It’s my turn to host, and I’ve got questions for Scott Ott and Bill Whittle on the Democrats’ impending disaster — and the current disaster the Republicans can’t seem to get out of.
Doug Mataconis explains why he’s not sorry for voting for Bob Barr last fall:
Which is worse ? Supporting a candidate you know is “terrible” and staying silent about his many, known and obvious, failings ? Or supporting a candidate that clearly stands up for the principles you believe in even though you know he is going to lose ?
He has more reasons, all of them good.
I’d add that there’s never anything to be ashamed of in voting your conscience.
And, the last seven F-22s were shot down, not by enemy fire, but by the United States Senate:
The Senate voted 58-40 on Tuesday to strip $1.75 billion for seven more F-22 fighters from a military spending bill, handing President Obama a crucial victory in his efforts to reshape the military’s priorities.
The victory came after the president had placed his political capital on the line by repeatedly threatening to veto the $679.8 billion spending bill if it included any money for the planes.
The F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, had become a flashpoint in a larger battle over the administration’s push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources from conventional warfare to fighting insurgencies.
The plane’s supporters, who ranged from hawkish Republicans to Democrats close to organized labor, also voiced concern over the possible loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when the economy is in turmoil.
Immediately after the vote, Mr. Obama praised the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.”
Whatever you might think about the merits of the F-22, it’s important to remember that once stopped, those manufacturing lines cannot be restarted. Period.
So let’s hope we don’t live to regret this decision.
It’s an all new “Hair of the Dog.” That’s right, your Monday morning quarterback for the Sunday morning chat shows. This week:
How not to pay for health care reform.
Peter Orszag takes dancing lessons.
And President Obama makes the hard decisions by taxing now and saving later.
Plus, I find just one degree of separation between Kathleen Sebelius and Kevin Bacon. Really.
Free, no registration required — check it out.
It’s time for this week’s PJM Political, and it’s a big one this week. On the show:
We play Five Questions with James Lileks.
Taken from his Silicon Graffiti videoblog, Ed interviews Scott Baker and Liz Stephans of Breitbart.tv’s daily B-Cast Internet news show, on the coming convergence of traditional and Web-based television.
Jennifer Rubin, Pajamas’ DC editor talks with Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, on the influence of the AFL-CIO in Washington, DC. Right in front of AFL-CIO HQ. Now that’s brave.
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com interviews Joseph Cao (R-LA), one of the rarest of endangered species in 2009 DC: the freshman Republican.
Pajamas’ CEO Roger L. Simon speaks with documentary filmmaker Chris Burgard, just back from Honduras, where he videotaped a series of special reports on that nation’s constitutional crisis for PJTV.com.
Plus, Ed and I tackle Sonia Sotomayor, how to pay for health care reform, and the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch.
And I figure we must be doing something right, after getting the following email from a (safely anonymous) listener:
She will be confirmed. She is one of the most qualified individuals to sit on the bench. Not on of her more than thousands of opinions is racist/she is tough in the area of law and order. Steve, you remarks confirm that you are a know-nothing ass. I wish POTUS would drop your show/you are worse than Glenn Beck.Oh, and you are a liar.
Remember, the show airs live Saturday mornings on Sirius/XM’s POTUS Channel. Or you can subscribe on iTunes or download/stream right here on the web.
Playing Duplo with The Boy™, I built what I believe to be the first-ever Caveboy Holding a Vine Riding a Pterodactyl Riding a Horse Riding a Baby Elephant Riding a Daddy Elephant Riding a Brontosaurus. But then Preston needed the Caveboy back to drive the race car he built. So now it’s just an ordinary Pteradactyl Riding a Horse Riding a Baby Elephant Riding a Daddy Elephant Riding a Brontosaurus.
On the new Week in Blogs:
How to create 50 temp jobs for only eight million bucks.
CNN’s Don Lemon gets pwned by the entire Republic of Ghana.
And tweeting from inside the Sotomayor confirmation.
Plus, Joe Biden can’t follow simple instructions!
That’s right — give me four minutes, and I’ll give you the blogosphere.
Whether you agreed with their philosophy or not, you had the sense with the Clinton, Reagan, and George W. Bush nominees (yes, I leave Souter off the list) that there was good reason to put them on the Court. You listened for a day or even and hour and said, “Yes, that’s a Supreme Court Justice.” It was hard to dispute, even if you disagreed with one or another on his or her judicial methodology, that the nominee was bringing some intellectual heft.
Does anyone really have that sense from Sotomayor?
I know I’m late to the party, but Season 2 of Mad Men didn’t come out on Blu-Ray until Tuesday. And once you’ve seen any season of Mad Men in HD, SD just won’t do. I might be a year behind the times, but I’ll wait for two million pixels instead of 350,000.
To echo yesterday’s mini review of Gran Torino, five minutes into the first show, all I could think was, “Another dozen episodes of the same multilayered and intriguing drama? With all the subtle acting and perfect set design and… oh my god would you look at January Jones in that merry widow?”
It’s… uh… still the best show on TV.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a little early Valentine’s Day shopping to do at Agent Provocateur.
On the new Trifecta segment, Scott Ott asks Bill Whittle and me if President Obama is reading from a different Constitution from the rest of us.
We taped two other segments today, with each of us trading topics and hosting duties. Links to follow as the segments go live.
UPDATE: Chances are, you’ve never woken up next to me, so you’ll just have to trust me when I say, “I’ve looked worse.”
Say hello to the one billion horsepower motor.
Is it a secret experiment? Something from science fiction?
Nope. It’s just a little thing we set off almost 40 years ago.
(Link expires tomorrow, so scroll down for it on Thursday or later. You’ll know it when you see it.)
UPDATE: Link updated, but still good for now.
UPDATE: I’ve just now noticed that if you squint just so, you can see the part labeled “consumers” tucked away on the far left side. Big giant things called “Bureau of Health Information” and “Health Choices Administrator” occupy Paul Lynde’s square. Shouldn’t something involving health maybe put the consumers in the middle? Just asking.
And “Health Choices Administrator” sounds a bit too Orwellian for my tastes.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jaymaster, in the comments:
I’m worried about those undefined acronyms.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them translates into “Soylent Green”.
That’s OK. According to the Left, Soylent Green is people, too.
Meant to say something about this weeks ago, but forgot. (How’s that for a clever excuse?)
About five minutes in to “Gran Torino,” mostly what I was thinking was, “Another Clint Eastwood movie where he plays a grumpy old SOB who communicates mostly through grunts? It’s a fine genre, but getting a little tired.”
Ten minutes later I was so not thinking that any more, and totally in love with the movie. Check it out if you haven’t already.
How do we pay for health care? First, Washington will save money.
OK, stop laughing. That’s what Charlie Rangel says, not me.
Then they’ll tax the rich:
House Democrats included a surtax on families making more than $350,000 in a sweeping health care bill unveiled Tuesday — the latest idea Congress is considering to pay for President Obama’s broad goal to provide coverage to the nation’s 50 million uninsured.
Let’s go back to Econ 101 for a moment. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And when you tax something, you get less of it. Simple stuff, empirically proven, yadda yadda yadda.
Now don’t jump the gun and start jumping me — I’m not about to argue that we ought to be subsidizing rich people. Because, take a look at the Robb Report, and you’ll see that being rich is its own reward.
But if you punish wealth, well, there will be less of it, guaranteed. Or at the very least, there will be less wealth in this country.
Furthermore, I understand the Cayman Islands are nice this time of year. Or any other time of year, for that matter.
So as it turns out, there is a “multiplier effect” from government spending. Problem is, it’s more like a divisor.
Historically, every dollar of government spending “grows” the economy by 80 cents. Consumer spending is probably about break-even, and private investment stimulates the economy dollar-for-dollar, plus the rate of return on the investment.
Now to be fair, some investments incur a loss (see: Motors, General). But the vast majority enjoy profits, else we’d all still be living in caves and eating mud, quod erat demonstrandum.
Do the math, and you’ll find that the $787 billion “stimulus” package can be expected to cause the economy to grow by about $630 billion — a $157 billion loss. That, as even a Princeton-trained economist can tell you, ain’t chump change.
Now I’ll do something no one in Washington will do, and be honest with you: I haven’t read the scholarly work quoted by Nick Gillespie in the link above. So I honestly can’t tell you if it factors in the inflationary effects of all that debt, or if it includes the suppression of future growth created by higher interest rates and increased uncertainty about future government interventions.
But I can tell you this much with complete assurance: If those factors are included, then the numbers get no better — you and me and Cousin Dupree are out a hundred and fifty some-odd billion dollars. And I can also tell you — again, with complete assurance — that if those factors aren’t included, then we’re all out a full shitload more.
Feeling stimulated yet, suckers?