American Elephants

The State of the Union. by The Elephant's Child
January 25, 2011, 8:23 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Statism | Tags: , ,

The State of the Union is not too good.  The President’s speech: interminable, cliche-ridden, with nothing new at all.  We’ve heard all this before, and it didn’t work over the last two years.  I don’t know what possible reason we could have to assume that it will work now.

More spending, lots more spending.  This time he calls it “investments.” Investments in education, new technology, high speed rail, government directed innovation, “winning the future,” infrastructure, technology, clean energy and clean living.  It’s the Twenty-First Century, and we have to do twenty-first century things. I think he actually said “our sputnik moment.”

How dare he demand more spending, when the stimulus that was supposed to rescue the economy went instead to bail out the unions that had supported Obama’s election and to the states’ budgets?  He eventually admitted that there weren’t any “shovel-ready” projects.  He even managed to blame Bush and drag out the preposterous claim that greedy insurance companies are destroying your health care.

Innovation does not come from government, Mr. President.   Innovation happens when government gets out of the way!

The media was mostly fascinated with the fact that Democrats and Republicans were sitting together.  Obviously they weren’t much impressed with the speech either.

If this was supposed to be a “move to the center” or Obama “reinventing himself,” it didn’t work.  Nothing has changed.  It’s the same Obama.  The magic  is gone.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Uncertainty? by The Elephant's Child

Today at the Corner at National Review, economist Veronique de Rugy reported an interview on NPR.  Steve Inskup interviewed Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical Company, about his book Make it in America: the Case for Re-Inventing the Economy. This is a small part of the interview:

How do you, as a CEO decide which ops to keep in the US and which to keep abroad?

We look at all items on the cost line, all items on the incentive line and make the decisions on that basis.

What are areas where the US doesn’t do very well?

Well, I not only have high taxes, I have uncertain taxes.  Right now I have more regulations coming at me that are not fact-based, not science based, not data based, I actually don’t even know what my costs are going to be in the next 5 years.  And so I’m sitting back waiting for regulatory reform and the government of course is now engaged on that healthcare and the uncertainty around the healthcare bill and what’s going to end up happening there.  Energy policy. We’ve got lots of uncertainty in the energy policy regimen. I mean, I could keep going but that’s half a dozen.

The host noted that his comments seemed to focus on uncertainty, Liveris replied:

The choice.  Bad policy vs. uncertain policy is a tough choice.  I don’t think we have to go there.

This is a small part of a longer article pointing out that both sides, Republican as well as Democrat, are guilty of thinking that government needs to “invest” in one thing or another.  What they need to do, Ms. de Rugy points out is get out-of-the-way. Do read the whole thing.  I thought this part was especially worth repeating.

SHOCK: Rule of Law Revived in Chicago! (Dems scramble to snuff it out) by American Elephant

It’s ALIVE! …or is it?

The rule of law at least momentarily wheezed back to life in the most politically corrupt city in the country, opened it’s eyes and saw the light of day. Now Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago Democrat machine and very possibly the White House are scrambling to snuff it out.

Yesterday, an Illinois appellate court recognized in it’s decision what the whole world already knows, that Rahm Emanuel, as Obama’s Chief of Staff, has lived continuously in Washington DC for the past two years, not Chicago, and as such does not meet the clear-cut residency requirement to run for Mayor of Chicago. In doing so, they tossed out the decision by the blatantly corrupt  Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, that despite living and working in DC, despite moving his family to DC with him, despite renting out his former home to new tenants, that the foul-mouthed, sleazy little weasel is still a resident in his heart, or something. The court reversed a lower Chicago court, and ordered that Rahm’s name not be allowed on the ballot.

Chicago election law requires that a mayoral candidate must “reside in” Chicago for the full year before the election — not own rental property, not intend to move back someday — reside in. But the clear cut letter of the law is never clear cut when it stands between a Democrat and what they want.

Rahm immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court, and said with an actual ominous cackle, “I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort.” Conveniently, Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett chimed in and let it be known that Obama also thinks Rahm should be on the ballot.

Jarrett made the comments at the end of an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with co-host George Stephanopoulos, who asked her what Obama thought of the appellate decision.

“Well, you know, we haven’t talked to Rahm, but I’ll tell you one thing we know is that he’s going to vigorously appeal. Rahm is a fighter, and I’m sure — as you know, he will be appealing to the Supreme Court, and I’m sure he will vigorously make that case.”

Stephanopoulos pressed her asking, “Does he believe then — so is it fair assume then that the president did believe that Rahm is eligible and the appeals court is wrong?”

Replied Jarrett, “Well, I think that he believes that he’s eligible, and I believe that he believes that Rahm will pursue his appeal in the courts. And as he said then, he thinks Rahm would make a terrific mayor.” [emphasis mine]

Translation? They’ve talked to Rahm.

Call me a cynic, but when someone offers defensive language that has nothing to do with the question you asked them, you know they’re lying. Snuffleupagus didn’t ask if they had talked to Rahm, he asked what Obama thought of the decision.

This mayoral race is important to the White House. Obama is moving his re-election campaign to that most notoriously corrupt city, Obama’s top political adviser, David Axlerod, has already moved into position to run that campaign from Chicago, and Obama want’s his guy in charge of the city, and the political machine, so they can more effectively, illegally coordinate their efforts with each other, with the unions who contributed unprecedented sums to Obama and to whom Obama funneled untold millions, if not billions, in taxpayer “stimulus” money — not to mention the reorganized groups formerly known as ACORN.

If the Illinois Supreme Court finds in favor of Rahm, in clear contradiction of the law,  look for some of those justices to quietly get “coincidental” nominations to the Federal bench in some months when no one is paying attention.

It’s the Chicago way. It’s the Obama way.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

%d bloggers like this: