Banner ad

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Cruising the Web

Paying tribute to the contributions and prescience of the Anti-Federalists. Every year when I teach the debates over ratification of the Constitution, I become more and more impressed with how many of the predictions of the Anti-Federalists. As we go through studying how the federal government's power grew over the years, I often remind students to think of what the Anti-Federalists would have said about laws limiting freedom of speech during World War One or the reach of the New Deal. As we commemorated the Constitution yesterday on the anniversary of the end of the Constitutional Convention, it pays to also remember the arguments of the Anti-Federalists. I tell you that they sure wouldn't have supported a federal law mandating that teachers have to teach the Constitution on September 17. My own personal rebellion is to ignore that law. I do so much teaching about the Constitution in my classes and don't need any federal government mandate telling me which day in my curriculum I should do it in pure countervention of what should be the limited powers of the federal government that was in the original vision of the Founding Fathers.

Just think of what the Anti-Federalists would have thought of the federal government would have thought of Obamacare and how it will now require doctors and hospitals to ask patients about their sex lives and how many partners they have had.

Contrast how the poorest households fared under Ronald Reagan to conditions for them under Obama. This is what the Census has reported about how the poor have fared during Obama's first term.
During the four years that marked President Barack Obama’s first term in office, the real median income of American households dropped by $2,627 and the number of people in poverty increased by approximately 6,667,000, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

The record total of approximately 46,496,000 people in the United States who are now in poverty, according to the Census Bureau, is more than twice the population of Syria, which, according to the CIA, has 22,457,336 people.

In 2008, the year Obama was elected, real median household income in the United States was $53,644 according to the Census Bureau. In 2012, the last full year of Obama’s first term, median household income was $51,017. Thus, real median household income dropped $2,627—or 4.89 percent—from 2008 to 2012.

In fact, real median household income dropped in every year of Obama's first term. In 2008, when he was elected, it was $53,644. In 2009, the year he was inaugurated, it dropped to 53,285. In 2010, his second year in office, it dropped to $51,892. In 2011, his third year in office, it dropped to $51,100. And, in 2012, his fourth year in office, it dropped to $51,017.

At the same time the number of people living in poverty in the United States increased. In 2008, according to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 39,829,000 people living in poverty in this country. In 2012, there were 46,496,000. That is an increase of approximately 6,667,000—of 16.73 percent—from 2008 to 2012.

Matt Lewis makes the case for Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as a possible dark horse candidate in 2016. Of course, he has to throw his hat in the ring.

Obama has one war that he's willing to fight - against Republicans.

Even Obama's one-time supporter, Warren Buffett, is in favor scrapping Obamacare and starting over.

Chris Stirewalt wonders what Obama is so afraid of that he had to make such partisan attacks on Republicans while the Navy Yard shooting aftermath was still going on.
Why did Obama feel the need to attack while thousands of Washington residents and workers were under “shelter in place” orders? What was it about this particular version of the same attack speech Obama has been giving since 2011 that could not wait?

Nothing. And that’s the point.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney scoffed at the question, saying cancelling the speech wasn’t even considered and that what Obama did was “entirely appropriate” because “time is short.”
It’s hard to imagine that time is so short until the Oct. 1 government shutdown deadline that a day’s delay in the speech would have been so damaging, especially because it was so similar to dozens of other addresses the president has given. But in Obamaland, time is always short. In their relentless battle to own every news cycle and keep bulldozing the political press, every second counts.....

The old approach of living life on terms set by Politico and TV news means attacking, attacking, attacking and attacking. If you want to “win the day,” you’ve got to be in the day. While the approach long ago turned Obama into wallpaper, ignored through overexposure, it did provide lots of fresh video and soundbites to make sure that the Washington press corps always had something fresh (or at least freshly recycled) from the administration....But now the approach is even losing the support of those to whom Obama is catering. Politico itself today noted that Obama found “tone a challenge.” The same folks who thrilled to every fresh round of partisan bear baiting and nodded approvingly at a president whose political strategy was to explode his rivals now notes that it was unclear “what benefit the White House hoped to reap in launching a major fall offensive in the middle of a national and local tragedy that consumed media attention all day.”
The intended benefit was to keep reporters tap, tap, tapping away at their keyboards around Obama’s story line. Obama staged an entire barnstorming tour this summer that seemed substantially aimed at scolding reporters for focusing too much on his scandals and not enough on his call for more government spending, and yet you wonder why he plowed ahead with his debt-limit speech.
He was doing it for you, Politico. And this is how you repay him?
Obama seems desperately afraid to allow any news cycle to proceed without being in it somewhere. Whether it was talking to “The Pimp With the Limp” and other local deejays in 2012 or doing a Web interview this year with Zillow, Obama is always there, trying to bulldoze his way through the news cycle.
This time, since the story was in the press corps’ backyard, it became all too much. A president whose relentlessness was once considered his cardinal virtue as a subject (and, by extension, a leader) suddenly became distasteful.
Obama will make up for this by being more effusive in the aftermath of the shooting, rightly realizing he has some amends to make. But on Monday, we got a window of the mania that grips this second-term White House: the fear of being ignored.
This is how convoluted and counter-productive California's environmental policies have been.
To recap: California's emissions mandates are so onerous that they require mandates for electric cars that consumers won't buy without subsidies that go mainly to the wealthy and that are now so expensive that they have become another drain on the state budget. Look for the middle class to be hit with a fee or tax increase to make up the difference


mark said...

Once again, the conservative media is lying about Obamacare:

elkh1 said...

Everyone understands how brilliant Obama is, how much Obamacare cares. Employers turn their invaluable full time employees to part-timers so they can offer their invaluable services to more employers or spend more of their invaluable time with their families. Congress passes laws to exempt themselves and their staff, to leave more Obamacare to care for the little people. Unions love Obamacare so much, they want taxpayer subsidies to join Obamacare.

There are lies, damned lies, and there is Obamacare.

Btw, Buffett is a certified huckster. How is his brilliant investment in A123 Battery? What did he do with that pile of taxpayers' "Stimulus" money?Obamacare is for the little people, not for him. He pays full price to extend his time on earth. He doesn't give a shit how Obamacare really works, he only cares about how much more taxpayers money he can get in return for his support, how much more his insurance companies can rake in raising insurance premiums. He owns a couple insurance companies, you know?

mark said...

Pretty simple, elkh: The conservative media is caught lying yet again. How are your opinions of Obama and Buffet relevant to that?

Pat Patterson said...

Betsy-I assume you would teach something extra about the Constitution if it was a mandate from the school board?

Even in the soft left state of CA the Auditor has admitted that very few citizens will find their costs the same while most will range from 20-160% higher than promised

Betsy Newmark said...

Pat - that's the beauty of working at a charter school. I only have to defer to my administrators and our school's board. Fortunately, none of them are so intrusive as to try to tell me what specific day to teach a subject that they know I am often teaching throughout the year. But if they did, I would comply.

And Mark, thank you for the correction to the Buffett story.

Rick Caird said...

You have to remember that Warren Buffett is not personally affected by ObamaCare. He can easily purchase for cash any health care he desires. The only thing Buffett is concerned with is how he plays ObamaCare.

However, Buffett is incorrect when he claims the report is 100% incorrect. According to the story:

"According to Politico, Buffett was asked on CNBC whether he would be in favor of scrapping the Senate’s version of the health care bill; he responded: "I would be."

Since it was essentially the Senate bill that become law, there is ample evidence that Buffett was in favor of scrapping the Senate bill.