Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Quote of the Day

From the Richmond Times Dispatch:

A bill to ban smoking in motor vehicles when children are present has passed the State Senate. Violators could be fined $100.

"This is about the health of our children," said the bill's sponsor. There's a shock. These days, every proposal under the sun is sold as necessary for the sake of the children.

On the other hand, not every proposal is sold as necessary to prevent child abuse -- but that's how Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw put it. Noting that child abuse is illegal, he said smoking in the car with children should be, too. "If [that] isn't child abuse, what is?"

Ask that question of a kid who really has been abused.

"Abusive Rhetoric," February 13, 2009

An Odd Definition of The Word 'Bipartisanship'

The Roanoke Times editorial team is upset that the Republicans in Washington haven't caved to the Democrats, as a show of bipartisanship.

Huh?
Bipartisanship isn't a one-way street
editorial

President Obama continues to try to reach a hand across the aisle, only to have it slapped by Republicans who seem to believe that bipartisanship means they should get their way -- never mind the clear mandate for Democrats in the November election.

Despite considerable outreach to and input from Republicans on the stimulus bill, especially in the Senate, not a single Republican in the House and only three in the Senate voted for a stimulus package that many economists say is vital to America's economic recovery (though some of the concessions to Republicans will blunt the stimulative impact of the bill).

It appears Republicans decided to follow Rush Limbaugh's example, hoping for presidential failure, whatever the consequences to the nation. [link] [my emphasis]
Really? The Republicans want our country to fail? Might there be an alternative lesson learned in all this? Couldn't it be that the Republicans listened to the country's leading economists, including some who originally supported Obama's plan but then had a chance to review it and came out opposed, and determined that Obama's stimulus plan is going to be a monumental failure?

Should they have gone along with the plan, right off the cliff - just to show that they, like the geniuses at the Times - aren't concerned with doing what's right, but wish only that the first African-American president in history (blah, blah, blah) be appreciated for his ability to bring bipartisanship to Washington?

Personally, I find it refreshing to see someone in the nation's capital - finally - taking a stand and looking out for the American people and not for all the special interests that were lavishly rewarded in Obama's Destroy America plan.

- - -

By the way, what's up with that qualifier?

"... voted for a stimulus package that many economists say is vital to America's economic recovery
(though some of the concessions to Republicans will blunt the stimulative impact of the bill)."

Besides the fact that the statement flies in the face of reality (in 3,000 words or less explain how a gift to the National Endowment For The Arts is stimulus), is this an effort to hedge your bets, fellas?

They Ask; I Answer

The Washington Post:

Are We Headed for a Lost Decade?

From On High:

No. Only a lost four years, until Sarah Palin enters office, slashes marginal tax rates, and propels the U.S. economy into the stratosphere.

Living In a Vacuum

As the global economy spirals, the Washington Post calls for the Obama administration to pass a crushing carbon tax on America's businesses.

To go along with its call for raising the already sky-high gas tax on America's hurting consumers.

Why?

To curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
The ones that contribute to global warming.
The warming that isn't occurring.

I'm thinking at this point in time that we tax the living hell out of newspapers.

Gas emissions indeed.

Lessons To Be Learned

Japan is getting a lot of attention these days because the government there, beginning in the 90's, started pumping massive amounts of cash into its faltering economy in an effort to "stimulate" it. The same tactic that Obama and his Democrats are deploying here in the USA.

It might do us well to take time out and see how well the plan is working where it's being tried:
Japan’s Economy Plunges at Fastest Pace Since ’74
By Hiroko Tabuchi, New York Times

Tokyo — Japan’s economy, the world’s second largest, is deteriorating at its worst pace since the oil crisis of the 1970s, hurt by shrinking exports and anemic spending at home.

The country’s real gross domestic product shrank at an annual rate of 12.7 percent from October to December after contracting for two previous quarters, the government said Monday. When compared with the third quarter of 2008, Japan’s economy receded 3.3 percent. [link]
And, to show how Obama's team will react when his stimulus plan falls flat on its face, there's this:
Japanese officials have hinted that they would consider drafting a fresh fiscal stimulus package to stem the downturn. Prime Minister Taro Aso has promised spending worth almost 50 trillion yen ($545 billion) in two packages. But political bickering in Parliament has slowed progress.
It hasn't worked. So they're going to do more of it.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

As Was Predicted

Back in October a very prescient blogmaestro had this to say about Congress dumping billions of dollars down the General Motors rat hole:
I'm having difficulty understanding how the injection of wads of cash into failing companies is going to make them successful. After all, before GM, Ford, and Chrysler got their heads handed to them by Toyota, Nissan, and Honda, all three were awash in cash.

They just made products that few wanted.

And the cash went bye-bye.

[H]ow will the chances for survival of GM and Chrysler change with an infusion of cash? Or are there to be multiple infusions? For years and years to come?
Well, the cash was infused. And GM's back for more.

Without a plan. With nothing changed.

For the love of God:
GM to Offer Two Choices: Bankruptcy or More Aid
Wall Street Journal

General Motors Corp., nearing a federally imposed deadline to present a restructuring plan, will offer the government two costly alternatives: commit billions more in bailout money to fund the company's operations, or provide financial backing as part of a bankruptcy filing, said people familiar with GM's thinking.

Some experts and members of Congress say bankruptcy reorganization is the surest way for GM to cut costs and become viable. But it could be a politically unpalatable development during a recession that already has thrown millions of workers out of jobs. [link]
As stated countless times, the business model, grievously flawed, has not changed. General Motors is going down. With hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars or without.

How 'bout we take a vote on that?