Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi states that the new unemployment benefits package should be passed because unemployment benefits stimulate the economy and thus create jobs.  They are in fact, according to her, one of the best job creators because the unemployment benefits are so desperately needed that they will spend the money immediately thus stimulating the economy and generating jobs. The only thing more disturbing than her own belief in this ludicrous comment is that she is only two heartbeats away from being the president.

Arthur Laffer is one of the most insightful and successful economists because  his policies actually having been shown to work.  True understanding of complex systems can be demonstrated in the power to predict.  His predictions and rationales have demonstrated that understanding of wealth creation and economic behavior.  Laffer wrote a retort to Pelosi’s Alice in Wonderland statement, without mentioning her name, likely to avoid embarrassing her with her own words, in a recent Wall Street Journal article “Unemployment Benefits Aren’t Stimulus”, explaining how paying unemployment benefits does not create jobs.

Not only is the payment itself an incentive not to work, Laffer explains, but the dollar spent by the unemployed must be paid by another taxpayer so the net incentive must total zero, not including the huge costs the government incurs to execute the transfer that someone else must also pay for.  We have strayed so far from common sense that it is now considered profound just to state the obvious.

Arthur Laffer

George W. Bush was deemed an idiot by his strongest critics for his lack of eloquence at the microphone.  I am far more concerned with the statements from leaders that show a complete lack of understanding of the way the world works, a contempt for common sense, or a blind rejection of empirical evidence. Eloquence makes none of this more tolerable; it only makes it more disturbing.

YouTube holds political leaders more accountable that all the journalists in the field.  “We have to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it, and  “I have to listen to the experts so I will know whose ass to kick,”  become highly viewed video symbols of our leaders’ incompetence.

I was listening to a lady on talk radio explain why it was a good idea to spend stimulus money to help the owners of convenience stores puts racks of fresh vegetables next to the Slim Jims and Yahoo chocolate drinks.  It was amazing to listen to her quote the reams of data used to substantiate why this was both useful and necessary. In an age of unlimited information we apparently do not have to be restricted by common sense; we can substantiate anything.

I question whether such lunacy would have found a media outlet in the days before infinite channels. Perhaps the biggest benefit of less media was being forced to be more judicious in bringing viewpoints to the public airways, but the cost would be the risk that we may be spared the statements that show the true failings of our top leaders.

Dorothy reveals the Wizard

We may find comfort in illusions but if Dorothy and her posse did not pull back the curtains and expose the wizard they never would have been able to return to Kansas.

With a substantial majority in both houses the Democrats are having a difficult time passing the health care bill. Either the bill sucks or the party leaders; Pelosi and Reid are political incompetents.

While I agree that the bill is just disastrous in its content, the raw political arrogance and incompetence only makes it worse. The Slaughter rule that threatens to consider the bill affirmed without a vote will likely cause such outrage that many of those sitting on the fence will likely tilt against it, especially if the vote is dragged out beyond the Easter break.

If it is passed through without an up or down vote, the losers will be the Democrats who stood against it.  With no up or down vote, the voters can only assume that EVERY Democrat voted for it. In other words forcing this bill through with this method will hurt the Democrats much more in the coming election.

The critical miscalculation is assuming that this bill is all or nothing; it must be passed now or never.  Such thinking is extremely limiting. Power comes from expanding options, not limiting them.  There are plenty of options for improving health coverage and controlling costs that are not covered in this bill.

The Democratic leadership is inflicting itself with defeat for years to come.  This is an incredible feat considering the leads they had only a year ago.  A good bill does not need bribes and favoritism to pass, and it certainly does not need to consider radical procedural modifications to game the vote. The only bipartisan part of this bill seems to be the opposition.

It is stunning to see such a reversal in the Democrat’s fortune in the course of one year.  As the electorate sees the hopes and dreams degenerate into deficits and taxes, the administration will be inclined to spin the outcome into something other than the rejection that it is.

It is clear that the Democrats misread the mandate. But what should they have done?

Clearly the financial system needed reform. Obama could have started by addressing problems in the banking and financial system that would have clearly enjoyed bipartisan support, and would have been seen as a consensus builder.

The administration could have addressed unemployment with tax credits rather than reckless deficit spending.  But when the first program out of the box is to force unions down the throat of business, trample bankruptcy law in the case of GM, pass a hugely flawed Cap and Trade bill, and then force and even more flawed Health Care bill riddled with blatant bribes, then he has created such political uncertainty that economic remedies are effectively neutered.

But the voters’ rejection is as much about style as policy. The unmitigated partisanship, arrogance and deafness to public concerns has pissed off the electorate.

The president prefers making grand speeches to the dirty process of passing legislation. He may have promised change but what we got were old leftists exploiting a crisis to pass unpopular legislation.  His call for openness was greeted with contempt by his own party leaders.

If I were a Democrat I would place a large portion of the blame for this destructive hubris at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  The party picked two horribly divisive leaders. If the Democrats hope to save the ship they need to mutiny and get better captains.