On Friday, we brought you the story of the little reporter who could…corner the market on nuttiness in under 5 sentences. As rants go, it was pretty impressive. What it lacked in eloquence or, even, coherance, it made up in pounds of rage per square inch. (Since the reporter so clearly aligns himself with the Democrat party, the rant does beg the question: Dude, why so angry? “Your side” controls everything in Washington and most states by a wide margin. Given the current state of the GOP, they are the least of your worries.)

These days, uncovering the fact that a reporter has a strong leftist political bias is a ‘dog bites man’ story.  What was surprising, though, is that he felt perfectly comfortable expressing his rage through his work e-mail, in response to an elected official’s press release. (He even sent the email in the middle of the afternoon, suggesting that the three-martini lunch is alive and well in the Florida Keys.)

Most editors, one imagines, would typically frown on their journalists displaying such raw partisan anger. The reporter’s boss, Tom Tuell, however, isn’t like most editors…

(more…)

Ahh, to dream …

Don Boudreaux of George Mason university had a great article in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday defending insider trading.

“Prohibitions on insider trading prevent the market from adjusting as quickly as possible to changes in the demand for, and supply of, corporate assets. The result is prices that lie.

And when prices lie, market participants are misled into behaving in ways that harm not only themselves but also the economy writ large.

Remember the 1970s-era price ceiling on gasoline? By causing prices at the pump to lie about the scarcity of oil, that price ceiling led Americans to waste untold hours waiting in lines to fuel their cars. Similar wastes occur when corporate assets are mispriced.”

He concludes:

“By allowing companies as they compete for capital to experiment with different ways of dealing with insider trading, we would discover which proscriptions work best for some kinds of firms and which proscriptions work best for other kinds of firms.

(more…)

With Democratic support coalescing around Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-Mt.) health care reform proposal, passage of a comprehensive overhaul now appears more likely than ever.  Opponents had their summer of protests.  But, Democrats have shown a renewed sense of energy since discrediting Sarah Palin’s “death panels” and Sen. Charles Grassley’s claim that ObamaCare would “pull the plug on grandma.” Still, while those charges may have been a little overwrought, there is plenty to be concerned about with the Democratic health reform effort.

As I explain in a new Competitive Enterprise Institute paper, “A Cure Worse than the Disease: Obama Care Won’t Cut Costs, But May Cut Quality,” most of the alleged cost-cutting measures in the Baucus bill merely shift costs from the federal government onto the states or private payers, without affecting long-term health care inflation.  The only measures that could reduce the annual rate of growth in health care costs would erect government barriers between patients and their doctors, while jeopardizing long-term medical innovation.

Skeptics have made hay arguing that the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate can’t be counted on to cut $245-billion in Medicare spending. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators have designed a Medicare Commission—what the White House previously called an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission—to make similar cuts in physician and hospital payment rates in a more opaque way.

In an April New York Times interview, President Obama suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost…the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives.”  That’s not exactly a death panel roving the country to pull the plug on innocent grandmas who’ve survived past their sell-by dates, but the effects could be equally pernicious.

(more…)

Washington has long been a place where ethics are flexible. If mainstream media outlets are snoozing, it’s easy to get away with a lot.

The mainstream media has paid very little attention to the ties between Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who chairs a House Judiciary subcommittee that might be called upon to investigate ACORN, and Nadler’s close working relationship with ACORN.

Nadler a longtime ACORN ally who has run for Congress on the ticket of ACORN’s political party, the Working Families Party of New York, is now offering advice to ACORN on how it should try to weather the controversies currently embroiling it.

(more…)

In a surprising development, the Washington Post discovers that Congressmen make promises of funding in exchange for votes:

“It takes a while for most start-up companies to gain the confidence of a U.S. congressman and the promise of federal funds. But last year, a small Illinois company accomplished its goal in 16 days with the help of Rep. Peter J. Visclosky, a little-known Indiana Democrat who sits on the House committee that funds the Pentagon. [...]

The congressman sponsored or supported at least $44 million in earmarks in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for more than 15 technology firms that had hired K&L Gates as lobbyists. None of the companies operated in Visclosky’s home state, but nearly all of them donated to Visclosky’s campaign just before or soon after receiving the promise of federal money.”

This is more evidence of the twisted positive sum gain between lobbyists and lawmakers. Sure lawmakers benefit, but that’s because they have something very valuable to offer. Lobbying is a very profitable activity. According this study published in April this year, the $3 billion-a-year industry in Washington secures spectacular returns on investment such as “a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue — a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.”

I have one item of suggested reading before passing judgment on the occasionally strident internet-sensation that is the commentary by Lord Monckton on the draft negotiating text for an anticipated U.S. signature in December — certain to be delayed, to July — on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol (discussed with Monckton on BreitbartTV here). That instrument is of course the “global treaty” assigning economically damaging responsibilities to 35 industrialized countries (the titans Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia…) but not 155 others (such as tiny China, India, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia…) .

The reason I suggest this is because one of the more hot-button items Monckton raises, the Kyotophile desire to get around at least half of the allegedly out-dated concept of Article II “advice and consent”, has, despite certain parties insisting that Monckton’s commentary offers nothing of interest…move along now…for more than a year been telegraphed by Obamaphile activists. It was even alluded to in a paper by someone who now carries the title of our nation’s “Climate Envoy” (really). And now the Obama administration is reported to have briefed European diplomats to be ready to accommodate certain delays and procedures that this would require.

First, allow me to note one particular, relevant specific on which I differ with Lord Monckton’s assessment. That is the notion that the administration would just adopt Kyoto through domestic legislation. He may just be short-handing it here, which if so, I understand, but it is important to get the specifics on the record. It is of course the point of the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bills to adopt Kyoto’s principal obligation of carbon dioxide emission reduction, though these bills’ only international components are direct and indirect wealth transfers of a few billion dollars a year to other countries. There are no substantive sovereignty implications, outside of certain energy security concerns.

(more…)

I admit it.  I like electronic gizmos.  When I’m not driving (and even sometimes when I am), my BlackBerry is never more than an index finger away.  In the car, I can’t go a mile without scanning for an Old Gold hit that takes me back to the “Good Old Days” on my Sirius-XM satellite radio system.  I use my GPS system a lot (though less often than my wife would like me to, but I’m a man and I hate to admit I don’t know where I’m going).  I pay for all these gadgets, and woe be unto the person who tries to take them from me.

The California Air Resources Board (“CARB” to those folks who love acronyms) is considering regulations that would cause serious disruptions to electronic devices being transmitted from a vehicle, and for devices in the vehicle trying to receive electronic signals. The regulations that would do this are included in a program cleverly called “Cool Cars,” which would require all cars sold in the Golden State starting in 2012 to have their windows coated with a metal-oxide based glazing.  It is this process that would wreck havoc with electronic devices in those vehicles.

All this is the result of California’s fixation with so-called “global warming” and the state’s obsession with attempting to reduce carbon emissions.  Obviously, these folks at CARB haven’t seen the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide makes up at most 4% of the entire “greenhouse gas” layer in our atmosphere; and of that 4%, all of mankind’s activities (yes, including operating internal combustion engines) accounts for only about three or four percent.  This means that mankind is guilty of producing only between .12 and .16 percent of greenhouse gasses.  Not the dire emergency the greenies would have us believe it to be; but then again, why let scientific facts serve as a speed bump on the way to the complete Nanny State.

(more…)

So, we have a national emergency now:

Congressional Candidate, and Big Government Contributor, Doug Hoffman took to the New York Post today:

At this time, three months ago, I was wrestling with a decision. A decision as to whether or not to run in a special election to fill the seat vacated by the new secretary of the Army, John McHugh. If you had told me 90 days later I would be penning an op-ed piece for the New York Post, I would have laughed in disbelief. I would have laughed even louder had you told me that I would be receiving endorsement and support from political leaders like Fred Thompson, former Majority Leader Dick Armey, or Sarah Palin. Or appearing on broadcast media with national audiences, as their hosts peppered me with questions about the future of the GOP and our nation. 

You see I’m not a professional politician; I’ve never sought elected office. I grew up poor in Saranac Lake, in the heart of the Adirondacks. My siblings and I were raised in a single-parent household by our mother. We worked to help her pay the mortgage. But, like so many others in this great land, I worked hard, got a good education, did a six-year stint in the military, married, landed a good job with a “big eight” accounting firm and started living the American dream.

(more…)

A national coalition of Tea Party activists called Thursday for rallies in several states to announce their dissatisfaction with the Grand Old Party.  In an October 22 press release they state:

We are extremely disappointed that the Republican Party (and leaders like Newt Gingrich) has missed the message of the Tea Parties and continues to take conservative voters for granted. We applaud all courageous statesmen (Fred Thompson, Michelle Bachmann, and Dick Armey) and call on other GOP officials to put America’s values over traditional, often corrupt and morally bankrupt, power structures.

This is nothing new, and it is certainly nothing good.  I am no partisan apologist, mind you, and would not support Ms. Scozzafava.  My first significant political activity was on behalf of Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican primary in New Hampshire against a sitting Republican president.  You may remember how that ended: Buchanan lost the primary, and President Bush lost the general election.

(more…)

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The only way the fringe “news” outlets would ever report on ACORN in an antagonistic manner would be if Sarah Palin somehow supported this creepy cabal.  

Sarah, if you’re reading this column, maybe you should throw your name behind ACORN for a month or two just to get the White House/ACORN’s lap dogs to finally join with FOX and bark down the despicable ACORN clowns until they’re properly vilified, permanently defunded, and eternally ensconced in American history as nothing more than a bad, bad memory—a veritable proverb for corruption. 

After lending your name, Mrs. Palin, to ACORN for say, uh, 60 days or so, you could then say you were just BSing everyone to get the tools on the left to finally do the job these limp noodles are supposed to be doing: namely getting to the bottom of ACORN’s odious, braying deception.

This past Wednesday at the National Press Club, Andrew Breitbart, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe once again released more ACORN footage that showed Bertha and her buddies to be lying through their taxpayer-funded, coffee-stained teeth.  They shot holes in Berth’s bunkum. I’m talking .50 cal BMG holes.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

(more…)

While the Obama violinists’ supple wrists magically fiddle with their bows, the firefights continue in Afghanistan. General Stan McChrystal’s thorough assessment requesting 60,000-40,000 additional troops is now over seven weeks old and the Obama administration’s duplicity is becoming more evident by the day.
 
This amazing lack of dexterity is rather stunning given then candidate-Obama’s pledge that this was a war of necessity that we must win. Was that really just a headline grabber to convince moderate democrats that he would be strong on defense? It is increasingly appearing that way.

U.S. Forces Fire Onto Enemy Positions Near Pakistan Border

So let me be clear about the cost of delay:
 
First, while Obama has deliberated, troops he has previously described as “under resourced” are fighting and dying…and still under resourced.
 
Second, the Taliban are terrorizing civilians in those areas that lack significant or any coalition force presence and very courageous political leaders at the local governance level are left defenseless.
 
Third, we may miss the window of opportunity presented by the traditional Taliban operational pause in December and January.
 
Fourth, we exponentially complicate the deployment and reception of the 40,000 troops as ships have to be ordered, planes scheduled, operating bases built, and supplies delivered.

Fifth, had Obama acted promptly, he may have had additional troops to help with the election runoff agreed upon this week.
 
Sixth, with each day that Stan McChrystal’s request goes unanswered, the president gives the green light for his legions of political hacks and pudgy pundits, none of whom can hold McChrystal’s jock strap, to malign the general and minimize both his stature and his assessment. No biggie to McChrystal personally, but the enemy makes hay with this kind of thing in the terrorist recruiting world.

(more…)

Today is St. Crispin Day, anniversay of the Battle of Agincourt, fought in 1415. The outnumbered English, employing superior technology and tactics, destroyed an overwhelming French force.

Today is also the anniversary of the Charge of the Light Brigade, from the Battle of Balaclava in 1854.

[PREVIOUSLY: On Friday, we presented the undercover video from the 2008 CAIR Annual banquet showing that the "Interests Section of Iran" - the defacto embassy of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism as named by the U.S. State Department - was thanked by Master of Ceremonies Ahmed Bedier for their support.  And the "Interests Section of Iran" was also listed in the "Thanks To" section on page 20 in the 2008 printed program.]

October 24 – tonight’s the big night for the 15th annual fundraiser for CAIR – the Council on American Islamic Relations, named by the Justice Department in 2007 as an unindicted terrorism finance co-conspirator because of their ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization.   This event should be of particular interest to Mr. Stuart A. Levey, Under Secretary in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence – as well as to Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice – because of the apparent support for CAIR’s 2008 annual fundraiser by the “Interests Section of Iran.”

Members of Congress should also note two matters of concern from the 2008 annual fundraiser, now that Big Government has presented documentary evidence that the “Interests Section of Iran” attended the event:

(more…)

When we received a threatening letter a few days ago from the American Federation of Teachers over AFTexposed.com, we knew it was little more than bluster - the typical bullying that the AFT has come to be known for.

I mean, who else could loge personal threats at a “Rally for Respect” (of all things!) against the chancellor of DC Public Schools, Michelle Rhee, right in the heart of the city, and get away with it?

Needless to say, the baseless threats continue from the country’s second largest teachers’ union.

Now comes another letter from October 21, in which the union has apparently dropped its demand for us to stop using the acronym ‘AFT.’  They’re also no longer calling for us to turn over the domain registration to them.  Hopefully the General Counsel of the union, David Strom, saw how absurd and downright pathetic his demand was.

(more…)

The past nine years have been discouraging, with Bush and Obama both being big-government interventionists. But it’s nice to know that the other side still has a hard time imposing higher taxes. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page celebrates the death of a terrible tax proposal that would have increased double taxation on American companies trying to earn market share while competing abroad:

Raising taxes on the overseas profits of American firms has been a central plank of Barack Obama’s agenda since his campaign for President in 2008. The proposal was featured in the President’s budget in February and was the focus of a May speech in which he said that corporations were “shirking” their responsibility to support his huge increases in federal spending through higher tax payments. But as this newspaper reported Tuesday, the Administration appears to have shelved the plan to limit business use of the current deferral of taxes on profits earned overseas. This climbdown comes after a full-court press by U.S. multinationals, notably including some of Mr. Obama’s Silicon Valley supporters, which argued that raising taxes on U.S. companies abroad would do nothing to create jobs in the U.S. while undermining American competitiveness overseas. The U.S. is one of the few developed countries that even tries to tax corporate overseas profits. Most operate on a territorial system, in which business profits are taxed in the country in which they are earned. The U.S. taxes world-wide income but then allows a deferral of overseas taxes until those profits are repatriated. It also allows companies to take a tax credit for corporate taxes paid in other countries, although this tax credit system is cumbersome and only partially offsets the burden of double taxation. The idea that raising corporate taxes would promote job creation never made sense, and the mere threat of higher taxes is one factor depressing business investment and slowing any recovery. So it’s good news that the Administration seems to have set this job-killer aside, at least for now.

See here for more information about the issue.