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

Friday, April 10, 2009

What's Going On Here?

It struck me as odd that the Roanoke Times's editorial page editor would express such "disgust" over the Virginia General Assembly's rejection of federal funds for an extension of unemployment benefits.* See Dan Radmacher's expressed disgust here.

It struck me as odd because ol' Dan has never expressed any kind of concern about the plight of the poor or the soon-to-be-poor-because-of-employment-problems in the past. In fact, he's the guy who's big on raising the gasoline tax, which impacts most heavily on those who can least afford to pay for it. And he cheers any increase in the cigarette tax, the least progressive of all the levies his kind has ever devised.

Then it struck me. This isn't about poor people or the unemployed. This is about government revenue.

The link? In all three instances - gas tax, cigarette tax, funds for extending unemployment benefits - government would benefit.

Starving children be damned. The government must be fed.

It all makes sense.

- - -

*I'll have more to say on that subject later.

They Couldn't Book an Influential Virginian?

In the "We Don't Care" news today:

Gov. Kaine to speak at Radford U. graduation

If a tree falls in the forest and ...

Gimme a Break

This is getting to be a tad annoying:

Weary Tiger [Woods] Remains Unbowed

Yeah. It's got to be tough playing 18 holes of golf three days a week. A lesser man couldn't handle it.

For the love of God, give the man a 5-hour energy drink and hand him his putter.

Tiger's weary. That bag full of clubs he has to carry around all day must be extremely heavy.

What? You say he has someone carrying his clubs for him each day?

Well ...

You Elect a Democrat ...

... you get a Democrat.

The Washington Post sees higher taxes being levied on us down the road. Strap yourselves in. This is a shocker!
Who Pays Taxes

... [T]he simple truth is that in the coming years, taxes will have to go up to help close the government's gaping fiscal hole. Much of the budget gap should be covered by spending cuts, but judging from recent budget proposals by both parties, neither has an appetite for reductions anywhere near what will be needed.

When taxes go up, they should be increased in a way that makes the tax code more progressive.

But there is a limit to how much the tippy top should bear. President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price. [link]
It's worth noting, the editorialists at the Post are simply passing their thoughts along here. They really won't lose any sleep if the middle class in this country is taxed into the stone age. These are the guys, after all, who continually campaign for a much higher gas tax, which, as studies have shown, is the least progressive tax of all (except that on cigarettes, a tax they love as well). If people of moderate means have to forgo new shoes for the kids so as to meet their obligations to the government, well, so be it. The government needs the money.

But this editorial does provide a window onto our future. The Democrats are in power and the tax man cometh. Who would have guessed.

You Elect a Democrat ... II

You thought the crazies in Congress had completely lost their minds when they banned incandescent light bulbs? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Henry Waxman Has a Plan . . .

Slanted roofs. Furnaces. Laundry machines. Dishwashers. Showerheads. Faucets. Water closets. Urinals. Jacuzzis.

You are within their grasp. Because you allowed yourself to be.

Don't come whining to me that the government is bankrupting you. It's the government that you created. You deserve it.

Is This What You Elected Him For?

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's penchant for denigrating the USA whenever the opportunity arises (generally that would be when he's in the presence of Europeans or racist Chicago preachers) and how it plays out in foreign policy:
Obama was in a giving mood throughout Europe. While Gordon Brown was trying to make his American DVDs work and the queen was rocking to her new iPod, the rest of Europe was enjoying a more fulsome Obama gift.

Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

And what did he get for this obsessive denigration of his own country? He wanted more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan to match the surge of 17,000 Americans. He was rudely rebuffed.

From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea.

And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! (Sadly, he'll have to leave his bridge partner behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?

When Austria is mocking you, you're having a bad week. Yet who can blame Frau Fekter, considering the disdain Obama showed his own country while on foreign soil, acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating between his renegade homeland and an otherwise warm and welcoming world?
"It's Your Country Too, Mr. President," Washington Post, April 10, 2009

Go To The Source

I have made an addition to this website this morning. Off to the left, under "Other Perspectives," you'll find a link to "Climate Depot."

According to its founder, Marc Romano, it will be a “one-stop shop” for anyone interested in an alternative view on the science - and non-science - that drives the climate change debate.

It is scheduled to start up in the coming days. I'm looking forward to having it available so as to bring you the realities of the issue, as opposed to the hype that is "climate science" today.

You might want to flag it as well.

* For more on the subject, see "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign" in this morning's New York Times.


I don't know. Is this disrespectful?