Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2014, Health Care, Law, Politics | Tags: $300 Million Down the Drain, Not One Customer, The Cover Oregon Disaster
Cover Oregon finally gave up today, and pulled the plug. They still have not enrolled a single person in ObamaCare. Three hundred million down the drain. The state has spent another $7 million signing up 69,000 people manually, using paper applications.
Democrat Governor John Kitzhaber promised to lead the nation on ObamaCare. Didn’t work out that way. An internal audit ordered by the governor concluded that Cover Oregon’s architects were doomed by multi-agency bureaucratic confusion with no quality control or accountability for results. Investigators at the KATU news station found evidence suggesting that Cover Oregon officials created a fake website to create the illusion of progress for the feds who made grants to Oregon for ObamaCare that added up to $303 million.
An advisory panel voted for the state to revert to the federal exchange, but White House officials said they were already planning to annex the exchange. The goal now is rescuing the career of Senator Jeff Merkley. Oregon is very liberal, but the ObamaCare debacle is going to affect anyone in an official position. It’s just not something that enhances a resume. Likely Republican challenger Monica Wehby is a pediatric neurosurgeon, and an impressive candidate.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Freedom, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: A Tax Rate of 80 Percent?, French Economist Thomas Piketty, Marxism Revisited
Inequality is currently a big deal because 1). Barack Obama wants to use it in his campaign for keeping the Senate in the fall elections 2). the lapdog media is obediently cooperating in emphasizing Obama’s theme of the moment and 3). A new book by French economist Thomas Piketty which is focused on inequality, wealth redistribution, capitalist wealth, and the horrors of capitalism. Karl Marx is revisited for the 21st century.
From Cato’s Michael Tanner:
Capital in the Twenty-First Century provides a serious critique of inequality in modern capitalist economies and warns that market economies “are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.” To remedy this, he argues for a globally imposed wealth tax and a U.S. tax rate of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 per year.
The Left has been rapturous. In the last two months, Piketty’s book has been cited more than a half-dozen times by the New York Times, something that has happened with no other book in recent memory. Paul Krugman hails it as “the most important economics book of the year.
From Daniel Suchman in the Wall Street Journal:
Thomas Piketty likes capitalism because it efficiently allocates resources. But he does not like how it allocates income. There is, he thinks, a moral illegitimacy to virtually any accumulation of wealth, and it is a matter of justice that such inequality be eradicated in our economy. The way to do this is to eliminate high incomes and to reduce existing wealth through taxation. …
Soaring pay for corporate “supermanagers” has been the largest source of increased inequality, according to Mr. Piketty, and these executives can only have attained their rewards through luck or flaws in corporate governance. It requires only an occasional glance at this newspaper to confirm that this can be the case. But the author believes that no CEO could ever justify his or her pay based on performance. He doesn’t say whether any occupation—athletes? physicians? economics professors who sell zero-marginal-cost e-books for $21.99 a copy?—is entitled to higher earnings because he does not wish to “indulge in constructing a moral hierarchy of wealth.”…
He assumes that the economy is static and zero-sum; if the income of one population group increases, another one must necessarily have been impoverished. He views equality of outcome as the ultimate end and solely for its own sake. Alternative objectives—such as maximizing the overall wealth of society or increasing economic liberty or seeking the greatest possible equality of opportunity or even, as in the philosophy of John Rawls, ensuring that the welfare of the least well-off is maximized—are scarcely mentioned.
Michael Tanner had the most obvious answer to the problem of the inequality of the lower classes, or the less fortunate: “Instead of attacking capital and capitalism, why not expand the number of people who participate in the benefits of having capital? In other words, let’s make more capitalists.”
It should not be surprising then that “the Left is unremittingly hostile to exactly those policies that would give workers more access to capital.” They want to abolish 401(k) plans, replace them with social insurance, limit tax breaks for wealthier participants, and expand (the broke) Social Security instead.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Progressivism | Tags: Do Not Contribute to This Bunch, Ethanol Pollutes More Than Gas, Green Hypocrites
Fort Mason Park in San Francisco after last year’s Earth Day.
I was visited late yesterday by an earnest young woman representing WASHPIRG, which is the Washington State version of the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. Every college student is required to pay a fee to this group, which seems a little odd since this is just another of Ralph Nader founded private activist groups. They send college students out every year to shill for donations to their cause of the moment. Ralph Nader, “consumer advocate” has formed dozens of “nonprofits” but somehow managed to become a multimillionaire in the process.
The WASHPIRG group this time is the Environment Washington Research and Policy Center. My visitor left a handy leaflet which says:
In Washington, extreme weather in hitting closer to home.
If you think we’ve seen more than our usual share of extreme weather in and around Washington lately, you’re right. Last year’s wildfires, which devastated eastern and central Washington and cost $67.5 million to fight, were a tragic example. Unfortunately it’s not just wildfires, In fact 98% of Washingtonians live in counties hit by at least one weather-related disaster between 2007 and 2012.
And it could get worse. Climate scientists warn that if we keep polluting the way we are now, the next generation is likely to see even more floods, more intense hurricanes, more drought, more heat waves and more dangerous smog pollution as the planet warms and the climate changes.
Sigh. Weather is not climate. Climate is average temperature and has nothing to do with weather. Warmer or colder climate does not cause wildfires, floods, hurricanes, drought or smog pollution. We had some forest fires last year, as we do most years, but it was a fairly low year for forest fires, which are most often caused by lightning strikes or human carelessness. Floods are usually caused by either snowmelt or heavy rain, not climate. This has been one of the quietest years for hurricanes in recent years, and 2012 was a record year for lowest number of tornadoes, until beaten by 2013. So far 2014 is matching 2013. California had a mild winter with light snowpack, but the devastation of the Central Valley drought can be laid in the laps of the environmentalists who have forced the state to cut off water to the breadbasket of the country because of a tiny bait fish which they think may be “endangered.” The planet is not warming, and has not warmed for 17 years and 8 months. There has been no warming, none, since August 1996.
The main culprit: Carbon pollution from fossil fuels
Sigh. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” We are carbon-based life forms. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide which rises from the oceans and is a natural fertilizer for plants. Trees grow and die and decay and release carbon dioxide. We have posted a video from Matt Ridley explaining the “greening of the planet” and the blessings that brings, like feeding hungry people.
What’s driving these changes? We know that carbon pollution from cars and trucks that run on gas and coal-fired power plants owned by utilities like Puget Sound Energy, plays a major role. And the more pollution we allow, the more likely our children will face the consequences of more extreme weather, more smog, rising sea levels and the extinction of certain animals and plants.
I may be mistaken, but I think Washington state had only one coal-fired power plant and I thought they shut that down a year or two ago. I remember my legislator voting to close it because he saw pollution (steam, water vapor) rising from the smokestacks. There’s the litany: “extreme weather, more smog, rising sea levels, and extinction of certain animals and plants.” Greens managed to decimate the logging industry in the state because we had to save the spotted owl, which could only live and breed in old growth forest. Then after massive unemployment, ruined lives and devastated communities, they learned that the spotted owl was perfectly happy in young forests, that its numbers were declining because it was being attacked by its larger, stronger cousin the barred owl. They’re planning to shoot barred owls.
I will spare you the rest of this silly leaflet. At the end, they announce that :
Environment Washington Research and Policy Center has already made a difference for your environment:
Our public education campaigns played a key role in passing plastic bag bans in seven Washington cities. Thanks to our research, outreach and education, Puget Sound wildlife is now better protected from the growing threat of plastic pollution.
Oh, bwa-ha-ha-ha. “the growing threat of plastic pollution.” Cities love banning plastic bags because they charge 10¢ a bag for a plastic bag, which goes to the city. You’re supposed to buy and use cloth bags which are dangerous, often contaminated with e-coli or other bacteria, and have actually killed people.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2014, Energy, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Crooked Chicago Politics, Delayed Till After The Election, The Keystone XL Pipeline
The U.S. State Department has cleared the Keystone XL Pipeline twice, so far, but now they are going to have to pass it again, after an extension of the public comment period which will, coincidentally, last until after the election. Part of the pipeline’s planned path has been changed to suit protesters. It is not a coincidence that the news of the ‘decision’ was released on the convergence of Good Friday and Passover. News that they’d rather cover up is always released late on a Friday. The cover story is that a further delay in the five-year saga of the Keystone couldn’t be avoided because of ‘unresolved legal issues’ over land seizures in Nebraska. Of course.
Let’s see what is involved:
TransCanada has provided a detailed job breakdown for the pipeline. They say it will create 13,000 union construction jobs, 7,000 jobs for Americans in manufacturing. It is estimated that there are up to 250,000 jobs over the life of the pipeline. That boom in employment would have spin-off jobs in the local economies that support each segment of the pipeline.
The Canadians are mightily annoyed. The United States imports eight to nine million barrels of oil every day. A stable, secure supply of oil from Canada makes better sense. Obama has orated about “our dependence on”foreign oil” often enough when it suits what he wants his audience to think.
Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America said “Once again, the administration is making a political calculation instead of doing what is right for the country. It’s clear the administration needs to grow a set of antlers, or perhaps take a lesson from Popeye and eat some spinach.”
Pushing the Keystone XL through would send an important message to Vladimir Putin that America is willing to develop our energy. And allowing the export of liquified natural gas would put a thorn in the side of Putin’s ability to blackmail Europe because of their need for natural gas. But we don’t actually want to annoy Mr. Putin, do we?
On the other side you have:
Leftist billionaire Tom Steyer has promised to spend $50 million of his own money and raise another $50 million for the Democrats in this election if they support the cause of global warming. He really “hates” the Keystone XL pipeline. Steyer has made much of his money at Farallon Capital by investing in fossil fuel producers.
Steyer now claims that stopping Keystone will somehow prevent Canada’s oil sands from being developed. That’s hogwash. The oil is now being carried by rail. In 2008, there were less than 10,000 carloads of crude oil moved by rail. Last year it was more than 400,000 carloads. Rail transportation is far less safe than a pipeline, and the network of pipelines across the country is already extensive, and safe.
Steyer will profit from any delay of the Keystone because he is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. He is, today, a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. Banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. He owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financiers of coal projects in Australia and Asia. He has led recent campaigns with climate nut Bill McKibben to encourage university endowments to divest coal equities. John Hinderaker at Powerline has assembled a remarkable list of Steyer interests. The Hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The most notable takeaway is that, for Barack Obama political money for the upcoming election trumps jobs for unemployed American construction workers, unemployed American manufacturing workers, and for the taxpayer money going to import all that “foreign oil. Everything, for Barack Obama, is about politics. All that talk about jobs, jobs, jobs is just talk.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Income Inequality, Persistent Joblessness, The Feckless Obama Administration
In an attempt to turn the American conversation away from the botched rollout of ObamaCare and the horror stories from new enrollees, President Obama has begun emphasizing income inequality. Envy is always a popular ploy among Democrats that plays well at the polls. Ron Bailey summed it up well at Reason:
Are the rich getting richer? Yes. Are the poor getting poorer? No. Over the past 35 years most Americans got richer. Has income inequality increased in the United States? Yes. Does it matter? President Barack Obama declared in a December speech at the Center for American Progress that “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility” is “the defining challenge of our time.” Is that true? No.
The financial arm of the federal government uses the census and statistics from the IRS to divide the American people into quintiles. In December 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the after-tax income trends for each quintile of American households since 1979, including not just wages but also benefits and transfer payments. The bottom fifth’s after-tax income in constant dollars rose by 49 percent. The incomes of the middle three quintiles increased by 37 percent, 36 percent and 45 percent respectively.
Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution examined CBO data from 1979 to 2010 (the last year for which data are available), and divided the top quintile into four groups: those in the 90th percentile and below, those in the 91st through 95th percentiles and the top 1 percent. During those years, incomes for those fortunate households increased by 54 percent, 67 percent, 79 percent and 202 percent. The rich got richer too, but they got richer faster. Is this when “the one percent” became an ‘important’ buzz word?
What is missing in these statistics is the fact that the people in these quintiles are not the same people over time. Forbes magazine’s annual listings of the richest Americans and world’s richest are manna for the Occupy crowd and the faculty lounge. University professors have always found it enraging that corporate CEOs make huge salaries with enormous benefit packages when they, with their PhDs, are clearly smarter. Envy. But where else do you find so many who disapprove of capitalism?
Economist Alan Reynolds points out that “those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce ‘inequality.’ Of course, the same recessions also increase poverty and unemployment.” If you follow Forbes listings, you will notice that some drop off the list and new names appear. But these are not normal times we are living through, as we have an administration determined to fix inequality, but consistently doing the wrong thing about it.
In his December speech, the president suggested that rising inequality is limiting income mobility, leaving poor Americans increasingly stuck and struggling on the lower rungs. The data do not support this claim.
We have had an astounding period of growth that has produced enormous wealth because of internet technology. I don’t know that we have ever before had a technological innovation that meant that every household and every office had to have at least one computer and probably one for each and every person. Not only that, but the industry is so busy creating and updating and innovating that everyone has to replace everything constantly, and they do so without much complaint, and there are no signs that it ever diminish.
The great defining economic challenge of our time is not putting an end to inequality. The challenge is the persistent joblessness and sluggish economic growth perpetuated by Obama administration policies. A growing economy will produce more economic mobility. Trying to make the poor stop being poor by redistributing the wealth of the rich has never worked, though often tried.
Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are far too focused on the wealthy, while ignoring the elephant in the room. The strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States is the rise of single-parent families during the past 5o years. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of white were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites.
This trend, accompanied by high divorce rates means that roughly 25% of all American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe. Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers. It matters. Two parents work better than one. Even rich kids don’t do as well in single parent families.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Foreign Policy, Military, National Security, Progressivism, Russia, The Constitution, The United States
The United States is sending ground troops to Poland, the Polish defense minister says after meeting with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. But not to worry, this is not a major escalation. Supposedly they are sending a company, about 150 soldiers, for exercises with the Polish military for a short stay, or something like that.
The Ukrainians asked for military aid, we denied them weapons, but sent MREs and military style socks, and reportedly helmets as well. They were trucked into Ukraine as it was thought a military cargo plane might be too provocative.
President Putin, on the other hand has something like 40,000 troops massed on the Ukrainian border, but says they are just there as a precaution since there is so much unrest in the Ukraine. The officers above the rank of Major in the Ukrainian military all came up through the Russian military, and they aren’t going to fight Russians.
The Russian President denies that the militants in the Ukraine have anything to do with Russia, and he is quite helpless to stop them. Although the pro-Russian activists seem to have had military training, their weapons and equipment are all Russian, and their use of tear gas and stun grenades is inconsistent with a spontaneous local militia. Last Thursday Mr. Putin referred to Ukraine as part of “New Russia.” Even when Mr. Putin openly declares his goal, Mr. Obama prefers to ignore it. The Wall Street Journal said:
The larger problem is that Mr. Obama can’t seem to admit that his assumptions about the world are being repudiated by the week. He came to office believing his own campaign rhetoric that the U.S. was unpopular mainly because of President George W. Bush. He would end these misunderstandings through diplomatic engagement, especially with our adversaries, who would respond in kind to our good will and moral example. Nowhere in the world has that happened.
Diplomacy in Geneva has come up with about what one would expect. After seven hours of negotiations they agreed that “all parties including separatists and their Russian backer, would stop violent and provocative acts, and all illegal groups would be disarmed. A joint statement made no presence of what the U.S. has said are 40,000 Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s eastern and southern borders. Kerry said that Russia is “absolutely prepared to begin to respond with respect to troops,” provided the agreement is observed.
The U.S. has sent 12 F-16 fighters and 200 support personnel to Poland. NATO’s secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the alliance would fly more air patrols over the Baltic region and allied ships would deploy to the Baltic.
Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said the United States, having announced a “pivot” to Asia, needs to “re–pivot” to Europe, and European countries that have cut back on defense spending need to reverse the trend.
The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more. Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.
According to the New York Times, Mr. Obama has concluded that he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin. As a result he will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, and otherwise turn to other foreign policy area where progress remains possible.
The White House is preparing to nominate John Fl Tefft, a career diplomat who previously served as ambassador to Ukraine , Georgia and Lithuania. Administration officials were leery of sending Mr. Tefft because of concern that his experience in former Soviet republics that have flouted Moscow’s influence would irritate Russia.
Obama is less concerned with irritating Russia now, and is reportedly pivoting to the George F. Kennan strategy of containment.
The more hawkish faction in the State and Defense Departments has grown increasingly frustrated, privately worrying that Mr. Obama has come across as weak and unintentionally sent the message that he has written off Crimea after Russia’s annexation. They have pressed for faster and more expansive sanctions, only to wait while memos sit in the White House without action. Mr. Obama has not even imposed sanctions on a list of Russian human rights violators waiting for approval since last winter.
Mr. Obama says that Ukraine is not a major concern for Americans. He has concentrated his public schedule around “important” issues like job training and the minimum wage. Since Mr. Putin is not interested in a partnership, Mr. Obama is not interested in the Ukraine or Russia. But then, he’s not much interested in foreign policy at all—though it’s the major part of his job description.
David P. Goldman, writing as “Spengler” says Americans are playing Monopoly, Russians are playing chess. Ukraine is a basket case with a per capita income a tenth of that of the European Community. They are deeply in debt to the Russians and dependent on Russian energy. Putin will let the West take charge of the Ukrainian disaster until it festers, and then pick and choose what he wants. And what he wants is a “new Russia.”
Filed under: Politics
A Happy Easter To You All
Easter Sunday, 2014 * American Elephants
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Law, Progressivism, Regulation
The debate over ObamaCare, the president declared, is over, and he won! ObamaCare is here to stay, and the debate is over. He claimed a grand total of 8 million subscribers, diagnosed Republicans as fear-mongering, spiteful, obstinate, petulant and obstructive., and added that he “would much prefer a constructive conversation with the Republicans about how we get some stuff done.” Which is a bit of an odd position to take since for the most part, ObamaCare hasn’t even really taken effect yet.
A new Fox News poll says that sixty-one percent of respondents in the poll released Thursday said Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. Only 15 percent believe the president is completely truthful. Only 31 percent of Democrats said the president is always truthful. It seemed a useful poll in this context.
For the first time in the history of our country, one political party has forced the American people to buy a product devised by that party for their own benefit, that the American people have shown no indication that they wanted. The Democrats defied public opinion, rammed ObamaCare into law using the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase and all sorts of unseemly gimmicks to force unwilling Democrats to vote to pass it.
It funnels unprecedented amounts of power and money to Washington D.C. and out of the pockets of everyday Americans. It incentivises employers to refrain from hiring people and to cut hours for millions of their employees. It bans millions of people’s health insurance policies because they don’t conform to the rules designed in the backrooms of Congress. Obama crows over insurance policies, but doctors are so disgusted with the program that they are leaving medicine in droves. Since July 4, 2009, according to Real Clear Politics, 458 polls have been taken on ObamaCare. Twenty have shown Americans liking it, five have shown ties, and 433 (95%) have shown them disliking it. The five most recent polls have shown Americans opposing ObamaCare by double digits. And it hasn’t really started yet!
The president proclaims the debate is over and ObamaCare is here to stay.
Charles Blahous, the director of spending and budget initiative at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, said :
It is quite possible that the ACA is shaping up as the greatest act of fiscal irresponsibility ever committed by federal legislators. Nothing immediately comes to mind as comparable to it. Certainly no tax legislation is, because tax rates rise and fall frequently, such that one Congress’s tax cut can be (and often is) undone by a later tax increase. The same is true for legislation affecting appropriated spending programs. But the ACA is a commitment to permanently subsidize comprehensive health insurance for millions who could not otherwise afford it, which the federal government has no viable plan to finance. Moreover, experience shows that it is very difficult to scale back such spending once large numbers of Americans have been made dependent on it.
This is an expansion of spending commitments that is comparable to enacting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Our biggest financial problems today come from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs rising well beyond original projections. Nobody planned on the Baby Boom generation. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the gross costs of the ACA’s coverage expansion will be $92 billion in FY2015, or about 0.5% of our total GDP of roughly $18 trillion. This far exceeds the initial costs associated with the entirety of Social Security and Medicaid and is comparable to the startup costs for all original parts of Medicare combined. Only five years after enactment, the ACA will absorb more of our total economic output than Social Security did fully sixteen years after it was enacted. And government programs always, always, cost more than the estimates.
The ACA was enacted when legislators knew, or should have known, that they were living in a fiscal environment in which such extravagance was unaffordable. Deficits and Debt are far higher today than when other major entitlement programs were created. Baby Boomers are just beginning to turn 65, and their numbers swell exponentially until 2029. The sheer irresponsibility is breathtaking.
The ACA’s “CLASS” long-term care provisions were originally projected to generate $37 billion in net premiums through 2015. CLASS was suspended due to its long-term financial unworkability. That money is not coming in.
The employer/individual mandate penalties were expected to have brought in $12 billion through 2015, $101 billion over the first ten years. Obama has delayed enforcement repeatedly, and they haven’t brought in much of anything. Some ACA advocates are suggesting ditching those mandates altogether, though they were essential to the financing scheme.
The ACA was supposed to be financed in part by cuts to Medicare Advantage, the extremely popular program for seniors. This is typical of government programs. Establish the program, get everybody signed up, then start taking funding out of it to support something else. That was supposed to be $31 billion through FY2015, $128 billion over the first ten years. The White House recently announced that planned cuts will not go into effect after all —probably not till after the election.
We still have the “cost-saving” decisions of the Independent Payment Advisory Board— the 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide what Medicare will pay for, and what it won’t. The ObamaCare people have always pointed out that most of the costs of health care come in the final years of seniors’ lives, and old people just don’t need such expensive treatment when they have so little time left. And they are sure that they can reduce costs by just paying providers less—which means good luck finding a doctor.
The great goal of getting those who can’t afford insurance signed up for Medicaid is confronted by recent studies showing that people who do without insurance actually do better than those who are insured by Medicaid.
Charles Blahouse concludes:
When new enrollment figures were released last week, the national discussion focused on whether the ACA is fulfilling its coverage expansion goals. The largely unwritten and more important story, however, is that the ACA is rapidly becoming a colossal fiscal disaster as enrollment proceeds heedless of the concurrent collapse of the law’s financing structure.
Filed under: Politics
The Anti-Semitic leaflet distributed to Jews as they were leaving the synagogue in Donetsk, Ukraine was vouched for by Ynet, the reliable Jake Tapper and others, but was apparently —a propaganda fraud, a false-flag effort. I don’t know what to call it, but the Rabbis of Donetsk are familiar with this sort of thing and say, essentially — nevermind. I’ve been had. My apologies.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Education, Energy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, History, Humor, Immigration, National Security, Politics, Taxes | Tags: A Guide to Liberal Thought, Andrew Klavan on the Culture, Really-They Do Think This!
The common conservative response to a liberal pronouncement is “You’ve got to be kidding!” Can they possibly believe what they are saying? The real divisions between liberals and conservatives are deep and wide, but Andrew Klavan takes a shot at explaining what it is that liberals believe, and how liberals think. It may be helpful, but —It’s not pretty!