Internet Scofflaw

Joe Biden says the GOP has spent $200 billion on campaign ads.

P. J. O’Rourke doesn’t mince words.

UPDATE: I have to quote this line:

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.

Families receiving WIC (a federal food program similar to food stamps) are about to be reminded of the old adage: he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the government is paying for your food, the government is going to decide what you eat. Specifically, the Agriculture Department has decided that potatoes are bad, and WIC can no longer be used to buy them.

The millions who will soon be having the government pay for their health care may want to remember this.

The citizens’ group in Texas that uncovered a major election fraud operation is being sued by the Texas Democratic Party.

Illinois has failed to send out timely ballots to our military overseas, as required by law, but they are reportedly hand-delivering ballots to inmates.

Veronique de Rugy offers this on the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which are stalled because Democrats want to hike taxes on the top earners:

Setting aside the fact that the top earners are the ones who tend to drive economic growth (entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, etc.), the revenue implications of hiking their taxes are really miniscule. And that’s with a static analysis, before you consider that hiking their taxes will reduce their incentive to work.

Of course, revenue doesn’t matter to these people either. Our president is on record favoring higher taxes even if they reduce revenue. It’s not about the revenue; it’s about the spite. And in that vein, let me bump my fable.

The London Convention Centre, which is owned by the city of London, has refused to rent its facilities for a talk by Mark Steyn. The topic of Steyn’s talk: free speech.

How astonishingly iresponsible has the State of New Jersey been in regard to its pension obligations?

This gives you a sense of what Chris Christie is up against. Unfortunately, it’s not just New Jersey, nor is New Jersey even in the worst shape:

Here’s a couple more entries in the file of President Obama’s dishonest and hypocritical attack on ad campaigns funded by undisclosed and possibly foreign donors:

• David Axelrod (Obama’s campaign architect and chief political adviser) ran an astroturf campaign with undisclosed donors. The campaign was to build support for a hike in electric rates, no less.
• Democrats have raised twice as much money as Republicans from PACs of foreign companies.

(Previous post.)

Andrew Klavan’s latest is brilliant:

Why the GOP will win in November.

PBS talking head Gwen Ifill, Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas, and various people I’ve never heard of are mocking Sarah Palin for telling Tea Partiers that they can’t “party like it’s 1773” until after we win the election.

The exact thrust of their mockery isn’t clear, but I guess they were thinking that Palin was referring to the Declaration of Independence, which of course was signed in 1776. But Palin was referring to the Boston Tea Party, the namesake of the Tea Party movement, which happened in 1773.

I suppose assuming your opponents are stupid can save you time and effort, if you’re right. If you’re wrong, you look like an idiot.

In a tacit acknowledgement that Obamacare doesn’t work, the Obama administration has issued dozens of waivers exempting “mini-med” health insurers from Obamacare’s rules:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Oct. 7, 2010, defended the administration’s decision to grant 30 businesses waivers from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum annual limits. Waivers were granted to several employers and insurers, including BCS Insurance, which insures workers at McDonald’s.

But the waivers are just temporary, and will no longer be available come 2014. At that point, all those people will lose their insurance.

I first noted the mini-med problem here.

More than half of the net new jobs created during the last year were in Texas. Texas is doing something right: low taxes, less regulation, and tort reform.

UPDATE: Informative charts here. (Via Instapundit.)

A week ago I noted a strikingly dishonest Democratic attack ad directed at Tim Burns, a local Congressional candidate. The Hill reports that the dishonest ad is part of a broad Democratic ad campaign, run in at least 16 different districts.

I have a low opinion of politicians. Nevertheless, sometimes a politician says something so gallingly untrue, even I can’t believe it. Today is one of those days. I feel like I am in Bizarro world just for typing the next sentence. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) says that Republicans are responsible for the failure to reform Fannie and Freddie:

“Low-income home ownership has been a mistake, and I have been a consistent critic of it,’’ said Frank, 70. Republicans, he said, were principally responsible for failing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants the government seized in September 2008.

For those who don’t know Frank well enough to see how absurd this is, here’s a reminder of what Frank said when Republicans tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. (All emphasis mine.)

September 11, 2003:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Oh yeah, that really sounds like he’s fighting to reform Fannie and Freddie, and is fighting against low-income home ownership.

September 10, 2003:

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.

Nope, no risk at all.

Best of all, September 25, 2003:

I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.

Yes, let’s roll the dice. It’s only the taxpayers’ money at stake!

And let’s not forget when Frank accepted Fannie and Freddie’s own opinion on whether they needed to be reformed, on September 5, 2003:

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here.

(Via Greg Mankiw.)

An anti-Obama billboard has been taken down after its owner received death threats:

The controversial Colorado billboard depicting President Obama as a suicide bomber, gangster, Mexican bandit and a gay man has been taken down — just days after the sign was erected and slammed nation-wide for being racist. . .

Those who know the owner of the billboard told a local NBC News affiliate that he and his wife were receiving death threats. The person who commissioned the piece is not yet known.

Friends of the owner said he decided to take down the billboard because he was receiving harassing calls.

Once again, we see that while the Democrats would have us believe that dissent (against a Democratic administration) is tantamount to violence, the real threats of violence (and actual violence) are being directed toward the dissenters.

(Via JammieWearingFool.)

President Obama says his party isn’t doing well because the voters are irrational:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Well, Mr. President, we’re not primarily scared. Mostly we’re angry. Angry that you are trying fundamentally to change the nature of our country. And angry that you are doing it despite our clear message to stop.

But I’ll admit we are scared too. Scared that you might succeed.

(Via JustOneMinute.)

POSTSCRIPT: As far as the “facts and science” go, let’s not forget his administration’s pattern of hostility toward them.

HHS has already missed between one-third and one-half of the deadlines imposed on it by Obamacare. Worse, when HHS has satisfied deadlines, it has done it by skipping the usual process of public notice and comment.

This is awesome.

Greece’s health system will no longer cover special footwear for patients with diabetes, because amputation is cheaper.

(Via Best of the Web.)

Red-state Democrats who stuck their neck out for health care nationalization are being hung out to dry. There’s really nothing not to like here: It’s great that the Democrats are in such bad shape they have to give up on these seats.

But more importantly, everyone can see what Democratic promises are worth. The Democratic leadership promised them they would be taken care of if they voted to nationalize health care, but when things got tough, they were kicked to the curb. (I’m reminded of this.)

Michelle Obama electioneers in a polling place, which is illegal. But it’s no big deal:

A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama — a Harvard-educated lawyer — may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.

“You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?” the official explained late Thursday. “I mean, she’s pretty well liked and probably doesn’t know what she’s doing.”

What the $%@#& does it matter if she’s well liked? If she’s well liked, she’s above the law?!

If it was an honest mistake, she should admit it and apologize. Don’t tell me that the law doesn’t apply to her.

When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama’s campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.

“I don’t think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband’s agenda,” Gibbs smiled.

So the White House thinks she is above the law? It’s hard to see how else to read that.

As an effort to buy votes, this isn’t even subtle:

President Obama is calling for a $250 rebate for seniors after the Social Security Administration announced Friday that interest rates in 2010 haven’t risen enough to justify an increase in benefits next year to the 58 million retirees and disabled Americans who receive the entitlement.

Congressional Democrats, already in a precarious position headed into Election Day, are heeding the president’s call.

It’s only the taxpayers’ money. Why shouldn’t Democrats use it to buy votes?

NOW’s brand of feminism means nothing more or less than merely electing as many Democrats as possible:

The president of the National Organization for Women may have said it’s wrong for anyone to call a woman a “whore,” but the head of the California NOW affiliate says Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is one.

Of course, we knew that already.

The White House blog definitively rebuts a false rumor:

For months, opponents of health reform have falsely claimed that the Affordable Care Act would lead to the taxation of health care benefits. The claim wasn’t true when the rumor first surfaced, it isn’t true today and it won’t be true tomorrow.

(Emphasis mine.)

Strong words. Problem is, the rumor isn’t false:

But the White House seems to have taken the rebuttal a bit far. Cutter goes on to make a general statement that suggests the new law will never tax healthcare plans, which isn’t true either. . .

While the W-2 rumors are demonstrably false, the law does create an excise tax on high-cost healthcare plans. Starting in 2018, so-called “Cadillac plans” will be subject to a 40 percent tax on excess benefits.

So the White House information operation doesn’t know what it’s talking about when it comes to their own health bill.

Amazingly, as of now (two days after the post went up), they still haven’t corrected their post, which tells you something about the priority they place on disseminating accurate information.

(Via Reason.)

Oops, this doesn’t fit the narrative:

Likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.

This result comes from The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll, which found that 44 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, whereas 37 percent say it’s the Republican Party that is more dominated by extremists.

This is because, in fact, the far wing of the Democrats is a bunch of socialists (and even Marxists), while the far wing of the Republicans is a bunch of tea party types. Despite the left’s efforts to brand the Tea Party movement as racist and extremist, it’s quite mainstream. Consequently, Democratic efforts to highlight the tea party elements in the GOP, far from helping the Dems, are serving just to show how safe the GOP’s right wing is.

(Via JammieWearingFool.)

Yes, regime uncertainty is a real factor suppressing economic growth:

Institutional investors fear a government policy mistake far more than inflation, terrorism, a housing double dip, a weak dollar, poor earnings or any other potential risk to the economy, according to a survey of 100 mutual fund, hedge fund and pension fund managers by Citigroup Global Markets.

“Government Policy Missteps” garnered more than a third of the participants’ votes as their biggest fears in the quarterly survey, ahead of the more than 15 percent who cited “Protectionism,” which is also strongly-tied to the actions of the Administration and Congress.

But these very same investors are bullish on the market and plan to buy stocks this quarter because they believe the chances of that policy error will decrease if Republicans take back the House of Representatives in November.

When investors and entrepreneurs don’t trust that the rules will stay the same, they are reluctant to invest. (It’s all part of that “rule of law” stuff.)

(Via Big Government.)

In the ongoing debate over whether the Democrats’ foreign-money line of attack is more dishonest or more hypocritical, another big point on the hypocrisy side:

During a press conference Tuesday, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs scolded groups that would not disclose, and has said that Americans have a right to know who is behind “largely negative campaign attack ads.”

“Simply tell us who you are,” Gibbs said. . .

During the 2003-2004 presidential primary season, however, Gibbs worked as the spokesman for a liberal advocacy group that ran attack ads against then-Democratic candidate Howard Dean. The “secretive” group, called Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values, spent months organizing scathing ads without disclosing who was paying for them. . .

The Dean camp was furious, and called on the group to disclose who had funded the ad. . .

The organization’s Treasurer, David Jones, refused.

“We will disclose donors when the law requires,” Jones was quoted as saying in The New York Times.

(Previous post.)

Obama now admits that there’s no such thing as a shovel-ready stimulus project. It’s a pity he didn’t figure that out before he jammed his stimulus bill down our throats. One way he could have learned would have been to read the CBO report.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg writes:

Back in early 2009, President-elect Barack Obama was asked on Meet the Press how quickly he could create jobs. Oh, very fast, he said. He’d already consulted with a gaggle of governors, and “all of them have projects that are shovel-ready.” . . .

In interviews, job summits, and press conferences, it was shovel-ready this, shovel-ready that. Search the White House website for the term “shovel-ready” and you’ll drown in press releases about all the shovels ready to shove shovel-ready projects into the 21st century, where no shovel is left behind. . .

It’s not that Obama was lying when he said all that stuff. It’s just that he didn’t know what he was talking about. All it took was nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money and 20-plus months of on-the-job training for him to discover that he was talking nonsense.

President Obama has a problem. He pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250k per year, and he did. (And the biggest tax hike — the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts — hasn’t arrived yet.) Naturally, Obama’s people want to deny that he ever made that promise:

The White House at the time said the increase didn’t violate Obama’s pledge because it didn’t apply to income, payroll or investment taxes. . .

“The president’s position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that’s a promise he has kept,” a White House spokesman said last year.

No, that was not his position. He said that “no family making less than $250 thousand per year will see any form of tax increase.”

All he can say now is he never meant it. Some of us knew that all along.

Rich Lowry votes for the hypocrisy:

Bizarrely, the party that’s content to let millions of foreigners cross our southern border to live and work here without our permission has otherwise become a locus of foreigner-baiting political advocacy. Is it possible to be post-American and xenophobic at the same time?

(Previous post.)

. . . as seen by the American people (Gallup poll):

(Via the Corner.)

How toxic is the Democratic brand? As a hint, here’s Democrat Joe Manchin:

Except for the blather about repealing “the bad parts of Obamacare” (that would be all of it), this is a Republican ad.

(Via Instapundit.)

In the debate over whether the Democrats’ foreign-money line of attack is more dishonest or more hypocritical, the Annenberg Fact Check casts its vote for more dishonest. They also have this gem, from top Obama adviser David Axelrod:

CBS’ Schieffer, Oct. 10: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?

Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?

Oh, is that how it works now? They can level unsupported allegations and its their targets’ job to refute them?

(Via TaxProf Blog.)

POSTSCRIPT: Also, the Wall Street Journal takes a look at the more sinister side of this line of attack.

(Previous post.)

Last night I saw this Democratic ad attacking Tim Burns:

A 23% sales tax on everything? Sounds pretty bad! What they aren’t mentioning is that the 23% sales tax would be instead of your existing federal taxes (income tax, Social Security, Medicare), not in addition to them. It’s a classic lie by omission.

The DCCC has disabled comments on this ad, making it impossible for anyone to point out that it’s dishonest.

POSTSCRIPT: The DCCC has been called out for this lie before by the Annenberg Fact Check.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he’s no ordinary investor. Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid’s office, initially defended Mr. Miller’s purchase of shares in the company, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. He said the aide had no influence over tax incentives for renewable-energy firms, and that other factors boosted the stock.

But on Sunday, Mr. Manley added: “Mr. Miller showed poor judgment and Senator Reid has made it very clear to Chris and all his staff that their actions must not only follow the law, but must meet the higher standards the public has a right to expect from elected officials and their staffs.”

Mr. Miller isn’t the only Congressional staffer making such stock bets. At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009. . .

A few lawmakers proposed a bill that would prevent members and employees of Congress from trading securities based on nonpublic information they obtain. The legislation has languished since 2006.

It’s sad but a little amusing to watch Congress reflexively defend the indefensible.

(Via Volokh.) (Previous post.)

UPDATE: More.

The Washington Post reports:

Consumer advocates and lawyers warned federal officials in recent years that the U.S. foreclosure system was designed to seize people’s homes as fast as possible, often without regard to the rights of homeowners.

In recent days, amid reports that major lenders have used improper procedures and fraudulent paperwork to seize properties, some Obama administration officials have acknowledged they had been aware of flaws in how the mortgage industry pursues foreclosures.

But the officials said they could take only limited action to address the danger. In part, this was because they wanted lenders’ help carrying out federal programs to modify mortgages that had fallen into default or were poised to do so.

The Obama administration admits it knew of the problem, but says it could not do anything because they needed the lenders’ help in carrying out their agenda.

You rarely see it expressed so crisply: this administration refused to protect the legitimate rights of homeowners, because that would have made it hard for them to carry out their program of subsidizing insolvent borrowers.

POSTSCRIPT: Let’s not forget, the mortgage modification program was itself a complete failure.

(Via Power Line.)

Congress’s failure to renew the Bush-era tax cuts before going into recess is leading the IRS to contemplate unprecedented action to avoid a big withholding hit come January. For the first time, the IRS may base its tables on speculation regarding what action Congress will take:

Lack of congressional action on 2011 income taxes may force the Treasury Department to make unprecedented moves to prevent U.S. workers from seeing large tax increases in their January paychecks.

The issue: 2011 tax-withholding tables. Treasury officials usually release the tables, which determine the take-home pay of millions of wage-earners, by mid-November because it takes payroll processors weeks to adjust their systems before Jan. 1. . .

“Things get very dicey after the first of December” because of employers’ need to know the 2011 rates, said Michael Graetz of Columbia University Law School, a former Treasury official. . .

Some have suggested that if Congress doesn’t act in time, Treasury officials might consider a one- or two-month grace period in which it maintains current tables until Congress passes tax legislation. Capitol Hill tax staffers, meanwhile, say the Treasury could set 2011 withholding at current levels for joint filers earning less than $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers), on the assumption that Congress seems likely to enact this change.

The path the IRS is contemplating piles dishonesty upon dishonesty. The whole idea to withholding is to hide our taxation. If people had to cut a check to pay their confiscatory taxes, there would be a revolt. But, someone had the bright idea that if the public never saw that money in the first place, they wouldn’t really miss it.

Now the IRS is concerned that people will be upset when the withholding rates soar as a result of the Democrat’s refusal to renew the tax cuts. The public should be upset, and the IRS should not be covering for them.

Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania’s disgrace of a governor, speaks:

“What’s the best way to prevent [Republicans] from tearing down the president? It’s a four-letter word,” the governor said. “Vote like your life depends on it — because, you know, it just might.”

Let’s not hear any more nonsense about overheated rhetoric from the right.

(Via Instapundit.)

In regard to President Obama’s attacks on the Chamber of Commerce, it’s hard to know whether to focus on the dishonesty or the hypocrisy, but I think the hypocrisy is winning. Politico reports:

“The Times is hung up on whether or not the Chamber is following the letter of the law,” a White House official said. “We will continue to point out that the only way to put to rest the important questions that have been raised about their $75 million ad campaign is for the Chamber to disclose basic information about their donors.”

Seriously?! Obama is calling on the Chamber of Commerce to disclose its donors?! After he refused to disclose the donors to his presidential campaign? That is awfully rich.

(Previous post.)

UPDATE: Obama scales back his attacks, but only a little.

Also, Ed Gillespie (another of the president’s targets) points out that the Center for American Progress, the leftist group that started this line of attack, does not disclose its donors. Hypocrisy is definitely winning.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin takes a look at the Democrats’ history of taking foreign contributions.

Despite having apparently thrown away Delaware, Republicans are poised to retake the Senate. According to the latest Rasmussen polls, Republicans have the lead in Democrat-held North Dakota (+43), Arkansas (+18), Indiana (+16), Wisconsin (+12), Pennsylvania (+9), West Virginia (+6), Colorado (+5), Illinois (+4), Nevada (+4), and Washington (+3). GOP-held seats that were thought to be at risk now look safe: Florida (+25), Alaska (+15), Kentucky (+11), and New Hampshire (+7). If these results hold true, Republicans will pick up ten seats, just enough to put them in control of the chamber.

Also, the winners in West Virginia and Illinois would be seated immediately, which could make a difference in a mad duck session.

UPDATE: The GOP prices on Intrade: North Dakota (97), Arkansas (97), Indiana (95), Wisconsin (88), Florida (86.5), New Hampshire (86.5), Pennsylvania (86.5), Kentucky (84.9), Colorado (77), Alaska (75), West Virginia (70), Nevada (55.5), Illinois (53), Washington (50).

Dan Onorato (who wants to be governor of Pennsylvania) is taking credit for Pittsburgh’s economic shift into education, research, and medicine, a shift that was going on decades before he ever came into office.

Linda McMahon asks Dick Blumenthal (her rival in the Connecticut Senate race) the key question, “How do you create a job?” As they say, hilarity ensues:

(Via Ace.)

When the Washington Post reported that the FDIC maintains a list of politically connected banks that get special treatment, the FDIC denied it. However, when Pajamas Media filed a Freedom of Information Act request for any related documents, the FDIC changed its tune, and refused to say whether any such documents exist:

In response to those denials, along with the fact that the Washington Post reporter who broke the original story was sticking to his guns, PJM sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to FDIC.

That request asked for:

[Documents] pertaining to all internal reports, memos, listings and communications concerning the identification of banks that might cause press or public relations problems.

This includes all documents in which FDIC personnel identified conflicts of interests between elected or appointed federal officials with bank ownership or management.

FDIC has since replied to PJM in record time.

In the two-page response, the FDIC does not claim they do not maintain such a list or engage in the practice of flagging banks which have important contacts. Instead, they essentially say they do not have to provide such information to PJM because the request was simply too broad . . .

(Emphasis mine.) (Via Instapundit.)

It’s hard to know how to approach the story of President Obama’s attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce for supposedly taking money from foreign corporations. Even the New York Times sees that his attacks are bogus:

Ever since he raised the issue in his State of the Union speech nearly nine months ago . . . President Obama has been warning about the danger of foreign money creeping into elections as a result of the court’s landmark campaign finance ruling.

In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending. . .

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents. . .

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States. . .

Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.

But, as Glenn Reynolds reminds us, the hypocrisy angle is equally compelling, given how Obama’s presidential campaign accepted campaign contributions from foreigners.

UPDATE: Barone weighs in.

AP reports:

More than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison, a government investigator says in a new report. The payments, which were part of last year’s massive economic recovery package, were meant to increase consumer spending to help stimulate the economy.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hurt the poor worst:

Low-income workers stand to lose the most if lawmakers fail to reach a consensus on the Bush-era tax cuts, according to a new report from the Tax Foundation.

The report states that on Jan. 1 the doubling of the child tax credit, increased standard deductions and income credits and the creation of the 10 percent tax bracket — all of which primarily aimed at non-wealthy taxpayers — will vanish if gridlock persists in Washington.

While wealthier taxpayers pay more in taxes and stand to lose more money if the tax cuts expire, the impact on low-income taxpayers will be far greater because they live on slimmer margins.

Democratic leaders have repeatedly vowed that tax cuts benefiting these taxpayers will be extended beyond their Dec. 31 expiration date. But a similar promise was made last year on the estate tax, and ten months have passed without Democratic leaders following through on that promise.

John Dingell (D-MI) is losing in Detroit. Dingell won his last race by 94 points!

The AP reports:

The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and made other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

(Via Instapundit.)

And, since they both also relate to this administration’s dishonesty regarding the oil spill, let’s remember the two separate times in which the administration lied about obtaining peer review of its oil spill assessments, and let’s also remember how the administration repeatedly blocked media access to the spill.

(Previous post.)

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a good story on the commission’s report.

Obamacare strikes again:

3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.

The changes won’t start to phase in until 2013. But they show how companies are beginning to respond to the new law, which should make it easier for people in their 50s and early-60s to find affordable policies on their own. While thousands of employers are tapping new funds from the law to keep retiree plans, 3M illustrates that others may not opt to retain such plans over the next few years.

(Via the Corner.)

I think it’s time we started keeping a scoreboard of those at risk of losing their current health care:

• 3M retirees.
• Customers of Principal Financial Group.
• McDonald’s employees.
• Participants in Medicare Advantage.
• College students.
• Families with new children.
• Participants in Medicare prescription drug plans that are being terminated.

And remember, this is just the bow wave as companies come to grips with the new law. The Obama administration’s internal documents estimate that over half of all health plans will ultimately be terminated. They also predicted severe price hikes in plans that survive.

The President’s claim that those who like their insurance could keep it? That was a lie.

Megan McArdle has a column on how the big three automakers crumbled. Bottom line:

I don’t think there’s much point in trying to figure out whether management or the unions are responsible; the fact is that they both drove all of the bad decisions that the company made, even as they were both also mostly reacting to actions by the other side that had left them little choice.

Also, troubling (if unsurprising) signs that things are no better post-bailout.

Washington State leftists are pushing a state income tax. Yeah, that’ll help.

Matt Welch:

Because nothing says “competitive edge” like “doubling spending while failing to improve results.”

The “10:10 Movement” debuted their eco-fascist snuff film No Pressure last weekend. (Don’t want to reduce carbon emissions? That’s fine. No pressure. We’ll just kill you!) They still seem not to understand the uproar. Their first “apology” was the standard weaselly, non-apology apology:

Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

This kind of “I’m sorry you were offended” apology is popular because it doesn’t admit any fault. It pins the unpleasantness on the thin-skinned offendee. “If you weren’t such a prude, you’d have no problem with our hilarious threats to kill you.”

To underline their lack of serious contrition, they concluded:

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

“Live and learn.” (Unless you resist us; then you get blown up.) “Onwards and upwards.” In other words, no biggie.

10:10 eventually realized they had a problem, probably when corporate sponsors like Sony started bailing out. The director of 10:10 then released another statement that the NYT’s environmentalism columnist considers a real apology:

Last week, 10:10 made available a short film. Following the initial reaction to the film we removed it from our website and issued an apology on Friday 2 October.

Subsequently there has been negative comment about the film, particularly on blogs, and concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change. We are very sorry if this has distracted from their efforts.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.

We will learn from this mistake. Today I have written to supporters and stakeholders explaining that we will review processes and procedures to make sure it cannot happen again. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board.

The media coverage of the film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for 10:10, nor for the wider movement to reduce carbon emissions.

If people have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. Meanwhile our thanks go out to all those who support 10:10 and who work to combat the threat of climate change.

You can decide for yourself if you see any sign of contrition here. I don’t. I see an admission that the film was pulled due to the negative reaction, not because they think it was bad. I see that they are sorry that their film has distracted from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. I see that they are sorry that they have made their corporate sponsors look bad. And I see that they didn’t want this kind of publicity.

What I don’t see is anything like this: “We see now that our film was inappropriate. It is wrong to kill people who disagree with you, and we were wrong to suggest otherwise.”

So the question remains open: do they agree that it was wrong to suggest it was okay to kill those who oppose you? Or do they think this is just a matter of bad taste?

(Previous post.)

What? Rahm Emmanuel is a phony? Say it ain’t so!

Rahm Emanuel kicked off his campaign for Mayor of Chicago with a homecoming video, filmed in front of a bookshelf with a vase and a family photograph.

“I was born here and my wife Amy and I raised our three children here,” he says. “I’m glad to be home.”

But an Emanuel spokeswoman, Lori Goldberg, confirms that the video itself was actually filmed in Washington, D.C., in the offices of AKPD media, the firm founded by David Axelrod.

For additional amusement, Rahm may have caused himself legal trouble with the video. His opponents plan to contest whether he is really a Chicago resident, and it won’t help his case that he called DC home. As Rahm knows very well, fighting to keep your opponents off the ballot is the Chicago way. It should be fun to watch.

(Via Instapundit.)

Can we improve education by hiring more teachers? From this chart, courtesy of the Cato Institute, it sure doesn’t look like it:

More spending? We have ample evidence already that that doesn’t help. Still, a chart is illustrative:

The way to improve education is the strategy this administration is against, greater competition.

It’s sad to see the United Kingdom flushing its historic respect for free speech. In the latest, six men have been arrested for burning the Koran:

Six people have been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after videos emerged on the internet apparently showing copies of the Koran being burned.

Officers detained two men on September 15 and four more yesterday and all six were bailed pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said. ”The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11,” the spokesman said. . .

Northumbria Police said the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran.

The final point is key: the arrest was specifically for burning the Koran, not for some other activity that might actually have been criminal.

I fear Britain is doomed.

(Via the Corner.)

Nassim Taleb, an author of whom I have not heard before, says that we should not listen to economists who failed to predict the financial crisis. The Atlantic has a sympathetic take on his remarks.

Well, I certainly agree that no one should pay attention to Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman, and we should minimize the attention we pay to Timothy Geithner, but Taleb’s reason is bogus. A year ago, Robert Lucas rebutted this idea brilliantly.

Briefly, if there are people who can identify pricing bubbles, we cannot afford them. Certainly they wouldn’t be giving such information away for free.

The Economist contends that the GM bailout has been a success, despite:

Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends.

Oh yeah, except for that (and a few more items they didn’t mention), there’s been hardly any politics in the bailout at all.

They conclude:

Socialists don’t privatise . . .

The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

The Economist is a serious magazine, so I’ll take this argument seriously. Socialists don’t privatize? Well, that depends.

Socialism is about concentrating power in the right hands. If the socialists have confidence that they will be in power forever, then of course they prefer not to privatize. With most socialist governments that’s true. But it is different in America. In America, the Democrats are at the apex of their power. Sooner or later (probably sooner), Republicans will be in power, and Obama’s nationalized businesses will be privatized.

Given the inevitability of privatization, what would an intelligent socialist do? Wherever possible, he would turn over his nationalized businesses to interests that the socialists will control forever. To wit: the unions. And that’s exactly what have seen. President Obama has taken GM and Chrysler away from their shareholders and creditors and has turned them over to the unions.

Obama is a socialist, but no one ever accused him of being a stupid one.

An audit by the Los Angeles controller finds that red-light cameras do not improve safety. And there’s this:

Meanwhile, it appears that the locations of some of the cameras were chosen based more on political and cost concerns than on safety.

Really? Well knock me over with a feather!

. . . like the fonts on street signs:

The city will change the lettering on every single street sign – at an estimated cost of about $27.5 million – because the feds don’t like the font.

Street names will change from all capital letters to a combination of upper and lower case on roads across the country thanks to the pricey federal regulation, officials said Wednesday.

Another firm has left the health insurance market due to health care nationalization:

The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect.

The company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.

Don’t forget: the Obama administration knew this would happen. When they said you could keep your health insurance if you like it, that was a lie.

(Via the Corner.)

Here’s a delightful little piece of propaganda from the “10:10 movement”, which wants you to cut your carbon emissions:

If you don’t want to participate, that’s your choice. No pressure. But if you don’t, we’ll kill you.

10:10 has now belatedly discovered that some people are a mite bothered by the threat to murder them if they don’t toe the line. They are trying to pull the film, and have issued the standard, weaselly, non-apology apology:

Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

The really worrisome thing here is the insight this gives into these people’s mindset. They thought this movie was funny! They were surprised when “some” people didn’t!

As James Delingpole puts it,

With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

Glenn Reynolds adds:

It always ends up as mass murder, real or fantasized, with these people. That’s what they do. Treat them with all the respect they deserve.

POSTSCRIPT: The 10:10 project is sponsored by the British government, and the Guardian.

UPDATE: Iowahawk imagines the process by which this film was commissioned and made. His story concludes:

And somehow, throughout this entire process, not one of the hundreds of people involved seemed to have questioned the wisdom of an advertising message advocating the violent, sudden death of people who disagree with it.

UPDATE: In hole, digging:

Franny Armstrong, 10:10 founder, said the shock tactics were justified. “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.”

UPDATE: To underline Iowahawk’s point, the film required “50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free.” So at least a hundred people who saw no problem with the film’s message.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey agrees:

What makes this fascinating is that the people who produce this dreck have no clue as to just how far removed they have become from normal human sensibilities, or at least they didn’t until the video began provoking the fully-predictable reaction. They have become so wrapped up in Gaia that they seem to have little connection to humanity.

Feisal Abdul Rauf says his mosque project at Ground Zero is supposed to improve interfaith relations. Another reason not to believe him: his longtime partner is a “truther”.

(Previous post.)

John Kerry shows more of the brilliance that defined his presidential campaign:

A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters.

The Massachusetts Democratic chairman, trying to walk back the remark, said:

“I’ve known John Kerry for 35 years and he doesn’t look down on people.”

Oh really?

“Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

New studies confirm that liberals give less to charity than conservatives:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. . .

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

I’ve noted this fact before, but this is interesting because the piece above was written by Nicholas Kristof, a liberal NYT columnist. (As you might guess from the final phrase in the above quote.)

In fact, it’s worse than this, because Democrats are trying the change the rules to discourage private philanthropy. So perhaps low-giving liberals are just being consistent. Perhaps they feel that all philanthropy should be controlled by the government.