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

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Flushed Down the Drain

I worked till ten o'clock the night of Christmas Eve to help pay for this?

U.S. Funds Nearly 50% -- $31 Million -- of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel 

So I die an early death trying to collect enough cash to pay my taxes.  I'll at least be helping to save the planet. 



Let the Record Show ...

From Yahoo! Finance: The Worst Product Flops of 2011.

Third on the list? The Chevy Volt.  The car that's "selling like hotcakes," according to 137-year-old Congressman John Dingell.

Though it could just as easily have been the Nissan Leaf that scored high on the list.

In the case of both vehicles, that old adage applies:

There's a sucker born every minute.

Thank God, though, not a whole lot of them.

There Is Nothing More Anti-American Than This

Good news for freedom lovers everywhere - the Supreme Court may revisit the issue:

Rent Control Hits the Supreme Court

Rent control. A holdover from the Stalin era.

In the United States of America.

In the year of our Lord 2012.

What is up with that?

And They're Out of the Gate ...

Here's what the Iowa caucus results mean to me: All losers need to get out now.  And you know who you are.

The winners?  In this order - Romney (25%), Santorum (25%), Paul (22%), perhaps Gingrich (14%).

The others?  If they couldn't put a blip on the screen in Iowa, they aren't going to do it anywhere.

And, most important, the losers are dividing the conservative vote to the point where it doesn't have its necessary punch.

As to the caucus results themselves and what they mean to us:
Iowa's Opening Skirmish
Wall Street Journal

Iowa's corner of the electorate cast the first verdict of the 2012 Presidential campaign Tuesday night, and the results look more like an opening skirmish than the coronation for Mitt Romney that much of the media had prepared. 
Many Republicans—especially party elites—have been coalescing around Mr. Romney as the most "electable" candidate, by which they seem to mean the one with the fewest obvious flaws. But electability is a slippery concept, especially 10 months from November. Democrats said the same thing about John Kerry in 2004, while the media were convinced that a right-wing former movie actor was unelectable in 1980. Voters would do better to drop the pundit game theory and choose the best potential President.

On that score, Mr. Romney deserves credit for his doggedness and discipline. However uninspiring, those are useful traits in a candidate or a President. The man who rescued the 2002 winter Olympics has proven he can assemble a team and adapt to the blows of a modern campaign. He has been ruthless in attacking the competitors who were his biggest threats, Rick Perry and Mr. Gingrich, attacking from the right or left if it worked.

Yet Iowa's flirtation with so many "non-Romney" candidates shows that a majority of Republicans still find him less than convincing. The media want to attribute this to anti-Mormon bias. But the polls show that Mr. Romney's Mormonism is a much bigger issue among Democrats than within the GOP. 
The real issue is that Mr. Romney is a cautious, conventional politician in a year when many GOP voters want someone willing to fight for bolder change. On the economy in particular, Mr. Romney is offering the least ambitious plan for growth. Mr. Romney unveiled his 59-point jobs plan in September, and if you can remember two of them you'll win most family trivia contests. His refusal to rule out a value-added-tax is also troubling, especially if Democrats ever won the House during his Presidency.
Mr. Romney's great advantage is that he faces a divided field of conservative competitors, none of whom has been able to consolidate support. 
Mr. Santorum will get the biggest bump out of Iowa, coming from nowhere in the final weeks to finish strong. The former two-term Pennsylvania Senator played the tortoise by visiting all 99 counties and pressing social and moral issues. He has also been impressive in debates, especially on foreign policy.

But to be more than an Iowa flash, he'll need to broaden his message to include economic growth and a jolt of optimism. In his moral fervor Mr. Santorum can sometimes sound like a charter member of the cast-the-first-stone coalition, when most voters prefer a more tolerant traditionalism. [link]
Odd beginning.

But it's just the beginning.

The Problem With Romney

Actually, one of several.

Daniel J. Mitchell sends up the red flag in "Will Republicans Hand the Left a VAT Victory?"
In a recent interview on these pages, presidential candidate Mitt Romney refused to rule out a value-added tax (VAT). He suggested that this hidden form of a national sales tax—which is embedded in the prices of goods and services during the production process—might be appropriate, particularly as a way of financing other tax cuts.

What's going on here? 

The most important thing to realize is that many people in Washington want bigger government, and a VAT is a necessary condition for that to happen. Simply stated, there is no way to turn America into a European-style welfare state without this new source of revenue. 

Unsurprisingly, President Obama is favorably inclined toward a VAT, having recently claimed that it is "something that has worked for other countries." And yet it's unlikely that the president would propose a VAT, in large part because he is fixated on class-warfare tax hikes. If he did, almost every Republican in Congress would be opposed, even if only for partisan reasons.

But what if a VAT sympathizer like Mr. Romney wins next November and decides that his plan for a lower corporate tax rate is only possible if accompanied by a VAT? There will be quite a few Republicans who like that idea because they want to do something nice for their lobbyist friends in the business community. And there will be many Democrats drawn to the plan because they realize that they need this new source of revenue to enable bigger government.  That's a win-win deal for politicians and a terrible deal for taxpayers.
The fear many of us harbor is a contest next November between a man who is committed to raising taxes and a man who sounds like he's prepared to raise taxes. (You can decide which is which, if there's really a distinction.) At a time when business is fleeing our shores for more competitive environs, a new tax - whether on consumers or on providers of goods and services - will spell disaster.

But it'll be great for sustaining phenomenal government growth.

I don't feel good about this. Not at all.