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

Monday, October 04, 2010

Well, The NRA Did It

It has supported an ultra-liberal Democrat in Virginia's 5th Congressional District who has nary a voting record on gun rights.

If you have the stomach to see its endorsement of Tom Perriello, who has virtually no track record in the House on 2nd Amendment issues, but whose promises are many, go here.

The NRA, acting on the defensive, also released a statement that attempted to explain this outrage.  It can be found here, in "The How & Why Behind NRA-PVF's [NRA Political Victory Fund] Endorsement Policies."

Its summary explanation can be found in this paragraph:

"NRA is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements.  We base our political decisions solely on gun-related issues, as we are a single-issue organization.  By not taking into account political party affiliation and/or non-gun-related issues, we ensure we do not divide our base of support that is united in its support for the Second Amendment."

How that's possible when Tom Perriello's actual record is chump change (and almost a complete mystery) compared to that of his Republican opponent, Robert Hurt, is beyond explanation.

Here, really, is what drives this slap in the face of gun owners here in Virginia:

"We have an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection over pro-gun challengers, as voting records trump statements in support of the Second Amendment."

"Voting records trump statements ..."

Here's the entire scorecard as it relates to Tom Perriello's voting record in Congress (from On The Issues, an organization that carefully and meticulously tracks such things):

You fellas there at the NRA want to come up with another, more reasonable, explanation?

I'll use this one, from the above:

"We have an incumbent-friendly policy ..."

Go along.  Get along.

End of story.

This is absolutely shameful.

Economy Rebounds, Ranks of Unemployed Swell

You've seen the Rick Boucher for Congress ads on TV where he's claimed to have created thousands of jobs here in Southwest Virginia.  A claim that is nothing more than bluster, since he's in fact created none (well, one; he got his wife a nice gig).  Sure, government can throw money at problems.  But that money, over time, gets flushed down the commode (see "clean energy").

No, there's really only one group of people who do the creating around here:

The real jobs machine: Entrepreneurs
By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post

What's frustrating and perplexing about the present unemployment is that the U.S. economy has long been a phenomenal jobs machine. Here's the record: 83 million jobs added from 1960 to 2007 with only six years of declines (1961, 1975, 1982, 1991, 2002 and 2003). Conventional analysis blames today's poor performance (jobs are 7.6 million below their pre-recession peak) on weak demand. Because people aren't buying, businesses aren't hiring. Though true, this omits the vital role of entrepreneurship.

In healthy times, older companies of all sizes do create lots of jobs. But they also lose jobs, as some businesses shrink or vanish. On balance, job creation and destruction cancel each other. All the net job increases occur among start-ups, finds a study of the 1992-2005 period by economists John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda of the Census Bureau. Because most start-ups are necessarily small, this gives a statistical edge to tinier firms in job creation. But, the study says, the effect entirely reflects the impact of new businesses.

It's all about risk-taking. The good news is that the entrepreneurial instinct seems deeply ingrained in the nation's economic culture. Americans like to create; they're ambitious; many want to be "their own bosses"; many crave fame and fortune. The bad news is that venture capital for start-ups is scarce, and political leaders seem largely oblivious to burdensome government policies. This needs to be addressed. Entrepreneurship won't instantly cure America's jobs' deficit, but without it, there will be no strong recovery. [link]
I fear we will continue to go in the opposite direction.  The government seizing more and more money (and ladling more and more regulations) from America's businesses so as to be able to reward favored projects and fads du jour (see "clean energy") and the decline of America's workplace will continue apace.

There'll come a time, though, when our leaders wise up to the fact that the tail can't wag the dog.

A time a long time from now, I fear.

Until then let's keep hatin' those rich sunsabitchas who have what we don't!

I Blame Obama

Call it payback for all those "news" articles and opinion pieces written about George W. Bush and Abu Ghraib.

Where's Bob Herbert now?

So Now He's Back To 'Clean Energy'

Obama's BIG on solar power.

But then he has all the money in the world at his disposal.  So he can be.

See "Obama's Costly Green Jobs Project."

Not only is solar costly, but it's unreliable (because of its intermittent nature), and pales in comparison to nuclear when it comes to capacity and output.

But Obama's BIG on it anyway.

If only we could get him to invest in it with his money and not ours ...