It’s Friday, February 15th, 2013….but before we begin, two picture tell us all we need to know about the state of America’s MSM:

WATERGATE 1974

Any questions?!?

And back by popular demand for an encore performance, our Valentine’s Day Ode to The Obamao:

We think that we shall never see
   a man as self-absorbed as B.
Whose only seeming daring deed
    was smoking vast amounts of weed.
Accomplishments? Can’t name a one;
    achievements? Likewise, he has none.
But lack of any aptitude
    has not decreased his attitude,
the smirking narcissistic gall
    of thinking that he knows it all.
    And though his ego boundless soars,
    he’s useless as tits on a boar.
What best describes our heartfelt ire?
    We’d hold our piss were he afire!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, courtesy of the WSJ, Messrs. Geoffrey Canada, Stanley Druckenmiller and Kevin Warsh, all of disparate backgrounds and political persuasions, nonetheless agree to….agree:

Generational Theft Needs to Be Arrested

A Democrat, an independent and a Republican agree: Government spending levels are unsustainable.

 

We come from different backgrounds, parties and pursuits but are bound by a common belief in the promise and purpose of America. After all, each of us has been the beneficiary of the choices made—and opportunities created—by previous generations of Americans.

One of us grew up poor in the South Bronx of the 1960s and went on to lead a children’s antipoverty program in Harlem. Another grew up in a small town in South Jersey, and went on to be a leading money manager. The third grew up in a small suburb in upstate New York and found his way to serve in the government amid the financial crisis.

One of us is a Democrat; one, an independent; another, a Republican. Yet, together, we recognize several hard truths: Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense and homeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed.

These truths are not born of some zeal for austerity or unkindness, but of arithmetic. The growing debt burden threatens to crush the next generation of Americans.

Coming out of the most recent elections, no consensus emerged either to reform the welfare state or to pay for it. And too many politicians appear unwilling to level with Americans about the challenges and choices confronting the United States. The failure to be forthright on fiscal policy is doing grievous harm to the country’s long-term growth prospects. And the greatest casualties will be young Americans of all stripes who want—and need—an opportunity to succeed.

Three main infirmities plague Washington and constitute a clear and present danger to the prospects for the next generation.

First, the country’s existing entitlement programs are not just unaffordable, they are also profoundly unfair to those who are taking their first steps in search of opportunity. Social Security is one example. According to Social Security actuaries, the generational theft runs deep. Young people now entering the workforce will actually lose 4.2% of their total lifetime wages because of their participation in Social Security. A typical third-grader will get back (in present value terms) only 75 cents for every dollar he contributes to Social Security over his lifetime. Meanwhile, many seniors with greater means nearing retirement age will pocket a handsome profit. Health-care spending through Medicare represents an even less equitable story.

The government has an obligation, of course, to support needy seniors. But this pension system is ripe for common-sense reforms, including changing eligibility ages and benefit structures for those with greater means, ridding the Social Security disability program of pervasive fraud, and removing disincentives for those who would rather work in their later years.

Powerful, vested interests portray reformers as avowed enemies of seniors. But, the status quo is, in fact, tantamount to saddling school-age children with more debt, weaker economic growth, and fewer opportunities for jobs and advancement.

Second, while many in Washington pay lip service to the long term, few act on it. The nation’s debt clock garners far less attention than the “fiscal cliff” clock. Elected officials continue to allow the immediate to trump the important. Washington appears poised to forego fundamental reform at the altar of the expedient, yet again. This could have tragic consequences.

In successive administrations, the country has spent trillions in temporary tax credits and short-term “stimulus” to goose growth by the next election. What do we have to show for this spending surge? Modest growth, declining incomes and a level of national debt that undermine our long-term prospects.

The Federal Reserve’s policies reinforce this short-term orientation. To offset weak economic conditions, the Fed’s principal policy objectives appear to be twofold: suppress interest rates and raise stock prices. As a result Congress may be missing market signals and failing to see the costs of its spending addiction in time to undertake real reforms. Ultimately, economic fundamentals—not the promises of central banks—will determine the prices of stocks and bonds.

But the deeper failing is one of essential fairness. The benefits of rising stock prices accrue to those who have already amassed wealth at the expense of those who are struggling to save. (Hellooooo Mr. Buffet…and his secretary!) And failing to deal with runaway spending will burden the country’s children with higher interest rates and a debt bomb that will come due in their lifetimes.

Third, too many politicians appear more eager to divide the spoils of electoral victory among their own than to increase the size of the economic pie for all. The grab-bag of special tax favors under the guise of the recent fiscal-cliff deal is only the latest example.

Crony capitalism and corporate welfare aren’t just expenses we cannot afford. They are an anathema to economic growth. They deny opportunities to aspiring people and companies who seek to better their lot. They ration opportunity based on things other than merit and hard work. They further ensure that poor children—who already are disadvantaged by failing schools, inadequate health care and little access to necessary resources—will never get the chance to break the cycle of generational poverty through education.

Some individual Americans are surely better off than they were many years ago. The more probing question is whether America is better off. That can only be true if the hopes and aspirations of the next generation are achievable.

The country must find the courage, conviction and compassion to fix what ails it. The opportunity to advance real reform is still possible. But failure to reform the entitlement culture, reaffirm long-run objectives, and re-establish a common purpose will mean a dimming of opportunities for American children today and for future generations. And a great nation will have ceded more than its greatness, but its goodness.

We understand the authors’ desire to appear dispassionately bipartisan; but as you can see from our photo inserts, we ain’t buyin’ the concept of equal responsibility between the parties….at least not now, when it counts most.

Forget the past and whatever fiscal heresies Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay and George W. Bush may have perpetrated; the only thing standing at present between America and the solution to all her ills starts with a “D”….

….and ends with “self-loathing, America-hating, hypocritical, lying, limousine-Liberal, corporate-jet flying Dimocrat”.

That having been said, the vast majority of what Messrs. Canada, Druckenmiller and Warsh wrote is balls-on dead accurate.

In a related item, also from the WSJ, Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, focuses on yet another of The Dear Misleader’s fallacious fabrications:

The $9 Minimum Wage That Already Exists

The Earned Income Tax Credit alleviates poverty without costing low-income workers their jobs.

 

On Tuesday night, President Obama used his State of the Union address to call for a 24% increase in the federal minimum wage, to $9 an hour from its current $7.25. He left out an important detail: For many low-wage employees, single parents in particular, the minimum wage is already above $9 an hour.

That is because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts wages for workers at the bottom of the pay scale without putting their jobs or incomes at risk—which is one consequence of hiking the minimum wage. If Mr. Obama is dead set on using the government to boost wages, the EITC is the place to start, as the evidence suggests that minimum wage increases have no appreciable impact on poverty.

The EITC was created in 1975 by President Ford as a small wage supplement for low-income families. Subsequent presidents of both parties (including President Obama in 2009) have expanded the tax credit, and 24 states even offer a credit of their own as a percentage of the federal credit.

Republicans have supported this tax credit because eligibility is based on working and earning income. Democrats hail the EITC because it’s refundable, meaning that a low-wage family without any tax liability nevertheless can file a tax return and get a check from the government. In a state such as New York, a single parent raising two children on the minimum wage would see their annual wage of $15,080 jump to $21,886 with the EITC, for an effective hourly wage of $10.52.

Compared with the EITC, government-mandated minimum wage increases have major flaws. One is targeting: According to the Census Bureau, 60% of people living below the poverty line didn’t work last year. They don’t need a raise; they need a job, period. And among those who do work and earn the minimum wage, researchers at Cornell and American University have found that the vast majority live in households above the poverty line.

This partially explains why numerous studies have found no relationship between a higher minimum wage and lower poverty rates—because, unlike the EITC, the benefits generally aren’t accruing to those in poverty.

Which is why the “minimum wage” was never intended for anything but young, entry-level workers.

Another reason a higher minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty rates is that a hike in hourly pay doesn’t necessarily translate to an annual income bump. If employers faced with suddenly higher labor costs reduce hours or employment, take-home pay will decline. Economists writing in the Journal of Human Resources in 2005 found that to be the case, with the “losers” from a higher minimum wage—who moved closer to the poverty line after the policy was passed—outnumbering the winners.

The EITC has a very different research track record. In a study published by the Employment Policies Institute last year, economists Joseph Sabia at San Diego State University and Robert Nielsen at the University of Georgia found a 1% drop in state poverty rates associated with each 1% increase in a state’s EITC. A 2007 study by Mr. Sabia found that a higher Earned Income Tax Credit can boost the wages and employment of single mothers. But the employment of single mothers dropped by 6% for each 10% hike in the minimum wage. (Hmmmm!)

The president can choose to expand or improve the Earned Income Tax Credit and thus have a measurable impact on poverty rates. Or he can hike the minimum wage. This might win him support among his labor-union allies. It won’t do any good for the low-income unemployed, and it will add to their numbers.

Since we’re on the subject of numbers, consider this graph from the Daily Kos, purportedly proving the inherent inadequacies of the current minimum wage:

What inquiring minds really want to know is, given the devaluation over time of the value of any earned dollar, would not the effect of this depreciation equally impact every amount of income….at any wage or salary level?

Just curious.

Meanwhile, courtesy of Bill Meisen, the pig who deems himself far more equal than others, the one who pledged he would not rest until every American enjoyed full employment, sees now as the time for a propitious pause:

Obama to Vacation in West Palm Beach

 

Taxpayers will be sending President Obama on his second vacation of the year when he departs Friday aboard Air Force One for a Presidents’ Day Weekend excursion to West Palm Beach, Florida. Without apparent irony, Obama has decided to jet to a well-trod stomping ground of the rich just days after presenting himself to the nation in his State of the Union speech as the guardian of the middle class.

Obama presumably will head directly to some fabulous golf course, having not been able to play in recent weeks because of the cold weather in Washington. While Obama may pay some hotel and other miscellaneous costs related to his vacation travel, taxpayers are on the hook for much of the expense, shelling out for the president’s travel aboard Air Force One, a cargo plane that carries supplies, and the cost of the president’s substantial staff and security retinue.

While unemployment stands at nearly eight percent, Obama is taking his second vacation of 2013. The year is only six weeks old. Obama initially traveled to Hawaii in late December. He returned after a several days to work on a fiscal cliff deal, and then went back for several more days in early January after signing a bill. So this will also be the third time in less than two months that taxpayers have footed the bill for a round-trip Obama vacation.

It’s not clear if Michelle is going with him – the White House announcement of Obama’s plans doesn’t mention her. She usually goes skiing in the Rockies around this point in the year.

Yeah.  And Nero….

Next up, courtesy of the AEI, James Pethokoukis details the impact of….

State taxes and the Great Income Migration

 

Correlation doesn’t prove causality, but it is certainly worth noting the correlation between state income taxes and the flow of income. And thus it is worth reading How Money Walks by Travis Brown, head of a St. Louis-based public affairs and advocacy firm. Using IRS data, Brown has mapped the movement of some $2 trillion in adjusted gross income across America from 1995 through 2010. Among his findings:

1. The nine states with no personal income taxes gained $146 billion.

2. The nine states with the highest personal income taxes lost $107 billion.

3. The 10 states with the lowest per capita state tax burden gained $70 billion.

4. The 10 states with the highest per capita state tax burden lost $139 billion.

To dig a bit deeper, Texas, with no personal income tax and the sixth-lowest state-local tax burden in the US, gained $22 billion. California, with the top marginal income tax rate and the fourth highest state-local tax burden, lost $32 billion.

Brown:

Incentives matter. Taxes may not be the sole reason Americans moved $2 trillion of their AGI between the states, but there is a clear and unmistakable pattern here: Incomes moved to where taxes were lower.

And one should expect the impact of increased federal taxes to be….any different?!?  C’mon; have Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, their pronouncements in favor of paying higher taxes notwithstanding, ever voluntarily increased their contributions to the national treasury?!?

Which brings us to the “Saaaayyyy WHAT?!?” segment, and the following fable:

Cabin where rogue ex-LAPD was holed up not intentionally burned down, sheriff says

 

Not based on what the following two video clips suggest; we report, YOU decide:

 

 Yeah, they didn’t mean to burn him out; you know….just like Waco:

Turning South of the Border, as this forward from Bill Meisen relates, in Liberal Land, words carry no meaning, as an….

Illegal immigrant tells Congress not to call him illegal

 

Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant and former reporter, scolded a congressional panel on Wednesday, saying that he should not be called illegal, and saying it is an insult to his family who brought him here. “When you inaccurately call me illegal, you not only dehumanize me, you’re offending them,” he said. “No human being is illegal.”

Mr. Vargas testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee alongside Chris Crane — a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and president of the ICE agents’ union — who is unable to arrest him under the administration’s new non-deportation policies. Mr. Vargas, who “came out” as an illegal immigrant several years ago, delivered an emotional plea for the country to legalize him.

“What do you want to do with us?” he asked the committee.

Last week, a top House Democrat also warned colleagues against using the term “illegal immigrants.” “Our citizens are not — the people in this country are not illegal. They are are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants,” Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, told colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee.

Many immigrant-rights advocates object to the terms “illegal” and “alien,” saying that people cannot be deemed illegal, and that the word “alien” makes them sound inhuman. They argue the better terms are “undocumented migrants.”

Soooo….can we assume referring to you as a “Pulitzer Prize-winning wetback” is out?!?

And in today’s Money Quote, Yuval Levin, writing at NRO‘s The Corner explores what’s behind the “nothing” in The Obamao’s Misstatement of the Union:

“….You have to try to cover up such things, of course, especially if you’re a Democrat, and so the president did speak of all manner of obnoxious federal micromanagement initiatives with fancy names—manufacturing hubs, a “partnership to rebuild America,” a challenge to “redesign America’s schools,” an “Energy Security Trust,” and so on. But you know what these things are? They’re nothing. They’re the headings that the wonks in a Democratic White House put at the top of otherwise blank memos at the beginning of a process that, months later, is supposed to end up with a budget and a State of the Union address. And here they were at the end of that process with barely more meat on their bones than when they started. Some of these proposals might “happen” and some of them will not, but there won’t be any difference between the two.“

Which is why the poverty level hasn’t moved even a titch in the 49 years, and well over $6 trillion, since Lyndon Johnson sought to buy votes via his Great Society legislation.

On the Lighter Side….

And in the Sports Section, proof positive Hell hath no fury like a goalie scorned….at least when it comes to hockey!

Turns out senior goalie Austin Krause was a bit miffed over having to share playing time with sophomore Gage Overby, despite having started 10 of Farmington’s 23 games; not to mention Overby posting a shutout the last time Farmington and Chasta met.  Evidently, Krause harbored an irrepressible desire for retribution — on senior night no less — and because of a concussion suffered by the sophomore Overby, he was presented with an irresistible opportunity for revenge.

Finally, we’ll call it a week with James Taranto’s absolutely accurate depiction of….

The Kind of Capitalism Obama Loves 

 

Our item yesterday on a kerfuffle involving Rep. Bill Schuster prompted reader Brendan Jones (among others) to make a point we wish we’d thought of:

Something I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on with regard to that quote of President Obama’s citing the president of Siemens America supporting high-speed rail.

Of course Siemens is in favor of HSR. Siemens manufactures HSR equipment. They’re one of the primary developers of the ICE, which is Germany’s take on the French TGV. In fact, Siemens just won a major contract from Amtrak to supply new electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor.

The fact that Siemens executives want the country to invest in upgrading infrastructure is about as newsworthy as the fact that Ford Motor executives want the country to have cheap auto loans and good highways.

In Siemens’s case the self-interest is even more direct. If Washington spends more money on infrastructure, it’s sending your tax dollars right to Siemens.

Which once again proves, in the best tradition of Representative Joe Wilson, Republicans right….and The Obamao a bald-faced liar.

Magoo