conservatism

Jeffrey H Anderson at The Weekly Standard:

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. 

Ahhh, the Federal Goverment, model of efficiency.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

I’d love to see the Limbaugh Stimulus Plan right about now:

“Who hires people? Businesses! Businesses need tax cuts. The US corporate tax rate is obscene. It is the highest of all industrialized nations. It’s 35%. Cut it. Cut it in half. Make the capital gains rate go away for three months, and then get out of the way to see what happens on Wall Street. And once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, you watch what happens to the rest of the private sector. It will follow right along.”

Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News:

Forty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives–including the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and two presidential candidates–are pointing to evidence they say is “contradictory” to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony and calling for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter.

Oh, really.

“Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA,” the letter said.

It’s an interesting accusation, because if true it would indeed contradict Justice Kagan’s testimony during her confirmation hearing. Fortunately it’s an accusation that should be fairly easy to demonstrate. If she did have an active role in “formulating a defense of PPACA” she should recuse herself. Certainly the Democrats have no choice but to agree. After all, back in February 84 members of congress asked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself¹ from this same case simply because his wife works for the Heritage Foundation, an organization which itself has opposed the health care bill.

Notice the difference in the way the Republicans and Democrats handled two similar situations. Back in February, the Democrats wrote a—rather demeaning—letter to Justice Thomas personally asking him to recuse himself and even stated “If the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path”. The Republicans have thusfar only asked for an investigation into Kagan’s apparent contradictory testimony and her involvement in formulating a defense for PPACA. They didn’t jump to any conclusions and demand that she recuse herself.

In any event, something tells me the Republicans are going to have to turn the afterburners on full power make anything happen here (if they have a chance at all). This administration is very committed to stuffing its idea of healthcare down America’s throat, despite us mostly not wanting it.

Nancy French at National Review Online (quoting a Harvard Study):

“One Fourth of July without rain before age 18 increases the likelihood of identifying as a Republican at age 40 by 2 percent, the share of people voting for the Republican candidate at age 40 by 4 percent, and the share of people turning out to vote at age 40 by 0.9 percent.”

Is this a joke? What is the margin of error for this study? Just one more liberal trying to understand why some people still use their brain when voting.

Nancy continues:

It’s not fair to claim that all Democrats aren’t patriotic, of course, but the study also suggests that “there is political congruence between patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and Republican beliefs, as well as Fourth of July transmitting a non-partisan civic duty to vote.”

I can already see the day: local municipalities can’t host an Independence Day¹ event because—as we’ve just learned—Independence Day is really a propaganda tool of the Republican Party.

Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin

When Illinois Senator Dick Durbin looks at a crowd of Tea Partying American citizens, he sees extremists and a bunch of fringe wackos who don’t speak for America. When he looks at a roomful of illegal aliens he sees the future of America, and maybe even the next US president:

Classic liberalism on display. I can only infer that Durbin is either unaware of that pesky constitution, or he’s just counting on it being trampled on so much as to be obsolete “someday”.

Matt Cover at CNS News:

“It is a specific prohibition on solicitation [of money] by the president, the vice president, or any member of Congress on any federal property,” she said.

To be fair, this seems kind of nit-picky to me. It’s not like the guy is holding a fundraising dinner at the Whitehouse. Having said that, it does appear to be accurate. He can’t do that. Also, even I knew about this law, so I’m pretty sure the president and his staff knew better.