Reuters: Health reform to worsen doctor shortage

I told you so. Constituents told Senator Specter, but he didn't listen.

Health reform to worsen doctor shortage

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:04pm EDT 

(Reuters) - The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday.

The group's Center for Workforce Studies released new estimates that showed shortages would be 50 percent worse in 2015 than forecast.

"While previous projections showed a baseline shortage of 39,600 doctors in 2015, current estimates bring that number closer to 63,000, with a worsening of shortages through 2025," the group said in a statement.

"The United States already was struggling with a critical physician shortage and the problem will only be exacerbated as 32 million Americans acquire health care coverage, and an additional 36 million people enter Medicare."

Medicare is the federal health insurance plan for people over the age of 65, and census projections show that group growing as the giant baby boomer generation born from 1946 to 1964 hits retirement age.

The U.S. healthcare reform plan signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is designed to provide insurance to 32 million Americans who now lack it.

The AAMC projected a shortage of 33,100 physicians in specialties such as cardiology, oncology and emergency medicine in 2015.

It calls for Congress to increase funding to train new doctors. "The number of medical school students continues to increase, adding 7,000 graduates every year over the next decade," the AAMC said.

It said at least 15 percent more were needed.

Other groups, such as the nonprofit Rand Corporation and the Institute of Medicine, have also projected various physician shortages.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

Christina Romer and her husband confirm the Laffer Curve

By Randall Hoven

A successful parasite must keep its host alive, finding the point where it can maximize its intake without killing off its source of sustenance. So, too, with governments taxing their citizenry. With taxation, governments can reach the point where higher rates produce less revenue. 

An academic study found that a tax increase of just 1% of GDP causes a recession and then a permanent loss of 1.84% of GDP compared to what it would have been without the tax increase. The results of this study have some really broad and interesting implications.

The punchline is that this study was done by Christina and David Romer. You might remember Christina as President Obama's first chair of his Council of Economic Advisers. David, her husband, is on the recession dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the outfit that everyone relies on to say when recessions start and stop. (The date of this study's release was June 2010. Ms. Romer announced her resignation from Obama's administration in August 2010.)

A key result of this study, published in the American Economic Revue, was the chart below. To quote the Romers,

The key result ... is in panel C, which shows the behavior of real GDP following an innovation of one percentage point to our series of exogenous tax changes ... The estimated maximum effect is a decline of 2.93 percent after ten quarters ... the effect falls to -1.84 percent after 15 quarters, and then remains roughly at that level."

Effect on GDP of a Tax Increase of 1% of GDP

Source: Christina and David Romer, American Economic Revue, June 2010.

First, a decline of 2.93% of GDP means recession. And even after the recession is over (two and a half years after the tax increase), GDP remains 1.84% below where it would have been without the tax increase. 

So while the government might collect 1% of GDP more than it used to, GDP becomes smaller. Thus, the government does not really collect as much as it thought it would using "static" scoring of tax changes. In fact, if we put it all together (as I do in Addendum 1), the result is a Laffer Curve, which I will call the Romer-Laffer Curve.

Christina Romer and her husband not only confirmed both the Laffer Curve and the "dynamic" scoring of tax changes, but they effectively specified them for us.

That is pretty big news. (Paging Dr. Krugman.)

The Romer-Laffer Curve is depicted in the chart below. It says that government revenue, in real dollar terms, is maximized at an overall average tax rate of 44.4% of GDP. In 2007, the U.S. was at 34.5% (U.S. Statistical Abstract, Table 1324). So while the Romer analysis leads to a Laffer Curve, it says we are on the left side of it, meaning government can increase revenues by raising tax rates (at least with the right mix of tax rates).

The Romer-Laffer Curve

But that is not the whole story. First, there is a point at which government loses money by raising tax rates, and that point is not far from where we are now. In fact, it is about where most of Europe was in 2007. (More below.) Also, dynamic scoring is real. The government would collect only a fraction (about 36.5%, from a 2007 baseline) of what it thinks it would collect using static scoring.

The effect of dynamic scoring becomes stronger as we approach the peak of the curve. If the government went all-out in maximizing revenue by raising tax rates as much as possible, it could collect only 5.3% more than it did in 2007 in actual dollars, at best. That would not be enough to cure our deficit/debt problem.

(These results jibe with those of a 2009 study of the Laffer Curve by Harold Uhlig and Mathias Trabandt. The 2010 Romer study implies that tax collections could go from 34.5% to a maximum of 44.4%. That is an increase of 29% as a fraction of GDP. The Uhlig study put that figure at 31%. Those are remarkably similar conclusions given such different approaches.)

In fairness, the Romers' data set was for the United States from 1945 to 2007, and they put significant error bounds on their estimates. That means extrapolating results outside the range of about 25% to 35% of GDP, or outside the U.S. economy, is more speculative. It also means we should not treat figures like 1.84 and 44.4 as precise values.

But if we do use the precise Romer-Laffer Curve to speculate, it leads to a pretty remarkable insight: themature, Western democracies seem to be maximizing government revenue. That is, they are not maximizing the percentage of GDP they take; they are maximizing the actual wealth they take. They appear to be seeking the peak of the Romer-Laffer Curve.

Below is a chart of that same Romer-Laffer Curve with a few representative countries plotted at their 2007 tax rates. The U.S. and Switzerland were the "low tax" countries at 34.5% and 34.2% of GDP, respectively. Norway took the prize for the high end at 58.4%, with Sweden and Denmark not far behind at 54.9% each. Germany was closest to that optimum level at 43.9%. The average for the 22 countries I call the "mature, Western democracies" (see Addendum 2) was 44.0%, or so close to that Romer-Laffer peak of 44.4% that one would have to think that something is going on here.

Where Mature, Western Democracies Lie on the Romer-Laffer Curve

But overall, the mature, Western democracies were clustered in a fairly small range of about +10% of the "optimum" level (from government's point of view) of about 45%. Recall that these countries did not start out there. The U.S., in fact, was at a tax rate of about 5%-10% at the beginning of the 20^th century. The others were way to the left side of the curve as well. Throughout the 20^th century, they all drifted up the Romer-Laffer Curve. Some even surpassed the peak, going down the curve to the right.

And here is what is more interesting. Countries did not simply keep going toward the right.  Most countries that passed the peak went back to the left. Of 22 countries, nine had tax rates above 50% of GDP at some point over 1980-2006. By 2007, all those countries had moved to the left of their maximum tax rates. The average move leftward was 4.5% of GDP. Five of the nine were below 50% of GDP in 2007.

On the other hand, twelve of those 22 countries were taxed below 40% of GDP at some point over that 1980-2007 period. By 2007, all of those countries had moved to the right of their minimum tax rates. The average move rightward was 7.4% of GDP. Six of the twelve were above 40% of GDP in 2007.

We in the U.S. are not familiar with real cuts to government. Then again, we have not passed the Romer-Laffer peak.  But several other countries have taken some genuine action. The Netherlands and Sweden reduced taxes by 8.5% and 8.3% of GDP -- significant moves to the left along the Romer-Laffer Curve. New Zealand moved 7.5% of GDP to the left.

The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform documents several examples of debt-cutting countries. It lists ten countries that cut government debt by 21% to 77% of GDP just since 1986. (Our federal debt held by the public is about 63% of GDP right now and heading to 90%.) Those countries took meaningful actions such as removing regulations including wage and price controls, downsizing through spending cuts and privatizations, reducing the number of public employees and public employee pay freezes, and reducing subsidies. You might notice that those actions do not include tax increases.

Here is where it gets tough: we do not have a dial we can simply set to 44.4%. Taxes are complex. Multiple things are taxed at multiple rates: personal incomes; corporate incomes; wage income; capital gains; interest income; sales taxes and VATs; federal, state, and local taxes; gasoline taxes; excise taxes; phone taxes; ad infinitum. I would say that each such tax has its own Laffer Curve, interacting with all the others.

Governments constantly tinker with such taxes. What the above implies, however, is that all that tinkering is an evolutionary trial-and-error process to march us up the Romer-Laffer Curve. Government is an organism that tries to maximize its energy intake. It is, in effect, like all other organisms.

An obvious point of contention is that most of us don't want to maximize government wealth. We want to maximize our own wealth. I know of two other studies that looked at optimizing overall GDP growth; one done in 1998 by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress and the other done in 2009 by the Institute for Market Economics. Both studies concluded about the same thing: the growth rate of GDP is maximized at an overall tax rate of no more than 25% of GDP. (As a libertarian kind of guy, I would push for under 10%, a tithe. But people call me an extremist.)

So overall wealth is maximized at a 25% rate, but government wealth is maximized at 45%. Guess which one the U.S. is approaching and Europe has already arrived at.

Here then, is my summary of what all this tax talk means, what economists call "policy implications."

• Total wealth is maximized when total government taxes are 25% of GDP or less.
• The U.S. was at 35% in 2007 and heading higher. Not only does this give a bigger piece of pie to the government, but it also shrinks the pie.
• There seems to be a limit on government growth, at least in mature, Western democracies. In such countries, government seeks to maximize its own wealth, and it does so at an overall tax rate of about 45% of GDP.
• Most mature, Western democracies cannot raise more real revenue by raising taxes. About half of them are on the "wrong side" of the Laffer Curve. Even the "low tax" countries like the U.S. can raise only about 5% more, in real wealth, than they did in 2007. And that assumes they do it "right." All such countries are near the peak of the Romer-Laffer Curve.
• Therefore, deficits and debts must be reduced by cutting government spending, not raising taxes.
• Furthermore, such cutting does not mean "austerity." It means a government that both taxes and spends about 45% of its economy. That is not what I would call austerity.
• Finding such an "optimum" point is not a matter of turning a dial. The political-economic system achieves such a point by evolutionary trial and error over decades to achieve the mix of taxes, tax rates, and public services and benefits that the market can stand and the electorate can abide by.

There is both good news and bad news here. The bad news is, of course, that we would all be richer, on average, if government shrank significantly. The good news is that the pain seems to be limited. Germany is the current example of where we all seem to be headed. (Maybe not your first choice, but it beats Zimbabwe and Venezuela.)

I expect Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and France to shrink their governments a bit, and for the U.S., Switzerland, Australia, and Ireland to grow theirs. We'll all meet at 45%. Hello, Germany and New Zealand

(I don't expect the 2010 Tea Party election to march us back down to 25%. I think it is just a reaction to Obama's lurch to reach Norway's 60% in a single bound. I expect our fickle electorate to seek the Romer-Laffer peak over time, just like Europe's.)

Thank you, Christina Romer. You cleared up a lot of confusion for us.

All this, of course, assumes the "mature, Western democracies" can keep a lid on Iran and all the crazies everywhere seeking WMD and a new caliphate. It also assumes George Soros doesn't run the world. But if we can't make such assumptions, we've got bigger problems than taxes. Remember, there are only two things certain in life, and only one of them is taxes.

Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day.  He can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website,randallhoven.com.

Addendum 1. Math insert for those who care. Developing the Romer-Laffer Curve.

R₀ = federal revenues, as fraction of GDP, without a tax change.

T = tax change, as a fraction of GDP, in addition to R₀.

R = federal revenues, as a fraction of GDP, with a tax change:  R = R₀ + T.

G₀ = GDP without the tax change.

G = GDP with the tax change.

G = (1 + ST)G₀, where S = sensitivity to the tax change.

The Romer study said GDP is sensitive to tax changes. In fact, a 1%-of-GDP increase in taxes would cause the long-term GDP to be 1.84% lower than it otherwise would have been. That is a sensitivity, S, of -1.84.

In 2007, government in the U.S. collected 34.5% of GDP, or R₀ = 0.345.

So the actual revenues collected once the tax increase settles in is as follows.

Revenues = RG = (R₀ + T)(1+ST)G₀ = (0.345 + T)(1 - 1.84T)G₀.  Or

Revenues as fraction of G₀ = 0.345 +0.365T -1.84T².  (This is the Romer-Laffer Curve, with T as a decimal, e.g. 0.1 for 10%.)

Revenues, in real dollar terms, would be maximized at T = 0.099, meaning total revenues at 44.4% of GDP (34.5% + 9.9%).

Addendum 2. The 22 "mature, Western democracies." These are the OECD countries without Asia (Japan and South Korea), without the lesser developed countries of Mexico and Turkey, and without the recently liberated former Soviet satellites of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

34 Comments on "The Government Tapeworm"

The Democrats or the Devil

Great article! Basically the D's are campaigning that it's either 'The Democrats or the Devil'.

One really needs to parse the words that Obama says, because he takes a few truths, adds in one big lie, and another smaller lie, and makes it seem like a legitimate idea. In fact, the whole thing, when combined, becomes a lie:

But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.

Let's parse this statement:

But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush

True, but then, Bush was not a true conservative. Even though he lowered taxes (his only conservative accomplishment), he also greatly grew the size of government, which I disagreed with every step of the way.

 and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place,

COMPLETE LIE! It was the progressive agenda, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that got us into trouble. It happened under Carter first, then under Clinton, with the zero down loans.

 versus an administration that, with some admitted warts,

HA! The Understatement of the Century!

has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.

Completely true statement, but then, that is certainly NOT something to brag about. All in all the statement is not true and is a politician's way of lying to cover his and the Democrat's rear ends in hopes of diminishing their losses this November.

-----------------------

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/09/29/democrats-or-the-devil/

Everywhere you look this election season, the sales pitch is the same: it's Democrats or the Devil.  The Party and its President claim the moral and intellectual strength to run every aspect of our lives, and confiscate limitless amounts our income… but they won't explain or defend their actions, because we can't handle the truth.  Instead, they campaign by assuring us their opponents are monsters.  If I were one of their voters, I would tire of being treated like an idiot, and wonder why a Party full of geniuses can't make a single rational appeal.

America IS energy independent!

Good News: we've got energy independence.
All we need now is environmentalist independence.

Nightmare on Green Street

By Mike Razar

Let the good news spread throughout America to every city and village, every farm and hamlet, and every family which is struggling economically.

America is energy independent!

Have you ever wondered why the financial markets are so patient with the fiscal mismanagement of the US government? Look at our balance sheet. We have thirteen trillion dollars of debt and it is climbing at a rate of three or four billion dollars every day. Who would loan us money?  Unfunded liabilities may exceed fifty trillion dollars. How can we ever pay it back? Why aren't interest rates higher?

A balance sheet has two sides. We rarely hear about the asset side.

The left has no comprehension of economics or mathematics. So it is easy to understand why they don't see this. Maybe it is more sinister, though. Maybe they realize that their green dreams are being undermined by the spiraling debt.

The right is much smarter, of course. Yet they also seem unable or unwilling to play the asset card.

At present, all our electricity is generated domestically by coal, other hydrocarbon fuels, hydro-electric power, and nuclear reactors. Most of our transportation energy comes from liquid hydrocarbon fuel.  It appears that close to half of that depends on foreign sources.

This observation permeates our national politics thoroughly and both parties claim to favor energy independence. The left wants us to believe that only clean renewable energy can be used unless we are prepared to drown in the angry sea of global warming. The right counters with "drill baby, drill" disproving my earlier assertion that the right is smarter. Every neuron in my brain rebels against the sad truth that the left is right (sic). We can't drill our way to energy independence.

Luckily for my poor brain, the left has ignored an important barrier to their environmental utopia. Americans don't like economic suffering and they vote accordingly.

There is another asset to describe. There are literally hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of hydrocarbon energy under our feet in the form of coal, natural gas, shale, and tar sands. These assets assume this value once liquid petroleum costs more than $50 to $60 per barrel. Somewhere in that vicinity, the technology to turn them into usable fuel to power planes, trains and automobiles is economically viable, even after accounting for amortization of the capital investments required.

The beautiful thing about these energy assets is that the environmentalists can delay using them but they cannot get rid of them. No matter how many times they win the battles to suppress sensible exploitation of our resources, they can only win the war if more economical alternatives are actually developed. Their problem is that it seems highly unlikely that such alternatives will be available any time soon. If that actually happens, everybody wins, but if progress is slow, how long will voters tolerate the rising energy prices, slow growth, and exploding debt?

Put these facts together. Going green requires a long substantial reduction in the average standard of living for Americans. There are many ways to allocate the pain. We can slash health care or retirement benefits for older Americans, but only if we take away their vote. We can cut national defense and nearly every discretionary spending program without eliminating the deficit.  A blue ribbon commission of mathematically challenged dilettantes with a worse understanding of the problem than Joe the plumber (no offense to Joe) will issue a long set of recommendations which ignore the facts presented here. What a waste of time!

We are consuming more than we produce.

That cannot continue indefinitely. The only democratic way out is to substantially increase supply via rapid economic growth. One sure path to that growth is to free up the energy sector. Repeal all environmental restrictions on using coal, oil shale and nuclear power. Guarantee the repeal for some fifty years, by which time, if the greens are right about their technology predictions, we will have clean, renewable, economically sound alternatives. If they are wrong, we will have had fifty years of prosperity to come up with other ideas. No subsidies are needed. The marketplace will allocate capital appropriately.

This is the painless way. Instead, we can plow ahead with uneconomical, technologically premature energy policies, mandated by law.  We can endure a deteriorating economy for a decade or two. By then, environmentalists will be facing the pitchforks.  The best way to avoid this pain is to explain the facts to the American people now and hope they vote accordingly. For this to work, the Republican Party will have to abandon its attempt to ingratiate itself with the luddites on the left. Instead of paying mere lip service to free market capitalism, the GOP will have to actually fight for it.

The bond market seems to believe that the American voters and the Republican Party are up to this challenge. Markets don't always correctly predict the future, but the feedback loops are awesome. I sure hope they are right this time.

11 Comments on "Nightmare on Green Street"

Dems barely get votes to adjourn House...

Even many of the Dems agree that adjourning now is not the right thing to do.
They haven't passed a budget, and the government is running on a stopgap spending measure.
They need to debate the tax rate extension.

Dems barely get votes to adjourn House...

Boehner: 'A Vote to Adjourn is a Vote to Raise Taxes'...

French budget makes 'historic' spending cuts...

French budget makes 'historic' spending cuts...

If only the USA would do the same, it's the right thing to do until the budget is balance.

WSJ: Obama, Biden, Kerry Lash Out at Electorate...

UPDATE: Obama, Biden, Kerry Lash Out at Electorate...


I see the Three Stooges are at it again...

AP: Congress flees D.C. to campaign without a budget

 
THEY COULDN'T EVEN PASS A BUDGET!


It's the Democrat's , the Republicans wanted to stay to extend taxes at the same rate.

"I think it's a dereliction of duty for Speaker Pelosi to adjourn this Congress without addressing the number one question on the minds of Americans and small businesses, and that is, what's my tax rate going to be?" said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

HERE HERE!

47 House Dems want to extend investment tax cuts

• 17 votes
• • 
    
  • 
    
  • Email
  • Print

RELATED QUOTES

^DJI	10,858.14	+46.10
^GSPC	1,147.70	+5.54
^IXIC	2,379.59	+9.82

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 28, 2:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A group of 47 House Democrats are telling party leaders they want to continue Bush-era tax cuts on investment income, breaking ranks with President Barack Obama and exposing divisions among Democrats over their party's pre-election message about taxes.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., have sent a letter toHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying they strongly support extending the current tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

"Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing," said the letter, dated Friday and released Tuesday. "We urge you to maintain the current tax rate for both dividend and long-term capital gains taxes."

Tax cuts enacted in 2003 set the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends at 15 percent. Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and Obama wants to let the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends increase to 20 percent for individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000.

But if all 47 Democrats who signed the letter side with Republicans, they could prevail in extending the investment tax rates for all taxpayers, including the wealthy. The letter was signed by a several vulnerable freshman and members of the conservative Blue Dog coalition.

The tax cuts on investments were part of a sweeping package enacted under former President George W. Bush that lowered income taxes for families at every income level. All the tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress want to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000. Republicans and a growing number of rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them all — even those for the wealthy — at least temporarily.

Democratic leaders in Congress had been pushing for a vote to extend middle-class tax cuts before lawmakers go home to campaign for the Nov. 2 congressional election. But action on the tax cuts was postponed until after the election when Democrats could not agree on how to proceed.

With no vote on the tax cuts scheduled before the election, Democrats are left writing letters to their leaders to publicize their positions.

"The Speaker has stated clearly that Congress will extend middle-class tax cuts this year," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. "There is no question that Congress will do so."

Republicans, meanwhile, say it is irresponsible for Democratic leaders to send lawmakers home without addressing the Bush tax cuts.

"I think it's a dereliction of duty for Speaker Pelosi to adjourn this Congress without addressing the number one question on the minds of Americans and small businesses, and that is, what's my tax rate going to be?" said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Dems vote against their own jobs bill: fails in Senate

Senator Bob Casey is a dummy when it comes to the economy.
YES, Senator, the Republicans HAVE put forward a good idea, it's called extending taxes as they are.
It's not a 'CUT' Senator, it's keeping taxes the same not increasing them, which is what the Dems have in mind.
That will spur job growth right away Senator!!

Final Senate jobs bill fails

**FILE** Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat (Getty Images)

By Stephen Dinan

-

The Washington Times

2:25 p.m., Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The jobs agenda put forth by Senate Democrats has begun to lose support within their own caucus, including a Tuesday vote in which a bipartisan filibuster defeated a bill to stop jobs from being shipped overseas.

The bill and a stopgap spending measure were likely the last major debates before Senators leave town this week to prepare for November's elections.

The jobs bill would have offered a payroll tax break to companies that move jobs from overseas to the United States and would have withdrawn tax writeoffs from companies that laid off U.S. workers and replaced them with employees overseas.

But four Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent joined 40 Republicans to filibuster the bill, arguing that it was too blunt an approach to a very delicate problem. Among the opponents was the chairman of the Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, who had said the bill would put U.S. companies at a "competitive disadvantage."

"The reality of the consequences for manufacturing jobs in the United States was cast aside to create a debate for political demagoguery,"Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said.

The measure was the latest "jobs bill" Democrats have put on the floor in recent months, with varying degrees of success. A small-business lending fund measure was signed by President Obama earlier this week after a smattering of Republicans broke with their leaders to back it.

Overall, though, Democrats have had a difficult time both in getting their jobs packages passed and in connecting with voters, who are concerned about the unemployment rate, which ticked up to 9.6 percent last month.

In the run-up to Tuesday's vote, Democrats blamed Republicans for blocking many of the Democrats' attempts.

"We're in a situation now where too many colleagues seem to be rooting for failure," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Michigan Democrat, who was one of the leaders in the push for the bill to stop jobs being shipped overseas.

And Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, said he "can't think of a single big idea [Republicans] have offered to create jobs."

Story Continues →

Re: fröhliche Oktoberfest!

 We should be there, instead of here, right now!
Drinking beer and well....

Obama logic: twisted; Obama economics: skewed

Economics according to Obama: Taxes on capital gains and dividends should be higher, for "fairness," even if this results in less investment, lower growth, more joblessness, smaller revenues for the government and more federal debt.

fröhliche Oktoberfest!

Oktoberfest!

Being a ding-a-ling

You talk about being a ding-a-ling and how that makes you ineligible to be a politician.

Can we talk about Al Franken?
He's 10 times the ding-a-ling.
There are quite a few other loony types in the Democrat party who are already elected.

Yep, that's no disqualification for the D's, so why for the R's?
You've got a double standard.

How about when the D's tried to run Caroline Kennedy for that Mass. seat.
She is way dumber than O'Donnell.

Obama: Longer school year 'makes sense'...

For the first time in my adult life, I agree with Obama,
BUT, only if teachers get the same pay, not more pay.

I suspect Obama wants to give his backers, the teacher's union, more money, thus his stand on this issue.

Maybe that's just the pessimist in me that believes that, I'm skeptical of his stated reasons.

Obama: Longer school year 'makes sense'...

The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master

(H/T RedState)

Here are three quotes left in the comments section of that post that say it all:

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." —Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

"It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice." —President-Elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." —Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist, For the New Intellectual, 73

Bias led to 'gutting' of New Black Panthers case, Justice official says

When the R's take the congress this November (I'm seeing that now from my front porch), then next January they get the subpoena power of the majority... Look out corrupt D's

CHRISTOPHER COATES' TESTIMONY ON THE DOJ RACISM SCANDALS makes the Washington Post front page.

A veteran Justice Department lawyer accused his agency Friday of being unwilling to pursue racial discrimination cases on behalf of white voters, turning what had been a lower-level controversy into an escalating political headache for the Obama administration. . . . The rare spectacle of a Justice Department lawyer publicly rebuking the department's leaders came amid heightened legal and political fallout from the case. The commission is to issue a report on the matter next month, and an internal probe by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility is pending. . . .

"We had eyewitness testimony. We had videotape. One of them had a weapon. They were hurling racial slurs," Coates said. "I've never been able to understand how anyone could accuse us of not having a basis of law in this case."

I guess this story has officially broken out of the blogosphere now. I'm not sure that attacking the Civil Rights Commission is a smart response by DOJ.

Related: Hans van Spakovsky: Time for Change: Gov't Must Address Lawlessness Uncovered by Christopher Coates. "Unless senior officials at Justice take steps to repudiate such policies, they will destroy public confidence in the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Division's enforcement of voting rights laws, and its stewardship of the election process. If Fernandes and King have the views described by Coates, they should resign or be fired. And Perez has a responsibility to explain why he misinformed the Civil Rights Commission and why he took no steps to investigate problems Coates identified to him."

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 8:07 am