It’s Friday, September 16th, 2011….but before we begin, a quick question: based on her latest column….and at the risk of ending a sentence with a preposition….what planet is Peggy Noonan FROM?!?

Now, here’s the Gouge!

First up on the last Gouge of the week, in an item courtesy of the WSJ, Paul Peterson and Dan Nadler call Project Porkulus, Part Deux, what it is:

A Blue-State Bailout in Disguise

Our new study shows that under the Obama jobs bill, debt-ridden states will get another big handout.

Last Thursday, the president urged Congress to pony up roughly $200 billion in taxpayer money to “provide more jobs for teachers [and] more jobs for construction workers” and more money to carry out other state and local activities. He urges Congress to spend this money even after handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for similar purposes as part of the 2009 stimulus package, as well as a score and more billion dollars again in 2010.

These vast contributions to the coffers of state and local governments, though pitched as a jobs bill, are in reality the latest in a series of bailouts for debt-ridden state and local governments. They are of special benefit to states in the blue regions of the country where the president’s most fervent supporters reside.

In many blue states, legislators have copied the politicians in Washington by running up state debts to extraordinary levels. Nationwide, state debt is running around $3 trillion. If unfunded pension liabilities are factored in, estimated liabilities leap forward by another $1 trillion to $3 trillion, depending on the optimism of the assumptions made.

The bond market has taken notice. Before the 2008 financial crisis, state sovereign debt was just about the safest place to invest. Because investors did not pay taxes on the interest, states were able to borrow money at rates below those paid for federal securities. With the onset of the financial crisis, not only did borrowing costs rise across the board, but differences in interest rates among states widened dramatically. Bond holders concluded that some states, like Greece, had been extraordinarily profligate and, even worse, lacked the will to rein in their expenditures.

In a new study at Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, we discovered why the Obama administration is so interested in helping out the states. States with a bluish hue—that is, states with legislatures that are heavily Democratic and have a highly unionized public-sector work force—must pay interest rates that are often an extra half a percentage point higher than states with a reddish coloring.

Specifically, a 20 percentage-point increment in either the Democratic share of the state legislature or a comparable increase in the share of the public work force that is unionized drives up interest rates by nearly a half a percentage point on a five-year security note. That amount is nontrivial. In Obama’s home state of Illinois, it is costing governments over $700 million annually.

The impact of these political factors on interest rates is in addition to the impact of standard economic factors, such as a state’s unemployment rate, its gross domestic product growth, and its debt-to-GDP ratio, all of which are themselves shaped in part by the state’s political climate.

In short, the bond market has concluded that the more unionized the state and the bluer its political coloring, the riskier it is to hold bonds marketed by that state.

States will face even higher interest rates if the president’s proposed limit on the deductibility of state and municipal bond interest income (to help pay for the jobs plan) is enacted. If the interest is no longer deductible, investors will demand a higher rate of return for buying bonds, and state calls for more federal aid will intensify.

Federal rescue of states is a dramatic departure from past practice. State bankruptcies date back to the 1840s when, amid a financial crisis, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and five other states discovered they had invested too heavily in infrastructure. The last state bankruptcy was in Arkansas during the 1930s. But overall the instances were few; in each case the federal government refused to come up with a fix.

Bankrupt states paid the price, but for the country as a whole, a system of fiscally sovereign states has proven incredibly beneficial to the nation’s economic well-being. Every state is responsible for its own police, fire, schools, transport and much more, and most of the time they do reasonably well. If they manage their affairs so as to attract business, commerce and talented workers, states prosper. If states make a mess of things, citizens and businesses vote with their feet, marching off to a part of the country that works better.

It is this exceptional federalist system that helped drive the rapid growth of the American economy throughout the first two centuries of the country’s history. Because state and local governments competed with one another for venture capital, entrepreneurial talent and skilled workers, governments generally had to be attentive to the needs of both citizens and commerce.

When it comes to fiscal sovereignty, U.S. federalism is exceptional. Hardly any other country in the world has anything like it. Only Switzerland and Canada—two nations that aren’t doing that badly these days—come close.

But federal fiscal bailouts put our federal system at risk. In essence, the national government is acting as if states are too big to fail. In the next financial crisis, the federal government may decide that states need to be treated like General Motors or, at least, be given ever bigger handouts of the kind the Obama administration seems committed to making.

But if the federal government is going to tacitly assume responsibility for state debts, then those $3 trillion in sovereign state debt must be added to the $14 trillion national debt that has already caused grave concern, pushing the current U.S. debt into the danger zone. Even if pension liabilities are ignored, the combined federal-state-local debt runs in excess of 120% of GDP.

The costs go beyond dollars and cents. The more often the federal government bails out the states, the more Washington bureaucrats will insist on regulating state and local affairs. At some point the United States will see the end of state fiscal sovereignty and the demise our federal system of government.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson notes that, as the Dimocrats 2012 fortunes appear increasingly “dim”,….

Obama Becomes the Fall Guy

Suddenly, liberal op-ed writers are trashing — even lampooning — Barack Obama as a one-term president (“one and done”). Centrist Democrats up for re-election in 2012 openly worry about inviting a kindred president into their districts, lest the supposed new pariah lose them votes.

Left-wing think tanks, environmentalists and academics vent their anger against Obama for supposedly being too soft on Republicans, and too ready to compromise with right-wingers. But what really caused the left-wing falling-out, less than three years after the hope-and-change crush on Barack Obama?

For now, polls. (And we must, of need, emphasize the term “for now”!)

Obama’s popularity has plummeted to little more than 40 percent approval. Suddenly, Democrats worry that the public anger could be contagious. It might infect them as well — in the way a sinking George W. Bush hurt congressional Republicans up for re-election in 2006.

Yet the left cannot fairly blame Obama. After all, he rammed through on a strictly partisan vote the century-old liberal dream of a federal takeover of health care — something that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton never could do. Keynesians never dreamed that a president could actually borrow $5 trillion for domestic spending in less than three years.

The Obama administration even tried to shut down a brand-new Boeing aircraft plant on the shaky argument that the company might thereby be hiring fewer union workers somewhere else. For environmentalists, Obama kept oil producers out of new fields in Alaska, the American West, the Gulf and other offshore sites. Hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money went to failed “wind and solar” plants in an effort to jump-start “millions of green jobs.”

The Obama revolution under the radar was even more insidious. Open-borders activists were promised that the government would not bother illegal aliens unless they were wanted for felonies. Never before has the United States joined a foreign government in suing one of its own states — in the fashion that both the Justice Department and Mexico have either filed or joined suits seeking to overturn Arizona’s immigration law. (Not that the MSM would note this drastic departure from convention in its coverage!)

From January 2009 through 2010, Obama advanced the liberal dream with a passion not seen since the New Deal days of Franklin Roosevelt. He bulldozed all opposition and rammed through most of what he wanted from a Democratic Congress — Obamacare, record borrowing, record spending, hundreds of hard-left presidential appointees and judges.

Far from being namby-pamby, Obama has gone after opponents like no president since Richard Nixon. (Which requires us to ask, yet again, from what planet Peggy Noonan hails.) He urged Hispanics to “punish our enemies.” He called his political opponents “hostage takers.” The affluent were lumped together with the super-rich and derided as “millionaires and billionaires, “corporate jet owners” and “fat cat” bankers. His supporters in unions and the Congressional Black Caucus freely blasted the Tea Party with slurs — with the unspoken assurances that the president’s constant calls for civility certainly did not apply to them.

Critics may lampoon Obama’s use of a teleprompter, but he still uses it to good effect in his near-daily speeches. Obama is a far better megaphone for left-wing policies than was the lackluster Jimmy Carter, the pompous Al Gore or the condescending John Kerry. He easily outshines the wooden Harry Reid and the polarizing Nancy Pelosi. Compared to Obama and his smoothness, an often gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden can seem a liability. Obama is as charismatic as “I feel your pain” Bill Clinton — as we saw in 2008, when Obama destroyed the primary challenge of Hillary Clinton.

So the left cannot really complain either that Obama betrayed the cause or proved particularly inept in advancing it. Instead, what Obama’s supporters are mad about is that the public is boiling over chronic 9 percent unemployment, a comatose housing market, escalating food and fuel prices, near nonexistent economic growth, a gyrating stock market, record deficits, $16 trillion in aggregate debt, and a historic credit downgrading. (The ultimate “Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?!?” if we’ve ever heard one.) And voters are not just mad, but blaming these hard times on the liberal Obama agenda of more regulations, more federal spending, more borrowing, more talk of taxes, and more “stimulus” programs.

A mostly moderate-to-conservative public has concluded that it does not like the new liberal agenda. After three years, it believes that the big government/big borrowing medicine made the inherited illness far worse. Voters may or may not like Obama, but they surely do not like what he is still trying to do.

In response, the left needs a sacrificial lamb. So it has nonsensically turned with a fury on Obama as if he were culpable for getting through the left’s own agenda. If Democrats do not blame the public’s anger on their once-beloved messenger, then they are left only with their message itself. And that is something they simply cannot accept.

The truth?!?  Liberal Dimocrats can’t handle….

….the truth!!!

But we’re on the subject of the truth, here’s today’s Environmental Moment, where we ask: remember how the “science” of anthropogenic global warming was “settled”….how “scientists” were “unanimously” behind human responsibility for climate change?  Fat chance!

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winnerof the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.” The official position of the American Physical Society(APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change. “I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.” “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society. “The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement. The use of the word “incontrovertible” had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010:

“The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Then there’s this in the “Why We’ll Never Take Ron Paul Seriously” segment, courtesy of the WSJ:

Ron Paul’s Fantasy Empire

The presidential hopeful says the U.S. occupies too many countries with too many troops—130 countries to be exact. It’s a respectable argument, but is it true?

“We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world.” So spoke presidential hopeful and libertarian favorite Ron Paul at this week’s GOP debate in Florida. But is it true? (About as accurate as his in-country air-conditioning facts and figures!)

You might think so, given how often the figures get bandied about on the Internet. In 2008, the late Chalmers Johnson claimed the U.S. deployed troops in no fewer than 151 foreign countries and operated 761 military bases. These figures were the basis for his claim that since 9/11 the U.S. has “undergone a transformation from republic to empire that may well prove irreversible.”

The reality is a tad less alarming. The Pentagon’s 2010 Base Structure Report notes that the U.S. maintains a total of 662 bases abroad. But of those, only 20 were listed as “large sites” and another 12 as “medium sites.” The rest (630) were listed as either “small” or “other” sites. That’s one reason the total number of bases changes from year to year.

Then there’s Mr. Paul’s line about U.S. forces being “in 130 countries.” Really? (Uhhh….NO!) The truth is that American soldiers are in even more countries than that—but only if you count the small Marine detachments that provide security for our embassies world-wide. By that measure, we’re in every country from Albania, where we have eight Marines, to Zimbabwe, where we have nine.

In fact, according to figures compiled by the Defense Manpower Data Center, as of September 2010 the bulk of U.S. forces deployed overseas (not including those on ships or in transit) are stationed in just seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the U.K. and Italy, all of which are home to at least 9,000 troops. Aside from Afghanistan and Iraq (which may soon drop off that list) all of these are World War II and Cold War legacies. Another five countries—Spain, Turkey, Belgium (the headquarters of NATO), Bahrain and Djibouti—have between 1,000 and 1,500 troops. The next largest deployments are Portugal (703), Qatar (555) Honduras (403) and Greece (338).

There’s an intellectually respectable argument to be made that perhaps the U.S. doesn’t need so many troops in rich and peaceful countries like Germany or Japan. But to say, as Congressman Paul does, that we’re in 130 countries isn’t just factually inaccurate. It’s absurd.

As are soooo many of Congressman Paul’s positions.  Look, Paul has some valid positions, a few of which we even share.  But if he’s going to offer specious statistics to garner political points at the expense of fellow Republicans, we’d sooner see him run as an Independent….and take Jon Huntsman with him.

On the Lighter Side….

And in the “That’s Why They Call It ‘Practicing” Law!” segment, James Taranto informs us:

Other Than That, The Decision Was Accurate

Last week the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a trial judge’s decision that ObamaCare’s mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit did not decide on the constitutional question but rather held that the commonwealth of Virginia, the plaintiff in the case, lacked standing to sue. But Maureen Martin of the Heartland Institute reports that the appellate judges made “a ‘rookie’ factual error”:

Virginia had enacted a state statute–the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA)–declaring the individual mandate contained in the Obamacare bill did not apply to its citizens. Virginia then filed a lawsuit alleging the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the United States because the federal government lacks the constitutional power to require individual citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. . . .

The court’s reasoning was the federal individual mandate was already a law when the Virginia statute was passed, so the state statute amounted to nothing more than a political attack on it–a statement of “generalized grievances” about it. . . .

The court says: “Virginia filed this action on March 23, 2010, the same day that the President signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The Governor of Virginia did not sign the VHCFA into law until the next day.” . . . In reality, the Virginia law was signed by Gov. McDonnell and codified on March 10, 2010. The “ceremonial” signing was held on March 24, 2010.

The National Conference of State Legislatures confirms that the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act became law March 10, not March 24.

As the late, great Emily Litella would have said, “Ooohh!  Never mind!”  But considering their pedigrees, does it really surprise anyone three judges appointed by the Boy Blunder and Der Schlickmeister failed to let mere facts get in the way of a what was demonstrably a political decision from a supposedly-unbiased bench?!?

Finally, turning to the pages of the Crime Blotter we learn….

NC Stepmom Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder in Death of Disabled Girl

Elisa Baker pleaded guilty to second degree murder in Catawba County Superior Court on Thursday, nearly a year after her stepdaughter, Zahra Baker, was reported missing from her home in the western North Carolina town of Hickory. The 43-year-old woman also pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, and to charges unrelated to the child.

Parts of Zahra’s remains were found in several sites in Catawba and Caldwell counties shortly after her reported disappearance last fall. The case captivated the attention of communities here and in Australia, where the child was originally from. Her father, Adam Baker, had moved to the United States to marry Elisa after the two met online….

The case revealed Elisa Baker as a woman with a troubled past, constantly shifting addresses and staying one step ahead of bill collectors and county social service agencies investigating reports of child abuse. The Associated Press found that she has been married seven times, including several overlapping marriages.Those who knew Elisa described her as an attractive high school student who became manipulative, cunning and insecure, struggling with obesity. By the time she met Adam, she had largely detached herself from society, immersed in an online world of assumed identities and grandiose stories about her past, according to records and friends.

Adam Baker has not been charged in connection with the death of his daughter. “I smoked marijuana more than I spent quality time with my daughter,” Adam reportedly told police during questioning.

No doubt in our mind Baker was getting stoned on a daily basis long before he met the enchanting Elisa; after all, you’d have to be on drugs to marry this salty seductress in the first place, let alone fly half-way ’round the world to do it.

By the way, for the murder and dismemberment of dear little girl who’d already known far too much pain in her far-too-short life, Vampira will serve an all-too-brief 18 years.  Meanwhile, Daddy Dearest will likely need all the dope he can lay his hands on just to sleep at night.

Enjoy the weekend!

Magoo