It’s Friday, January 6th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

Leading off the last edition of the week, The Great Prevaricator strikes again:

Obama Embraces Signing Statements After Knocking Bush for Using Them

Candidate Barack Obama criticized President Bush for using ‘signing statements’ to ignore the will of Congress. But Obama’s done the same thing 20 times since taking office, and his latest effort is rankling lawmakers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/04/obama-embraces-signing-statements-after-knocking-bush-for-using-them.html

My….what a surprise!  And this from The Daily Beast no less, and before The Obamao’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments when Congress wasn’t in recess.

Which brings up an intriguing question which seems lost on the Brainiacs running the GOP; B. Hussein claims his recess appointments were legal because the Senate was only in “pro forma” session, i.e., doing very little business and thus effectively in recess.  However, the Senate was in this same pro forma session when it voted to pass The Obamao’s payroll tax cut extension.

So, the way we see it, either the payroll tax cut extension is dead, or his “recess” appointment are invalid; the Boy Blunder cannot have it both ways.

But don’t look for Frick and Frack….

….to effectively call this constitutional contradiction to anyone’s attention.

Speaking of patent Progressive prevarication, James Taranto offers the latest bit of hypocrisy from former-Enron adviser Paul Krugman, entitled….

Two Papers in One!

• “It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses. Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments–a constitutional gimmick. . . . Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton made scores of recess appointments. But both of them faced a Congress controlled by the opposition party, while the Senate has been under Republican control for Mr. Bush’s entire five years in office.”–editorial, New York Times, Jan. 9, 2006

• “Nearly six months after it opened its doors, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finally has a director, after President Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray. . . . Mr. Obama also appointed three new and qualified members to the National Labor Relations Board. . . . Announcing the appointments, Mr. Obama also asserted a welcome new credo: ‘When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.’ Hear. Hear.”–editorial, New York Times, Jan. 5, 2012

And since we’re on the subject of  putting the nation at risk, Benedict Arnold had nothing on….

Obama: With Coming Cuts to Defense, New Military Will Be Leaner, Still Superior

Superior to who….Albania….Guatemala….Sri Lanka?!?  Sure as hell not….

….the ChiComs!

In a related item, here’s the WSJ‘s take on the subject:

Obama’s Defense Drawdown

Entitlements begin to crowd out the American military.

President Obama yesterday put in a rare appearance at the Pentagon, flanked by the four service chiefs and his Secretary of Defense. Saying that now is the time to cash in a peace dividend, he unveiled plans for a significantly slimmed-down military. This dance was choreographed to convey strength. Everything else about it showed how domestic entitlements are beginning to squeeze the U.S. military.

This self-inflicted attack on defense comes at a strange time. True, the U.S. cut deeply after World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War—and in each case came to regret it soon enough when new threats emerged. But peace doesn’t characterize our time. Mr. Obama yesterday wielded his familiar line that “the tide of war is receding,” which will please his antiwar base but will come as news to the Marines in Afghanistan or the Navy ships patrolling the tense Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon shouldn’t be immune to fiscal scrutiny, yet this Administration has targeted defense from its earliest days and has kept on squeezing. The White House last year settled with Congress on $450 billion in military budget cuts through 2021, on top of the $350 billion in weapons programs killed earlier. Defense spending next year will fall 1% in nominal terms. The Pentagon also faces another $500 billion in possible cuts starting next January under “sequestration,” unless Congress steps in first.

Taken altogether, the budget could shrink by over 30% in the next decade. The Administration projects outlays at 2.7% of GDP in 2021, down from 4.5% last year (which included the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan). That would put U.S. outlays at 1940 levels—a bad year. As recently as 1986, a better year, the U.S. spent 6.2% of GDP on defense with no detrimental economic impact.

What’s different now? The growing entitlement state. The Administration is making a political choice and sparing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are set to hit nearly 11% of GDP by 2020. And that’s before $2.6 trillion for ObamaCare, which will surely cost more. 

The Obamao Flanked by Four Modern Versions of Benedict Arnold

These entitlements are already crowding out spending on defense and thus reducing America’s global standing, following the tragic path that Europe has taken. The difference is that Europe had the U.S. military in reserve. Who will backstop America?

We’re told that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who came into office last summer, says he doesn’t want to go down in history as the man who “hollowed out” America’s military. (Too which we can only respond, BULLSH*T!!!) But the security trade-offs foisted on him by the White House will leave the military a less formidable, ready and dominant force in a still very dangerous world.

Part of the problem is that military personnel costs are exploding on pace to exceed the entire defense budget by 2030, according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. It’s hard to make the political and moral case to reduce benefits for veterans and soldiers, but here’s where Mr. Panetta could show mettle on Capitol Hill, especially by reforming military health care. The bulk of any defense budget is better spent on equipment, training and research.

Specific cuts will be spelled out in detail in the next Pentagon budget. The Navy, Air Force and Marines are flying old planes and waiting on the next generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, which comes with stealth technology. Previous Pentagon chief Bob Gates justified ending F-22 purchases by pointing to the F-35. But now the F-35 will likely be further trimmed and delayed.

After a decade of war, all the services need to replace worn-down equipment. U.S. nuclear submarines, missiles and bombers purchased during the Reagan buildup are reaching the end of their service lives. They need to be replaced, but they probably won’t be soon.

Mr. Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, tried gamely yesterday to dress up these cuts not as a drawdown but as a “strategic shift.” The Pentagon will spend less on the infantry to nation-build—now so unpopular—and will switch instead to defend the Pacific and new threats from cyberwarfare and in space.

But where are the resources to match the ambitions, such as new ships to patrol the Pacific? The planned reduction in troop strength is an “acceptable risk” (in General Dempsey’s words) since this Administration doesn’t plan to fight ground wars or pursue any Afghan-style “stabilization” missions. Too bad Commanders-in-Chief don’t get to choose history’s next surprise.

The real message to the world is that the Administration wants to scale back U.S. leadership. This was part of the rationale behind the White House’s reluctance to take the initiative in the Middle East last year, as well as the attempts to mollify Iran’s mullahs and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Now the Administration plans to draw down troops and America’s profile in Africa, Latin America and Europe. The Navy can easily match Iran’s threats in the Persian Gulf now, but what about in 10 years? (But what about the ChiComs?!?)

President Obama ended his remarks yesterday by quoting Dwight Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.” The line comes from his 1961 Farewell Address, better known as the “military-industrial complex” speech. Mr. Obama’s new defense posture brings to mind another Eisenhower line, offered two years earlier: “Weakness in arms often invites aggression.”

Two questions and one thought come to mind; first, why is it spending on America’s Armed Forces, one of the few areas of federal responsibility actually spelled out in the Constitution, seems to be the ONLY line item of the budget actually being cut? (Largely because our military “leadership” hasn’t the testosterone to resign en masse in protest; we’re these Quislings willing to do so, Team Tick-Tock would be toast.  And please understand, we consider as friends some of those we accuse of collaboration.)

Second, why are members of the U.S. Military the ONLY public employees whose pensions and benefits are subject to reform? (Because they’re predominantly a Republican voting bloc.)

Lastly, only through the grace of God will we survive this Marxist’s first term; America cannot and will not withstand a second four years. (Just a hard and simple truth!)

Any questions?!?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, the Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel details:

The GOP’s Working Class Muddle

The Santorum and Romney campaigns are following Democrats down the class-warfare rabbit hole.

Joe the Plumber might seem oh-so-2008, but as it happens he’s alive and voting in New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond. He’s that unhappy voter that Republican contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are pitching so hard to win. A little too hard, as it happens.

If Republicans have an opening this year, it is with the white working class, a crowd the Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging for decades. Barack Obama did better than John Kerry or Al Gore with these voters, though even he earned just 43% of their vote.

That was Mr. Obama’s high point. In 2010 a record 63% of this bloc voted for the GOP. And there are signs that, whether out of calculation or desperation, Team Obama may be abandoning them altogether—instead looking for 2012 victory in a progressive coalition of educated, socially liberal voters, combined with poorer ethnic voters, in particular Hispanics.

The white working class will make up as much as 55% of the vote in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Front-runner Mitt Romney knows it, as does Mr. Santorum. Their fight in New Hampshire and beyond will increasingly be over who can earn more points with this group. Their styles are very different, if equally damaging to the conservative growth message.

Mr. Santorum surged in Iowa as the “I’m One of You” candidate. On the stump, and in his victory speech in Iowa, he’s highlighted his working-class roots. He kicked off his campaign near the Pennsylvania coal mines where his grandfather worked, and he talks frequently of struggling steel towns.

He’s the frugal guy, the man of faith, the person who understands the financial worries of average Americans. He’s directly contrasting his own blue-collar bona fides with those of the more privileged Mr. Romney. Identity politics is often a winner, and Mr. Santorum does it well. If only he could stop at identifying with this audience, rather than feeling the need to give them special favors.

As he explained this week, he doesn’t agree with the Democrats who are about “raising taxes” and “increasing dependency.” Yet he also doesn’t agree with Republicans who say “let’s just cut taxes, let’s just reduce spending, and everything will be fine.” Rather, he believes his job is to “look at those who are not doing well in our society.”

And so at the heart of the Santorum agenda are policies designed to give special handouts to the working class, simply because they are the working class—and even then only to segments of this group. That’s behind Mr. Santorum’s zero corporate tax on manufacturers, which benefits only Americans working in manufacturing. (Job at Wal-Mart? No soup for you!) It’s behind his plan to triple the child tax credit, which benefits only Americans fortunate enough to have a child. (Stalled love life? No soup for you, either!) Call it preferential populism.

By contrast, the former Massachusetts governor has been from the start the “I’m All About You” candidate. Mr. Romney wants Americans to know that he is in the tank for the middle class. He’s seeking to channel their economic anger with his protectionist stances against China. He wants them to know that he’s not “for tax cuts for the rich,” because the “rich can take care of themselves.” He’s only for zeroing out taxes on capital gains for those people making less than $200,000.

Team Romney is hoping this won’t just win him voters but will also inoculate him against the rap that he is a hard-hearted millionaire. Mr. Romney doesn’t want to engage in the rich-versus-not-rich debate. He wants to be for the not-rich and move on.

What both campaigns are in fact doing is following Democrats down the class-warfare rabbit hole. Spooked by the Democrats’ inequality theme, the Romney and Santorum campaigns are taking the narrow view, catering to the blue-collar vote, playing the class game.

In an election that needs to be about contrasts, this is point Obama. Game on for candidate Santorum, who gets to explain why his own policies for government to reward certain classes of citizens over others are any different than Mr. Obama’s. Or let’s see candidate Romney knock Mr. Obama’s proposals to further tax America’s job creators, those Mr. Romney thinks are doing “just fine.” The bigger risk is that a Republican president actually pursues these distorting economic policies, sacrificing growth.

These are mistakes Ronald Reagan would never have made. The Californian was great at identifying with Everyman, but he never pitted the classes against each other. He understood the winning politics of growth and how to tie the aspirations of average earners with those more successful. His was a message of opportunity and optimism, and if the 2010 election showed anything, it was that the white working class is more open than ever to hearing that argument again.

When America needs a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative most, all the GOP has to offer is….

….RINO’s.  Then again, a pair of anything, even jack-offs, beat a empty suit!

Next up, it’s the “MSM Bias….WHAT Bias?!?” segment, courtesy today of former-Enron adviser Paul Krugman and Best of the Web:

Enron vs. Enron

What sets former Enron adviser Paul Krugman apart from someone like E.J. “Baghdad Bob” Dionne is the former’s intellectual credentials. Not only is Krugman a professor at an Ivy League university, he has a Nobel Prize honoring research he conducted long before becoming a partisan hack at the New York Times.

But as a sage once observed, “sometimes people with impressive credentials do talk complete nonsense,” and Krugman regularly manages to challenge Dionne at the latter’s own game. Blogger Tom Maguire finds an especially rich case in point: Krugman’s Sunday column, in which he pooh-poohs “the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit”:

The economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!

And while they’ve been waiting, those rates have dropped to historical [sic] lows. You might think that this would make politicians question their choice of experts–that is, you might think that if you didn’t know anything about our postmodern, fact-free politics.

Maguire does some historical research and finds Krugman’s column of March 11, 2003, titled “A Fiscal Train Wreck”:

With war looming, it’s time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits. . . .

That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2–make that 3, O.K., maybe 4–percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. ”Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen.” So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest. . ;. .

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won’t happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

Unlike his 2003 counterpart, the 2012 Krugman does not put his money where his mouth is. Nowhere in his current column does he say he is thinking of refinancing his mortgage again to get an adjustable rate. Apparently he had more confidence in his warnings then than he does in his reassurances now.

For more on the subject of “That Was Then, THIS Is Now!”, we turn again to James Taranto, and his report on a sudden case of Leftist amnesia:

Pogo Progressives

With Bush gone, they have met the enemy. You’ll never guess who it is.

“We used to be able to blame the Bush administration for Guantánamo,” writes The Nation’s David Cole in the hard-left magazine. No kidding! In case you’ve forgotten–we hear a lot less about the place these days–Guantanamo is a U.S. naval base in Cuba where the Pentagon set up a detention facility for terrorists not long after the 9/11 attacks. As Cole notes, the anti-antiterror left loved to vilify George W. Bush for his detention policies.

But Bush left office just under three years ago, and the Guantanamo detention facility was to have been shuttered a year later. Somehow that didn’t happen. So whom are we to blame now? The obvious answer would be whoever replaced Bush as president. But to hear Cole tell it, that office is now vacant: “Although the executive, legislative and judicial branches are all deeply implicated in the ongoing injustice, we can’t really lay the blame on the government. Guantánamo is our problem as citizens.” David Cole is a Pogo progressive: He has met the enemy, and it is us.

Our 43rd and 44th Presidents

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly, another left-leaning magazine, has an exciting special issue surveying the Republican presidential field and “imagining the consequences of a GOP victory.” An introduction carrying the byline “the Editors” explains that “we asked a distinguished group of reporters and scholars to think through the hitherto unthinkable: What if one of these people actually wins?”

If an electoral victory by one of the country’s major political parties was “unthinkable” until just now, that must mean America has recently undergone a transition to democracy, like Eastern European countries did after 1989 or North African lands are attempting in the wake of the Arab Spring. Who knows, maybe the power vacuum left by George W. Bush’s departure will end up producing a change for the better.

On the Lighter Side….

Finally, we’ll call it a week with what Jonah Goldberg terms his….

Olberfreude Watch

Thus, for the first time in our life, we disagree with Jonah Goldberg; we’d rather watch reruns of Dancing With The Stars, The Apprentice or Glee.  Okay, we’d rather have our toenails torn out!

Enjoy your weekend!

Magoo