Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Cruising the Web

Enjoy Jon Stewart taking on a much-deserved target, Jon Corzine.


Noemie Emery finds an explanation
for Mitt Romney's, er, flexibility on issues. Maybe, as a former businessman, he is just adjusting to the market and changing his product as consumer demands in his particular market change. Yeah, that's it.

Walter Williams explains what happens when government raises taxes on corporations and who bears the resulting tax burden.

I think we can all agree that a poll worker shouldn't be biting a voter's nose.

The Democrats clearly care more about helping out the unions than bringing down unemployment. And Nancy Pelosi is quite brazen about it.

As Michael Barone mulls over yesterday's election results, it is clear that there is even more reason for Republicans not to get cocky about next year's election. Ignore Michele Bachmann's fatuous claim that Obama's loss is baked in the cake.

Count all the ways that the Sarkozy-Obama overheard exchange on how they both dislike Bibi Netanyahu is revealing of the lack of seriousness with which they are approaching the problem of Iran's nuclear capabilities. They might not like Netanyahu, but they need to face up to the reality of Iran's obvious intent to obtain a nuclear bomb and use it against Israel. As Michael Godwin writes,
There is no sin in what Obama and Sarkozy said. The sin lies in what they have failed to do.
And further shame to all the reporters who heard the exchange and didn't report it for a week because they just didn't think they should.

Dorothy Rabinowitz makes the argument
for Newt Gingrich. It will now be his time to be the anti-Mitt candidate.

As Philip K. Howard writes, there is something very fishy about a union where over 90% of the workers retired with a disability to cost New York taxpayers over $300 million. It's all part of the argument why public employees should not have a "collective-bargaining right" to deduct union dues from all public employees so that they can turn around and use that money to contribute to politicians who will vote them more benefits.

1 comment:

Pat Patterson said...

I know in California that is similar to what happened to my father. He was encouraged to retire after 30 years teaching supposedly to hire new and younger teachers. But his specialty, tests and measurements and adaptive PE, was't exactly brimming with graduates so they had to rehire him as a guest lecturer but with his prior status as a senior professor intact.

He couldn't figure out for a while who benefited until he realized that the state paid for his retirement through CalPers but could then put him on at half-time and actually use less of the state college payroll. Creative accounting as if they had created new money where none existed before.