{"id":4643,"date":"2012-03-05T00:04:45","date_gmt":"2012-03-05T05:04:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=4643"},"modified":"2012-03-05T00:04:45","modified_gmt":"2012-03-05T05:04:45","slug":"the-daily-gouge-monday-march-5th-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=4643","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Monday, March 5th, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, March 5th, 2012….and before we begin, we offer two seemingly unrelated articles which are in fact symptoms of a much larger national malaise; first, the WSJ<\/em> details:
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 60th ObamaCare Vote<\/span><\/h1>\n

A soon-to-be released report shows how rogue prosecutors defeated Ted Stevens.<\/span><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mitt Romney recently argued that campaign rival Rick Santorum was responsible for ObamaCare because the former Pennsylvania Senator had, years before its passage, supported Arlen Specter, his home state colleague and one of the 60 Senators who later voted for the bill. Mr. Romney’s Massachusetts creation of the prototype for President Obama’s signature law appears to be the greater sin against free health-care markets. But after March 15, even Mr. Romney may agree that the blame for the 60th vote really belongs to the U.S. Justice Department.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That’s the day a federal court has ordered the release of an independent report on Justice’s “systematic concealment” of evidence.<\/span> Specifically, the report ordered by Judge Emmet Sullivan found that federal attorneys prosecuting the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska hid “significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated [his] defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That much we know from sections of the report already made public, but several of the offending prosecutors have been trying to prevent the release of the full 500 pages chronicling the extent of their misconduct. Judge Sullivan recently and to his great credit denied their requests and so Americans will see the panorama of abuse.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

These prosecutors, working in Justice’s ironically named Public Integrity Section, trampled on Stevens’ rights by ignoring the Brady rule, which requires prosecutors to share exculpatory evidence with the defense. The feds then won a conviction on ethics charges less than two weeks before Election Day in 2008.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Stevens, a Republican who had been highly popular in Alaska prior to the prosecution, lost a close race to Democratic challenger Mark Begich. Mr. Begich went on to become, yes, one of the 60 Senate votes for ObamaCare in 2009.<\/p>\n

Within months of the election, as the federal abuses came to light, Stevens’ conviction was set aside. But the election result, highly influenced by the bogus conviction, never was.<\/span> As Judge Sullivan recently noted in explaining all the reasons that the report should be made public, the Stevens loss “tipped the balance of power in the United States Senate.” And in favor of ObamaCare.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Then there’s this sordid story from the Left Coast:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mother launches Facebook campaign against former teacher moving in with teen<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong>\"\"<\/a>Were we this young lady’s father, this over-sexed, narcissistic pedophile would by now be eunuch.<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A California school teacher has quit his job and left his wife and kids to move into an apartment with an 18-year-old student less than half his age. The Modesto Bee says the teen’s mother, Tammie Powers, has waged a Facebook campaign against the teacher since her daughter moved out of the family’s home last week and into a Modesto apartment with 41-year-old James Hooker.<\/p>\n

Powers hopes the publicity resulting from the ‘James Hooker to Jail Page’ will put Hooker in legal jeopardy. Hooker quit his teaching job at Enochs High School last week and left his wife and children, one of them an Enochs student, to live with Enochs senior Jordan Powers.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Hooker first met Powers when she was a freshman in high school, but maintains that their physical relationship did not begin until she was 18.<\/span><\/strong> Power’s mother said she has evidence that the pair had inappropriate relations long before and she believes he abused his authority as a teacher. Modesto police are investigating whether there was inappropriate contact before the girl turned 18 last fall.<\/p>\n

Hooker acknowledges the couple hurt a lot of people, but says they decided to follow their hearts.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 Jordan said she knew that many people did not understand the nature of the relationship.<\/span> (No Jordan….we get it; you’re an ignorant, inexperienced 18-year old and your boyfriend’s a lecherous old man who’s definitely being led by a part of his anatomy….but not his heart!)<\/strong><\/span> “[He’s] my best friend. I mean he’s more than just a lover,” she said.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

For those of you old enough to remember, even in the 60’s and 70’s, this piece of human excrement would have been run out of town on a rail, and the only public statement he’d be making would have been in front of a judge following his conviction for statutory rape.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And the federal attorneys who railroaded Ted Stevens would have already suffered discharge and disbarment, the same fate which befell Mike Nifong, another prosecutor who willfully went after defendants he knew to be innocent.\u00a0 We say this acknowledging Stevens was a man worthy only of contempt, representing as he did all that was wrong with Congress; and while we don’t doubt for an instant he was guilty of other undisclosed crimes, he was manifestly innocent of the charges in question.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

No, both instances reflect the results of the Left’s decades-old war on America’s values, morality and sense of decency.\u00a0 As Robert Bork so accurately observed, the country has slowly but surely been slouching towards Gomorrah.\u00a0 The evidence is as plain as the ears on Obama’s head.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Forget the unwashed, ignorant masses; we cringe listening to educated, Christian friends extol the virtues of Glee<\/em>, as amoral and anti-Christian a show as contemporary television offers, the teachings of Oprah, Ellen and The View.\u00a0 And after attending church Sunday morning, nothing beats wrapping up the weekend with the latest installment of Desperate Housewives<\/em>, a show dealing exclusively with the adulterous liaisons of a coterie of suburban matriarchs.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Does this make them bad people?\u00a0 Certainly not, and most assuredly no worse than we; they’re simply desensitized.\u00a0 Progressives have patiently been pursuing a slow, inexorable death by a thousand cuts, none of which in isolation is even painful, but which collectively ultimately drains the body politic of its resistance to the disease of moral relativism.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Contraception as a “women’s health” issue?\u00a0 Gay marriage?\u00a0 The rescission of “Don’t Ask\/Don’t Tell?\u00a0 The growth of Environmentalism and Earth worship?\u00a0 PETA?\u00a0 The normalization of giving birth out-of-wedlock?\u00a0 They’re not goals; just desensitizing steps towards the ultimate end: the total subversion of the Judeo-Christian morals and ethics upon which our country was built.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thus the married father of two can pursue personal gratification with a student with no sense of responsibility for the wife and children he’s abandoned.\u00a0 Prosecutors can destroy the careers of innocent defendants for political gain and personal profit.\u00a0 Men of any race or religion can father illegitimate children at will with no sense of shame.\u00a0 Single women attending Catholic colleges can appear on Capitol Hill pleading for the provision of contraceptives….cost-free of course!\u00a0 And Rush Limbaugh’s ill-advised use of the term “slut”, no matter how accurate, simply further evidences the issue, particularly coming from a man on his third wife.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And please don’t remind us of the Left’s hypocrisy; they’re Liberals: amorality and hypocrisy is what they’re all about.\u00a0 The bottom line remains, we as Conservatives, be we Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, atheists or agnostics, need to wake up and realize absent our willingness to watch the trash the Entertainment Industry touts, they couldn’t stay in business.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

We need to be part of the cure, not carriers of the disease<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, it’s International News of Note, as James Taranto asks the White House….<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong>Is That an Empty Promise or an Empty Threat?<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

With Anthony Weiner having been shamed out of public life, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg is the leading public example of Weiner’s awkward type: the fervent supporter of Israel who is also a fervent supporter of Barack Obama. It’s not surprising, then, that the president would choose an interview with Goldberg to deliver what is supposed to be a message of reassurance to the Jewish state:<\/p>\n

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.” He went on, “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two points:<\/span> First, How credible is it for Obama to say, “I don’t bluff,” when last summer he told the House majority leader: “Eric [Cantor], don’t call my bluff,” when he turned out to be playing an exceptionally weak hand?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Second, just how gullible is Goldberg?<\/strong><\/span> Does it not occur to him that “I don’t bluff” is exactly the kind of thing people say who do <\/em>bluff?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

C’mon….he’s a Progressive; don’t confuse him with the facts.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, the WSJ<\/em> details….
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Obama’s Hawkish Iran Turn<\/span><\/h1>\n

As he meets with Netanyahu, a striking rhetorical change.<\/span><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As White House U-turns go, President Obama’s hawkish rhetorical shift on Iran in the last week has been remarkable.<\/span> The question now is whether Israel, and especially Iran, will believe that he means it after three years of trying to woo the mullahs to the bargaining table with diplomacy.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Obama opened the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Sunday with a keynote whose strong talk on Iran kept the audience coming to its feet. The President took credit for isolating the Islamic Republic diplomatically and imposing a de facto oil embargo that has sent the Iranian rial tumbling.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

His speech follows an interview last week with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in which Mr. Obama went out of his way to call a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” He referred to the “military component” of U.S. policy and said that “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as President of the United States, I don’t bluff.” As startling, he added that containing a nuclear Iran wouldn’t work because of near-certain proliferation in the region and that “the risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The timing of all this is no accident as Benjamin Netanyahu meets Mr. Obama in the White House today amid intense speculation about an imminent Israeli strike on Iran.<\/span> In an interview with Journal editors on Friday, Eyal Gabbai, the former director general of the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, said Mr. Netanyahu’s meeting with Mr. Obama “will be the last time they can speak face-to-face before a decision is taken.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Israeli military calculus toward Iran is driven largely by the perception that the regime’s nuclear programs will soon enter a “zone of immunity,” beyond which they may be effectively invulnerable to a non-nuclear Israeli strike. But also driving Israeli fears is the sense that the Obama Administration isn’t prepared to use military means if diplomacy, sanctions and covert acts don’t persuade Iran to stand down.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Those fears are far from groundless. Though Mr. Obama now takes credit for sanctions, his Administration fought Congress tooth-and-nail on sanctioning Iran’s central bank. The President only reluctantly signed the sanctions into law as part of a larger defense bill.<\/span> His aides also worked to stop legislation to cut off Iran from making financial transactions via the Swift banking consortium.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As for military strikes, senior Administration officials have repeatedly sounded as if their top priority is deterring Israel, rather than stopping Iran from getting a bomb.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As recently as November, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said a military strike would have “unintended consequences” and wouldn’t necessarily result in “deterring Iran from what they want to do.” In the last two weeks, Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said an Israeli strike would be “destabilizing,” while Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the Iranians haven’t decided to build a bomb<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> Little wonder the Israelis are nervous about U.S. resolve.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It’s welcome news if Mr. Obama is now trying to put those fears to rest, but he is also more outspoken than ever in trying to avert Israel from acting on its own. “Do we want a distraction in which Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their pursuit of nuclear weapons?” Mr. Obama told Mr. Goldberg\u2014the “distraction” here meaning an Israeli attack.<\/p>\n

If the President’s contention is that an Israeli strike would be less effective and have more unpredictable consequences than an American strike, he’s right\u2014and few Israelis would disagree. Israelis don’t have the same military resources as the U.S.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The question Mr. Netanyahu and Israeli leaders have to ponder is whether Mr. Obama now means what he says. The President has built up an immense trust deficit with Israel that can’t be easily dispensed in a week<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> All the more so when Israelis know that this is an election year when Mr. Obama needs to appear more pro-Israel than he would if he is re-elected<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It’s good to hear Mr. Obama finally sounding serious about stopping a nuclear Iran. But if he now finds himself pleading with Israel not to take matters in its own hands, he should know his Administration’s vacillation and mixed signals have done much to force Jerusalem’s hand. More fundamentally, a President who says he doesn’t “bluff” had better be prepared to act if his bluff is called.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Obama might as well be playing Texas Hold-‘Em with his hole cards face up<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

And in the Economics Section, James Pethokoukis writing at American.com<\/em> suggests America…. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Forget the Laffer Curve; Meet the Krugman Curve<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s just common sense, really. There are two tax rates that generate zero tax revenue, 0 percent and 100 percent. And in between, there is some tax rate which generates a maximum, non-zero amount of tax revenue. As tax rates rise from 0 percent toward that level, tax revenues increase both through higher economic growth and greater tax compliance. Once beyond that inflection point, higher tax rates generate less tax revenue.<\/p>\n

This relationship is popularly known as the Laffer Curve, after economist Arthur Laffer, and stands at the heart of supply-side economics\u2014or as I call it, \u201ceconomics.\u201d Economic historian Bruce Bartlett calls the Laffer Curve \u201ca generally accepted analytical device \u2026 [that is] a widely discussed subject in respected academic journals.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1980, the top U.S. marginal income tax rate was 70 percent; today it is 35 percent. Yet the share of total income taxes paid by wealthier taxpayers has risen sharply.<\/span> That is powerful evidence that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve back in 1980.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yet many liberals think the United States should go right back to where it was three decades ago.<\/strong><\/span> After looking at some new research from liberal economists, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman\u00a0concludes that\u00a0the \u201coptimal tax rate on the highest earners is in the vicinity of 70 percent.\u201d A 70 percent top rate also sounds pretty good to liberal economist and popular blogger Brad DeLong. And, of course, many liberals think rates should never have been cut back in 1981 by President Reagan. (Indeed, many of these folks speak fondly of the 1950s, when the top marginal rate was as high as 92 percent!)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Is President Obama also a member of the 70 percent club? Does he believe in the Krugman Curve, where taxpayers ignore higher taxes, or the Laffer Curve, where taxes and tax rates matter?<\/p>\n

Well, we know for sure that Obama wants the top rate back to 40 percent.<\/span> And recall his populist speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, where he railed against the economic policy of the past thirty years, when tax rates were cut sharply:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2026 there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let\u2019s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. \u201cThe market will take care of everything,\u201d they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes\u2014especially for the wealthy\u2014our economy will grow stronger. \u2026 But here\u2019s the problem: It doesn\u2019t work. It has never worked. \u2026 Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it\u2019s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. \u2026 In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. \u2026 And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it\u2019s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class\u201433 percent. \u2026 And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Obama wrote in\u00a0The Audacity of Hope<\/em>: \u201cThe high marginal tax rates that existed when Reagan took office may not have curbed incentives to work or invest \u2026 but they did lead to a wasteful industry of setting up tax shelters.\u201d<\/span> So the only downside to a 70 percent top tax rate and a tax code not indexed to inflation was \u2026 excessive tax planning?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Fran\u00e7ois Hollande, the Socialist challenger for the French presidency, just proposed a marginal tax rate of 75 percent on incomes above 1 million euros a year. The Financial Times called it \u201ca surprise offensive against top earners.\u201d<\/p>\n

I wonder if a second Obama term, especially if there were to be a debt crisis, would hold a similar surprise.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Not from the Administration that never lets a good crisis go to waste….no matter how much it costs American taxpayers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since we’re on the subject of Fuzzy Math….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lawmaker wants answers after cost estimate for health insurance aid rises by $111B<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cost estimates for a key part of President Obama’s health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year’s budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The revised numbers, buried deep in the president’s budget, stumped lawmakers and some administration officials for most of the week. At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of carrying out the health care law,<\/em> <\/em>indicated she was unaware of the changes<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yeah….and Bill Clinton never had sex with “that” woman, and Eric Holder can’t even SPELL “Operation Fast & Furious”!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, in a follow-up to the Video Clip of the Day posted last Friday at our home page (www.thedailygouge.com)….<\/strong><\/p>\n