake up tomorrow.
Sleep well! Less than 15 months till the Iowa caucuses....
I love election day. I'm especially excited today not just because the Republicans appear poised for massive victories, but also because the Republican establishment has been significantly changed for the better by the Tea Party movement and this election should solidify those changes for years to come.
My only predictions are pretty banal and obvious: Republicans take the house but not the Senate. I think they'll win more than 60 seats in the House, and seven or eight in the Senate. I'm fine with that, and it could possibly be advantageous in 2012 for the not to control all of Congress.
Stay tuned! I will be.
Update: How about another Reason TV video about the nastiness of elections?
