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

Monday, November 16, 2009

Bucking The Trend

Is it any wonder that employers are fleeing this country like never before?

If that's not bad enough, the Democrats in Washington have vowed to make the disparity even worse by raising U.S. corporate tax rates even higher.

While the rest of the planet looks to being competitive ...

Chart courtesy of KPMG.

Say What?

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics.  That means he must be a really smart guy.

One wonders.

Today, in his column entitled, "World Out of Balance," he argues against the Chinese maintaining a weak currency policy.

Is that worse than the U.S. being unable to control its ever weakening currency?


Krugman is arguing, in effect, that the Chinese need to do a better job of controlling U.S. currency.

If that's the case, may God help us all.

Chart courtesy of INO
Click on the chart to enlarge it.

Any Bets?

My money says the environmentalists here in Virginia will be up in arms:
Winds of change off Virginia coast
By Cory Nealon, Daily Press

Virginia officials announced Wednesday that they will pool resources with Maryland and Delaware to develop offshore wind energy.

Common goals include identifying areas to build transmission lines, influencing federal policy and encouraging a market for the yet-to-be-developed power source.

"The partnership will build on the region's significant offshore wind resources to generate clean, renewable energy and a sustainable market that will bring new economic opportunities," according to a statement from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's office.

Several areas of Virginia's coast, including Virginia Beach and the Eastern Shore, average wind speeds that are suitable for large wind farms, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. [link]
I'm for it.

And we should think about equipping each wind turbine station with oil pumps and kill two birds with one stone (pun intended).

But what will the environmentalists have to say about this?

Point, Counterpoint



Executions are much more cost effective than life imprisonment and make for an extremely effective deterrent with 100% of those assholes executed failing to ever murder or rape again.

Headline Of The Day

Obama's Handlers Provide Another Explanation

Will this one work?

"Is that a penny on the floor?"

Knowing that the federal deficit was exploding, the president saw the opportunity to make up for a portion of it.
-- Obama spokesman --


How 'bout this one, from Allahpundit:
I’m not convinced that the “groveling” explanation for the bow is necessarily the correct one. For one thing, his protocol office is famously run by imbeciles. They may very well have simply given him bum advice: “Be sure to hunch way the hell over and stare at the ground. They all do it that way.” For another thing, and somewhat notably, Japan isn’t a stop on The One’s world apology tour. It could have been, but he declined the opportunity to turn it into one. So why give the emperor the full Hopenchange treatment, then? Is it just … reflex at this point? Or is it actually a sign of how keenly aware Obama is of the messianic hype that follows him around the world? Maybe he figured that, as the newly anointed global Jesus, he’d better go out of his way to show deference to Japan’s divine ruler lest it seem like he was “pulling rank.” Think of it as “Superman II,” if the main characters had landed on Earth convinced that they had to “rebuild Krypton’s relationships” with the universe. In that case, you don’t kneel before Zod; Zod kneels before you.
Works for me.

Is Anyone Surprised?

War?  What war?

Soldiers fighting and dying where?

Don't bother me.  I'm trying to concentrate on my jump shot.
Obama and Plummeting Military Morale
By Candace de Russy, American Thinker

In an act of deep interpersonal significance, as Claudia Rosett observes, the president has not bothered to pay a visit to Afghanistan to bolster morale. Yet, to buck up his foreign policy credentials, he managed to make a campaign stop there while running for president. Once elected, he found time to extend a friendly hand to Muslims in Cairo, lobby for Chicago's Olympics bid, vacation in Martha's Vineyard, and have a "date night" in New York City with his wife. Soon he'll be off to Oslo to accept a Nobel Peace Prize, which he has done nothing yet to deserve, in Afghanistan, at home, or elsewhere in the world.

New Army surveys, reports the Wall Street Journal, show that morale has fallen sharply among soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and confirm an unusually high suicide in their ranks. 

Perhaps this has something to do with doubts about their commander-in-chief's commitment to win this war by standing staunchly with them in spirit and providing the necessary troop levels and other resources. With fatalities and injuries surging among them, the president's prolonged and frazzled indecision on how to wage this struggle must leave these soldiers with a sense of being cast adrift in limbo, if not hell itself. Having first, very belatedly, consulted directly on strategy with the man in charge of the war, General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama then proceeded for months to pore over, appear to accept, throw out, and then start all over examining, various options.[link]
I can't imagine anything being worse than a soldier, having volunteered to serve his country for the most honorable of reasons, thinking that he's been forgotten by that country and forsaken by his commander-in-chief.

So what's more pressing than winning the war and honoring the troops?

Obama is scheduled to tour the Great Wall of China today.

My God.

While Al Gore Piddles With Global Warming Theory ...

... children are dying from AIDS and a lack of food.

Bjørn Lomborg, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
Konget Mekonen and his wife Mulegata Tesfaye laugh when they are asked what would improve their standard of living. "We need everything," Mr. Mekonen says. "Mainly, we need a hospital and more money. We also need food. We are aware that our children do not eat enough."

The couple lives in Akakey, an industrial area on the edge of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and have four children of their own. Two weeks before a Copenhagen Consensus Center researcher interviewed them in June, they took in their six-year-old orphaned nephew, Garsum. They found him lying on the dirt floor of his grandmother's house in a rural village. He was unable to stand.

"He was living like a dog," his uncle said.

Oxfam argued that developed countries should both increase aid and spend more to pay off countries that will suffer the worst of global warming. But the harsh truth is that resources are limited. Money spent on global-warming policies is likely to reduce the funds available for food aid.

It is therefore immoral to focus resources on doing a small amount of good in the distant future. [link]
Oh, to hell with starving Ethiopian children.  It's "the planet" that needs saving.


"Climate change" is a liberal's plaything.  A feel-good cause that, with the purchase of a special lightbulb, can make him feel better about himself. 

And, make no mistake, it's always all about himself. 

In truth, it has nothing to do with saving the planet.  If it did, the liberals among us wouldn't be working to make the plight of poor Ethiopian children far worse.

So go out and buy that lightbulb.  Brag to your neighbors about your new Prius.  Tell them how you are doing your part to stop "global warming."  But think about what those dollars wasted might have done to save children's lives.

Real children.  In our real world.

Calling Tom Perriello

Hey, isn't he the 5th District representative who said he voted for ObamaCare in part because it would reduce our health care costs?

Maybe he should come up with a different excuse:
CMS: House bill increases health care costs 
By Chris Frates, Politico

Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates. In addition, the longer-term viability of the Medicare update reductions is doubtful,” the report said.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs. And even the Medicare payment cuts will be difficult to sustain.

The analysis is more bad news for Democrats, who are facing increasing criticism that their reforms don’t do enough to control costs. Republicans released the analysis and jumped on the news. [link]
I wonder if Warner and Webb will have the balls to stand up to their party elders and put a stop to this travesty.

Perriello, for a time, talked the talk.  But talk, especially in Washington, is cheap.

The Question, Again

Why did AARP support ObamaCare?

It becomes ever clearer that it wasn't because his plan to seize control of our health care system will benefit Retired Persons.
Study shows ObamaCare would cut Medicare services, providers
By Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

A blockbuster study by the bureaucracy that manages Medicare and Medicaid threw a deluge of cold water on claims by Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats that $500 billion in cuts to Medicare would improve coverage for seniors. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that the cuts would likely reduce the number of providers available to seniors, reduce their care options, and create an access crisis. The only fix that would address that would be to restore much of what Congress has cut — which would wipe out the funding for ObamaCare:

"A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

"The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

"Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but “so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings” than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade. …" [link]
With that in mind - and was it at all a surprise? - the question needs to be asked again:

Why did the American Association of Retired Persons support this anti-elderly legislation?