Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple and a flaming liberal (one can assume evidenced by his fawning over Obama via his web site after the election) elected to have his liver transplant performed by a super-specialist surgeon in Tennessee. Job lives near Apple headquarters in Silicon Valley California.

“It’s not gaming the system,” [Jobs’ surgeon, Dr. James Eason] said in the Aug. 18 interview in Memphis. “It’s people choosing where they want their health care. Some people would leave Tennessee to go to California or somewhere else to seek treatment. Now we have people coming from California to Tennessee.”

I am not asserting that Obamacare would force someone like Jobs to seek care within the confines of California, or given his resources, even within the US. The fact that average Americans don’t know what choices they would have or would lose is probably what has derailed Obama’s momentum.

President Obama took his health care message to talk radio Thursday, telling listeners of Philadelphia-based host Michael Smerconish that he wants to overhaul the nation’s ailing health care system out of necessity rather than politics.

That’s a hard argument to make, at least to an informed audience, when Obamacare lacks tort reform. Malpractice litigation represents a large portion of the system’s cost structure and weighs heavily on health care provider decision-making when potentially being sued has to be constantly considered.

…but America isn’t buying it from a President and a Congress that will never be subject to the product of this “necessary” reform. They and their families will retain their private-jet health care.

America has witnessed a government that can’t administer an ill-advised yet simple rebate system for a narrow field of automotive sales transactions and yet aspires to manage the vast and varied intricacies of America’s health care complex.

The public trust of the Obama administration is fast eroding in the wake of White House confirmination that taxpayer dollars were spent on a spam campaign to promote reform most Americans are now resisting.

Liberal elites like Steve Jobs might also consider the fact that Jobs’ liver transplant, an unorthodox treatment of a rare cancer, while leaving 70% of patients healthy after one year, would most surely not be covered by Obamacare.

“It would not be considered the standard of care,” he said July 2 in a telephone interview. “It’s not something that would routinely be done nor is it proven to be a beneficial treatment, but it has nevertheless been tried and I’m sure in some cases been successful.”

However, experimental treatments, even if initially funded by the desperate-but-wealthy, tend to trickle down to the little people eventually once they are found to be beneficial – then widespread adoption drives down costs.

Moreover, at least in the case of Dr. Eason, government hasn’t forced him to care for those that can’t pay or represent a minority. He’s already doing it by his own volition.

While patients of Jobs’s stature are welcome, they aren’t regarded differently than anyone else, Eason said.

“Memphis is a very impoverished city in and of itself, with a large minority population,” he said. “I can tell you our floors aren’t full of billionaires.”

Eason said he’s aiming for better access to transplantation for the region’s poor, black and Hispanic populations.

One has to wonder if Jobs own personal experience might also give him cause for pause for Obama and his policies.

America stepped up and took the wind out of the sails of the Obama administration’s plan to socialize America’s health care system.

It was not Republicans nor Blue Dog Democrats that derailed Jimmy II’s grand plan – credit this one to vociferous citizens exercising their rights, rescuing America from the brink of yet another irreversible government entitlement, and indicating a potential mid-term rout of Democratic ranks nationwide if they didn’t reverse course.

Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama’s administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

It was never intended to be an option.

Meanwhile, Obama gets off the gas and on the back-pedal.

“All I’m saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

I think he said that just as he spied a cream pie with his name on it in the crowd.

No matter how liberal Dems spin this, it is a sound and stinging defeat in the wake of a Democratic super-majority.

The plan now may be to create a member-run non-profit option to compete with private insurers.

…but that may be moot. It may be more over than Obama is willing to concede at this juncture.

On the same day that a Cabinet member signaled the administration’s willingness to forego inclusion of a public health insurance option in the final version of health care reform legislation, a Texas Democrat who is also a registered nurse suggested that the public option might be a deal breaker for at least some House Democrats.

So much for Change^®.

More to come…

I was cutting my grass over the weekend when I was approached by a late-fiftysomething couple bearing clipboards and carrying a briefcase.  She was prematurely gray, ponytailed, wearing a faded “Don’t Park The Bus” t-shirt and a peasant skirt.  Come to think of it, so was he.

The following conversation happened:

WOMAN (Prematurely gray, ponytailed, wearing a faded “Don’t Park The Bus” t-shirt and a peasant skirt): “Excuse me, sir…”

MITCH: Yes? 

WOMAN:  Have you heard about the government’s “Moola for Mowers” program? 

MITCH: Er…no?

MAN: We offer…

WOMAN:  SHUT UP!  (Man shinks).  We offer people $5,000 to get rid of their energy-inefficient lawn mowers.

MITCH: Er – Five thousand dollars?  For lawn mowers?  Like this one?

MAN:  Exactly like…

WOMAN:  SHUT UP!  (Man cowers as if he expects to be struck) Yes, sir.  Exactly like that one.

MITCH:  Um…OK?  So what do I do?

(MAN pulls ball-peen hammer from briefcase).

WOMAN:  We give you $5,000 in cash, and Bhill here will destroy it.

MITCH:  But I got this mower at a rummage sale for like $30…

MAN: Not a…

WOMAN:  SHUT UP AND STOP UPSTAGING ME!  (Man falls mute, looking like a dog that’s been beaten too much) Sir, that’s really not the issue here.  We need to get this mower off the street.  Would you like $5,000, or not?

MITCH: Sure!

(WOMAN peels off fifty $100 bills.  MITCH takes them, stuffs them into wallet).

WOMAN: Yes!  The program is a success!  Bhill?

MAN (trudges to mower, like he spends half his time just covering up, and beats it weakly about the cylinder head)

MITCH:  So…you getting a lot of takers?

WOMAN: Oh, yes!  Everyone we’ve talked to has taken the $5,000 for their mower!  Indeed, one man told his neighbors, and the all brought out mowers and snowblowers!  It’s the most successful government program ever!

MITCH:  I’d imagine…

MAN: (Smacks the head until the spark plug breaks off).

WOMAN:  Yaaaaaay!  Total success!  Complete proof that Obama has brought hope and change!

MITCH: Why?  Because I got $5,000 in taxpayer money for a $30 mower?

WOMAN (happily):  Yes!

MITCH: And because all my neighbors got the same for mowers that maybe ran $50-200?

WOMAN (ecstatic): Yes!

MITCH: But whomever is funding this “program” just got ripped off to the tune of about 99.4% of their “investment”, which…

WOMAN (nonplussed):  But…a gas-guzzling mower is off the street!

MITCH: Right – for 100 times what it could have cost!

WOMAN: (Silent for a moment):  Why do you hate children?

MAN (glares at woman demonically)

Yesterday, I noted that all that talk about companies leaving Minnesota for lower-tax states like the Dakotas is not, in fact, wind in sails.

Over on Twitter, someone thought he had me cornered:

Except taxes didn’t go up & they are still expanding in ND

That’s true, but for purposes of business, irrelevant.  Businesspeople – smart ones, anyway, especially in capital-intensive businesses like the one I highlighted yesterday – don’t plan based on the current year.  They plan ahead.

And what does someone who plans ahead see in Minnesota’s not-too-distant future?

1. Tim Pawlenty – the state’s sole bulwark against a DFL whose economic philosophy is “spend other peoples’ money like we’re one of those Sweet Sixteen contestants” – is leaving office at the end of this term.
2. The Ventura “Independence” Party – which, in soaking away center-left votes from the DFL, likely kept Pawlenty in power, added a few points of padding to Paulsen’s winning margin, and arguably helped keep Bachmann there – is going to lose major-party status one of these next go-arounds.
3. The Minnesota GOP hasn’t inspired confidence in the past three cycles; the new regime on Park Street (including my friend Michael Brodkorb) has to earn their spurs by winning some elections.  There is hope – I suspect Obama is going to melt down and take a lot of Dems with him, sooner than later – but if you’re a businessman, hope isn’t a plan.
4. If 1 through 3 are true, then the DFL will very possibly seize un-fettered (or barely-fettered) control of this state in the next few years.  The GOP will likely register gains – but eight years of Republican governors, even good years with an excellent governor, could very easily lead to a “backlash” among the same horde of bovines who thought Jesse Ventura would be a good idea, and whose votes count as much as those of smart people.
5. And if/when that happens (heaven forfend), all hell will break loose in this state.  A DFL-controlled legislature with a DFL government will treat Cy Thao’s classic quip (“when you win, you keep your money; when we win, we take your money!”) as gospel; you will be Happy To Pay For A Better Minnesota, or the Minnesota Department of Revenue will do to you what the NYPD did to Abner Louima.

Given that forecast – complete control, over the next 2-4 years, of state government by a party that is less responsible at spending than The Real Housewives of Orange County – where would you put your business?

Pawlenty’s holding of the line on taxes is just the calm before the storm grinds the levees into cat litter.

First, lets be clear. Is our health care system the best in the world? Yes.

Are a majority of Americans satisfied with the system as it is? Yes.

Do most American’s believe our health care system needs change? Yes.

…but if it’s so bad, why are some of the wealthiest people in the world coming here for their health care? Just ask anyone in the hospitality industry in Rochester, Minnesota, who’s privately-owned jumbo jet sits on the tarmac for a week and who’s occupants reserve a whole floor at the Kahler hotel for their annual visit to the Mayo Clinic?

The Saudi Royal Family comes here for their health care.

These people have unlimited resources – and come here?

And yet, often cited are World Health Organization Statistics citing such items as national longevity, live birth rates and such, attempting to paint a bleaker picture and calling for Change^® in America, so we can get in line and be more like the rest of the world.

…but the WHO is an arm of the UN, who brought us the long debunked Man-Made Global Warming scam and thereby disqualifies itself as a source of reliable statistical  basis, let alone scientific integrity.

An interesting WHO statistic often cited in defense of socialized health care are physician salaries in other nations where socialized health care has long been the norm. Lower salaries for physicians is actually presented as an upside!

Riddle me this: how much do you want the guy who has his hands in your abdomen – or better yet your child’s – to earn? Who is going to sign up for eight years of crappy pay, long hours of internship and residency, and a couple hundred thousand dollars of med-school debt only to end up with a lifetime of crappy pay?

I want my doc to be driving a Porsche to deliver my baby or save my wife’s life.

Nonetheless, I think we can all agree, the the two main issues with our current health care system are coverage and cost.

One reason costs are high in America because we are wealthy as a nation. Seriously.

Food is cheap here and we eat a lot of it. Caloric intake and obesity have long been associated with increased morbidity and mortality via type two diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. Maladies our nation suffers disproportionately with much of the rest of the globe.

That’s not the only cause for the high costs, but it is a cause uniquely American. Our current third-party payer system is the culprit. This approach has gradually created a choke point between the consumer and the service. Here is the opportunity for real reform.

The current system has allowed providers and insurance companies to control far too much of the market under cover of little competition and very little consumer data on the cost and quality of care and coverage.

So before you say that the free market has failed health care, let’s actually try a free-market approach first. Because this has not been a free-market for years.

Reform is indicated, but further government encroachment is an absolute last resort.

For liberals however, it’s all they have to offer.

Liberals are attempting to seize the moment by bastardizing a need for reform into a call for a larger federal government. Obama innocently claims his plan just adds another player but true to form his eloquence is betrayed by the fine print. He intends on complete and total government control of the system.

His plan is a single-payer system, pointing health care reform in precisely the wrong direction by actually reducing accountability and market forces when increasing both is the only proven recipe for success.

As for access, there are millions of Americans without health insurance – many by choice – others because of situational factors like The Great Recession brought to you by liberals like Barney Frank. Certainly a great many need help – those that can’t do for themselves.

For those that legitimately don’t have access, government can and should help out by creating a system like unemployment insurance, possibly co-funded by insurers, providers and taxpayers to create temporary coverage with a choice of providers, for those who are unemployed, and a permanent system to bridge access to Medicaid for those that are truly unemployable. These are ideas we need to hear from our conservative leadership.

As unnerving as the socialization of health care is the dearth of alternative offerings on the part of conservatives who have instead put their chips on political polarization. Republicans are attacking the Democrats’ plan without offering a solution of their own, giving rise to calls that “any reform is better than no reform at all,” not to mention doing nothing for their chances in the next election cycle.

We are constantly compared with other industrialized nations and their universal health care systems as if America is expected to follow suit. Following the rest of the world is not what made us the most powerful nation in the world. America should be enlisting the forces of innovation, ingenuity and free enterprise that got us this far.

The answer to our health care ills can be found among the principles upon which this bruised but still great country was founded and which have propelled us to our current level of wealth and prosperity: Limited government and free enterprise.

In the mean time, on the health care issue, Republicans have become one-dimensional naysayers, a role heretofore reserved for Democrats.

Barack Obama is blowing his political capital like Bill Clinton in a strip joint. The Gates controversy coupled with an utter failure to get any health care reform to paper has left Barack Obama in a political crisis.

Now more than ever, the GOP needs to speak up and offer an alternative plan.

Lest this crisis be wasted.

From a local list-server; a Minnesota small businessman has had enough:

Being born in Minnesota, I have always been proud to claim this state as my home, but no more. After experiencing the never-ending social politics and nanny state liberal policies unfold year after year, I realize that Minnesota is on a fast path to destruction in the name of all things liberal and socialistic. Our politicians somehow feel entitled to continually spend money they don’t have because the can simply stick their hands in our pockets whenever they want more. The taxes in this state are incredible, yet we are continually expected to keep paying more and more in order to redistribute the wealth of the productive working class.  The stream of social and welfare benefits never seems to end. Somehow, those of us who continually struggle to get ahead; to get a good education, and work hard to support our families are deemed as being “blessed by opportunities” and therefore somehow owe something back to society.  I am not buying into this nonsense.

            The opportunities I have had were self created through hard work, personal struggle and sacrifice, hardship and came at great risk. There has never been a handout for me. I have earned what I achieved and worked incredibly hard for what I have.  And yet, the more I struggle and work towards being a productive member of society, the more I am taxed and viewed as somehow being privileged. Due to our current state of economic affairs in this country, we are all struggling to get by. We are all working harder and making sacrifices. Yet our politicians, especially in Minnesota continually prove they have no common sense to grasp basic economics 101, or they simply don’t care. We are on the path towards never ending tax and spend. Minnesota is continually hitting small business in the pockets through increased taxes, fees and regulations. And yet, we are somehow expected to standby and “pay our fair share” while the same politicians choose to frivolously spend more and more of our money on self serving interests in the name of social welfare or to further their careers.

            Well Minnesota…I am done!  I am no longer sticking around to support those that continually look for a free hand-out and those that seek to make their “self proclaimed rights” my burden. I am taking my productivity elsewhere and refusing to play the social redistribution of wealth game. I owe no one for my opportunities and success but God and family. I will create opportunities for those around me elsewhere, and will contribute towards productivity that serves to reward those willing to put it all on the line and take personal risk.  In a sense, I am now one of these former Minnesotans that has had enough and taking my money and labor out of this state. As more and more businesses and hard working individuals (and yes, the wealthy included) choose to leave this state and relocate to other states that are more business friendly and less tax happy, maybe Minnesotan voters will wake up and realize that one day, no one will be left to fund their socialistic welfare programs. Who will they tax then?

            So, while I guess we can not choose where we are born, we can choose where we decide to live. In the next month, I will be shutting down my Minnesota [business].  It has been a fun run while it lasted and I really enjoyed being a member of this list.  You are all great people and as [small businesspeople], taking huge risks every day in this state. Thank you all for your support over the years. This list is a great resource and I will miss participating in the future. I look forward to hopefully meet many of you in Duluth in a few weeks, even if you don’t agree with my view points.  Best wishes to you all.

(P.S. I know the country is not doing much better lately either, but once a professional soldier,, always a professional soldier.  I refuse to leave the USA.) 

It’s a big step – the ultimate one, really, in terms of voicing displeasure over state politics.  But it’s a long American tradition; if your neighbors get too stupid for you, strike out for the wilderness.

It’s more tempting all the time.

The Detroit Public Schools are pondering bankruptcy, swamped by (let me know if any of this sounds familiar) the combination of lowered demand for their product and mushrooming expenses, including pensions for long-retired employees:

A decision on whether to file for protection under federal bankruptcy laws will be by the end of the northern summer, according to Robert Bobb, Detroit Puablic Schools’ emergency financial manager. Such a filing would be unprecedented.But in Detroit — where US Education Secretary Arne Duncan dubbed the school system a “national disgrace” — politicians and bankruptcy experts see few alternatives, given the deep financial challenges confronting the district and the state.

“Am I optimistic that they can avoid it …? I am not,” said Ray Graves, a retired bankruptcy judge who has been advising Mr Bobb in recent weeks.

As with GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy may not be the worst thing for Detroit’s schools. A filing under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, which covers public entities such as school districts and municipalities, would allow the district to put major creditors, including textbook publishers, private bus operators and utility DTE Energy, in line for payment.

Some experts say the Detroit case could be the first in a string of Chapter 9 bankruptcies among school districts and other public entities battered by the economic crisis, and it could help shape that area of the law.

The various teachers’ unions – which long ago replaced the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers as the pre-eminent union political power in the United States – have been busy doing to the education industry what the UAW did for GM.  Indeed, the benefits – especially the pension – have long been always been the main economic reason to go into teaching.  But with inner-city public school district enrollments plummeting, both from demographic shifts and parents voting with their feet, the promises schools made to teachers in the sixties and seventies are going to prove to the untenable.

And it’s not just for Detroit anymore; it’s in Minnesota too:

Some Minnesota school districts may have to go into debt to pay for the rising cost of health care for their retired employees.Local Minnesota governments have until October to sell bonds — without a public referendum — to help pay for retired employees’ health care. But with the economy in the tank, some people are unhappy about paying higher property taxes to fund someone else’s health benefits.

The retirees’ health policy costs fall under something accountants call OPEB — Other than Pension Employee Benefits. OPEB obligations, especially for health care, are really starting to put the squeeze on school districts statewide.

So – ballooning obligations fobbed off on future generations, demand for product decreased by ruinous economic policies; future generations left holding the bag.  Sound familiar?

Last month our Supreme Leader was quoted as saying “I’m not naive,” words that history will make famous some day. His advisors, being liberals, have only one lever to pull. Having pulled it harder than its ever been pulled before and to no avail, their advice?

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

“A bit too small.” Who are these people? Should it have had an “eency weency bit more pork?” Doubling it would not incent businesses to hire new employees right now or convince consumers to stop saving and start spending (hey, they’re smarter than the people they elected – maybe there is Hope^®).

The Obama stimulus already is the New Larger Size version of the failed Bush stimulus. Remember?

Hmm, what sort of policy would have incented hiring and spending? That’s a tough one. Anyone?

“The economy is worse than we forecast on which the stimulus program was based,” Tyson, who is a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory board, told the Nomura Equity Forum. “We probably have already 2.5 million more job losses than anticipated.”

Let me tweak that comment for you Ms. Tyson: “The economy is worse than we forecast because of the stimulus program.” Washington D.C. should be renamed “Ground Zero.”

The stimulus program will result in higher inflation and will require higher taxes. The anticipation of both is already putting pressure on businesses, who will continue to run as lean as they can for a long, long time. In fact, business owners are in fear of the government’s next move. Employees know this. The trickle-down effect is that even those that have jobs are hoarding cash and cutting expenditures.

Not very stimulating.

Maybe we should follow the MAC’s proposed signage plan and apply it to the economy. Let’s put up $2 Million signs everywhere “Be Happy. Spend Money.”

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars. She said the budget shortfall is “likely to be worse” than the equivalent of 12 percent of gross domestic product that the administration forecast for 2009 and the 8 percent to 9 percent it projected for next year.

We can “afford to pay” is an egregious choice of words given the fact that no one is “paying” – we are borrowing. I suppose her assessment is based on the fact that China hasn’t canceled our Visa card yet.

Tyson said the U.S. should shift away from its dependence on consumption to grow, and promote expansion through investment and exports. The dollar will need to weaken in the longer term to promote export-led growth, she said.

So, we shouldn’t consume, but let’s hope the rest of the world does? Remember kids what liberals mean when they say “investment?” I wonder how my Social Security “investments” are doing?

I think you’ve done enough to weaken the dollar in the long term Ms. Tyson. Thank you.

The Obama administration and its advisors are not naive; they know exactly what they are doing. They are holding the economy hostage until they get their way, executing an agenda despite its effects on the economy and leaving the “fixing” to the next administration.

In 2008, 34 Million passengers traveled via Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.

Faced with complaints that an estimated 20,000 people show up at the wrong terminal each year, MAC has been considering proposals to change the terminal names on the signs and list the airlines that fly out of each terminal.

In 2008, 34 Million passengers traveled via Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.

If 20,000 people can’t make it to the right terminal, that’s 0.059%; less than six in ten thousand people.

The price tag to make sure people get to the right terminal at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has soared to $2.2 million, more than twice the original estimate.

When the revised proposal goes before the committee, Hogan predicted that the new cost estimate will be a consideration in how the vote goes. “But in the big scheme of things, we just spent $3 billion to improve the airport, and if there are still people having trouble getting to the right terminal, that’s a small price to pay.”

The last sentence of that paragraph is rather demonstrative as to why government shouldn’t be in business, health care – or running airports for that matter.

In 2008, 34 Million passengers traveled via Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.

Over 90,000 people travel through our airport per day. 20,000 per year can’t discern the difference between “Lindberg” and “Humphrey.”

34,000,000

vs.

20,000

Managing to the exception needlessly costs taxpayers and travelers.

There will always be percentage of people who can’t figure out where they’re going and as the percentages get smaller, the resources to required to remedy the CRISIS(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) increase exponentially. Spending $2.2M of OPM is easy when there is no accountability; no career repercussions for spending resources foolishly.

An expenditure judged to be a waste in a well-run corporation is deemed an “investment” by government.

“…the President said in an interview not that long ago ‘We are out of money’ with all due respect Mr. President, if we’re out of money, quit spending it!”

…also, at about nine minutes in, Pawlenty shares what he thinks of the President’s performance six months in and calls out the “Stimulus” Bill and the Federal Government’s encroachment into private industry.

I watched TresSec Geithner on Jim Lehrer the other night (the video is available in the link below as well) and thought the following interchange (emphasis mine) said so much about the elitist arrogance and stupefying lack of practical experience that the Obama administration represents, from the very top down.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: In the financial sector, the financial markets require well-designed regulation. We did not have well-designed regulation. We had the worst financial crisis in generations because of basic failures in the design of regulation.

…

JIM LEHRER: Finally, President Obama said yesterday that the real cause of all of this was a culture of irresponsibility. You’ve worked in and around the financial industry for years. How would you describe that, what that culture was? What caused it?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: I’ve never worked in the financial industry, just to say. I’ve always worked in public service and the government.

That’s okay, Timmy. Your boss hasn’t even done that. But there are some really well-organized communities in Chicago now.

Silly Mr. Lehrer for thinking the man charged with regulating our nation’s financial system might actually have worked in it (or paid his taxes for that matter – he must have skipped that chapter whilst basking in academia).

How unremarkable is it that a man who has spent his entire life working in government fails to see that in fact government overreach was the cause of this crisis, and is now the root of it’s persistence.

His prescription? More of the same. Just “designed” better.

Polls are polls which is to say one needs to take their assertions “under advisement,” taking into account who is behind them, etc. One troubling trend of late is that much of the Obama administration’s agenda seems to be more and more out of touch with the majority of Americans as depicted in a series of recent polls.

As a gearhead, I came across another such poll:

America’s “Cash for Clunkers” bill is on the cusp of being signed by President Obama, but according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of U.S. citizens aren’t in favor of the plan.

…not that Obama’s agenda is correlated in any way with what is best for America…or Americans. Obama thinks taxpayers want to spend more money our country doesn’t have to sell cars that people apparently still want so they can buy new cars that they don’t want right now either, from an industry where the taxpayer has already invested billions to buy the biggest domestic player.

According to the telephone survey, fully 54% of those queried are against the measure, while 35% are in favor and 12% aren’t sure how they feel about it. That’s up from a similar survey done last month, in which just 34% were against consumer vouchers for trading in older, less efficient cars and trucks. In fairness, Rasmussen Reports indicates that the change could have been influenced by a change in the wording of the respective surveys (the initial survey did not indicate how much the program might cost the government).

So, not unlike the President’s socialized health plan, there are those that are for it in theory (and in the minority) but when the promoters thereof have to account for the cost, support wanes.

Perhaps most interesting of all is news that many Americans would appear to have little faith in the ability of the government to help General Motors improve its fortunes, with 41% expecting for GM’s quality to deteriorate under federal ownership. (Presumably, this leaves 59% of those surveyed that feel otherwise or are undecided). Perhaps more damaging is that the study’s findings say that fully 57% of those questioned believe that the government is likely to pass laws and regulations that give Chrysler and General Motors unfair advantages over other automakers that did not receive bailout funds.

General Motors’ quality has markedly improved of late. Nonetheless it is by no means is on par across the board with the Japanese competition. As such, it’s not an area where GM can afford to backslide.

You can always buy a Honda and avoid this debacle, which is to say the consumer still has a choice. But substitute Obama’s government trespass du jour, “Socialized Health Care,” for “General Motors” in the passage above, and the stakes go way up, and there will be no going back; no alternative for consumers.

Led by the President, liberal lawmakers are working feverishly to trim their proposal down to a trillion dollars, to reform a health care system that covers most of us and that most of us are satisfied with to offer a theoretical system that will cover less of us and will almost surely degrade the quality and accessability of care. The proposal has less support now than when Hillary Clinton gave it a go.

…and yet the President persists here as well. So much for the theory that an Obama Presidency would be driven more by ambition that ideology as it is clear now that agenda has little regard for the times we are in or the people he represents.

Conrad DeFiebre is not one of the bad ones, as a general rule, as far as media types are concerned.  While he was a Strib writer for about 600 years, he was also one of the reporters that could tell a balanced, fair story.  He was the first reporter from either of the dailes (to say nothing the TV statiosn) to be bothered with reporting the actual facts on the Concealed Carry debate back in the nineties.  For that, I’ve personally given credit where it was due, not that anyone cares.

Long story short:  He’s always been a good reporter.

But these days he works for MN2020, the regional “non-partisan” “progressive” think tank.  Which is apropos not much, except that for someone whose gig has been telling entire, complete stories for his entire career, he kinda, well, doesn’t.

His latest piece is called “Conservatives “Re-Writing History”

; I’ll direct you to read the piece to find any examples of history at all, much less conservatives “re-writing” it.

Opposition to modern transit development may be on the wane in most parts of Minnesota,

“May” it be?  Well, I guess we have to take Mr. DeFiebre’s word for it.  Perhaps he knows of a Minnesota Poll on the subject?

but it’s alive and well in one surprising location: The Minnesota History Center in St. Paul.

“Light rail is an expensive investment without return except as an exercise in chest-thumping to make a city feel like it’s in the big leagues.”

That’s a quote from Lyle Wray, former Citizens League executive director, posted in big letters in the history center’s long-running transportation exhibit “Going Places: The Mystique of Mobility.” It enjoys equal billing with more mildly-worded praise of light rail in the display’s vintage Soo Line boxcar.

OK, so we have a qualitative judgment about the “mildness” or, I dunno, “spiciness” of wording?

I’ll let that pass.

What’s worse, an accompanying video clip features half a dozen anti-light rail comments, some from anonymous on-the-street interviewees, some from inveterate transit bashers at the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

Er – so what?  Isn’t it refreshing that the Minnesota History Center,noted conservative tools that they are (note to non-Minnesotans: they are not; they are more given to hagiographic treatment of old labor and Farmor/Labor Party organizers) actually presents both sides of a story?

Does MN2020 have a problem with that?

Oh,wait.

I digress.  My question:  Where is history, and its conservative re-write?

Worse yet, the exhibit also includes plenty of promotion of personal rapid transit, a thoroughly failed technology that has been embraced by both the rabid right and the lunatic left, mainly as a foil to responsible transit proposals.

“Rabid”?  “Lunatic?”  Such invective from a…reporter?  Why, it’s almost as if DeFiebre is getting talking points from…someone with an ax to grind?
And let’s be clear: Personal Rapid Transit seems to be a rather pie-in-the-sky proposal that’d crisscross cities with small rails for tiny, taxi-like rail cars whose destinations could be programmed for anywhere on the system, rather than shuttling back and forth on a single line.  It’s utterly un-tested, and it’s the kind of thing that draws all sorts of fawning resolutions at caucus-time demanding government support, and its cost estimates (which are usually about 10% those of light rail lines per rail mile) strike this tech/engineering industry hanger-on as hopelessly pollyannaish.

But “Thoroughly failed?”  It can not “thorougly fail” unless it’s been “thorougly tested”.

But that kind of invective on an utterly speculative subject like PRT?  Why that can only mean one thing:

Minneapolis artist, activist and blogger Ken Avidor tipped me off…

[scraaaaatch]

Ken “Avidor” Weiner is indeed a blogger.  He’s an “artist” of sorts as well – the only “cartoonist” in the Twin Cities less talented that Swiftee.  But he’s indeed an “activist” for light rail; so active, indeed, that he felt he needed at least two of him.

Note to Conrad DeFiebre: you might wanna pick better sources for this stuff.  Not that “Sources” matter so much in your new career – clearly John Fitzgerald is mushy on the subject – but still.

But yet again, I digress.

The post is a puff piece about the wonders of light rail, and how short-sheeted they allegedly are in the MHS presenation on the subject.

So where is the the ballyhooed “conservative rewrite of history?”  It’s the present.  And the issue of “is light rail a boon or a doggle” is very, very Very, VERY, VERY much in the balance.

Because even if oil runs out tomorrow, the free market will have developed a hydrogen-powered car (the ultimate Personal Rapid Transit) and a network of nuclear powered hydro stations long before government will have built rails to haul the gray, lumpen hordes of proles about.

…because President Obama conveniently failed to say “Americans.” In the spirit of creating crises that ostensibly only larger government can solve…as long as we’re counting the “uninsured”…I know there are a great many other living beings that aren’t insured too.

The administration uses the “46 million uninsured” as a reason to nationalize health care. But the Census Bureau says about a fifth of those aren’t U.S. citizens. In fact, a goodly number are illegal aliens.

According to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens.

“Being uninsured is a transitory state, since most uninsured Americans [emphasis mine-JR] are only without coverage for a short time.”…only 19 million Americans go without insurance for a full year.

If we work real hard, enlist our nation’s Neighborhood Organizers^®, and count house pets for example, we might find close to “100 Million Uninsured” if we discretely drop the “people” moniker altogether.

Subtract noncitizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. “Many Americans are uninsured by choice,”

…but what about house plants! People talk to their plants, which means they have feelings, which means they suffer, which means they have a right to access affordable health care. Since most plants don’t have legs, we need to provide transportation as well.

Now we’ve got ourselves a crisis!…that only government can solve!

…someone who can smack down the lefties with style, like Friedman did here.

And to be fair, the left could use a pundit with half the class Donahue had back then.  As comical as Donahue could be, neither Olberman nor Matthew were fit to carry his gig bag.

CAFE standards and the UAW hobbled the US auto industry…Barack Obama is here to finish the job.

Doug Williams goes after Paul Krugman’s latest:

Krugman is not an idiot. And yet anyone from quick-thinking geniuses to nose-picking morons knew exactly what Krugman’s opinion was going to be about any issue for the past eight years – his opinion was the opposite of whatever the Bush administration supported. Krugman substituted a reliably pure strain of reactionism for thoughtful commentary and bleated it with all the gusto of an agitated sheep. Only now that scary Republicans do not inhabit the land’s highest offices does he feel free again to flex his long neglected thinking parts.

Without getting into a whole “the media is biased” diatribe, this is the problem when media classes turn into left-right cliques. Krugman spent the last eight years in blind, unthinking opposition, and probably made himself more popular because of it. The lefties didn’t want to hear careful thought about a Republican administration. They wanted their smart people to give them smart sounding justifications for their automatic opposition to everything that administration attempted. Krugman more than happily danced to that tune. The fact that this schtick works just as well for right-leaning pundits doesn’t change the basic point – it’s a fundamentally anti-intellectual approach to punditry. Rather than using reason to determine one’s opinion, the opinion comes first and reason is used simply to justify it after the fact.

Read the whole thing.

I run into this over and over again; Democrats in debates or discussions who accept as a matter of faith that “republicans are the party of the rich, and the tics are the party of the working people”.

I ask them why, then, that the Plains states and the West – which are, demographically, very disproportionally “working people” – vote so reliably Republican.  They usually respond by calling me a racist and a sexist and asking why I hate children.

But I digress.

The claim, of course, beggars all the evidence.  My favorite factoid; in the 2002 Senate campaign, the average Coleman contribution was about a fifth that of the average Wellstone donation – but they raised about the same total.

Of course, plutocrats like Warren Buffet, George Soros and Bill Gates, to say nothing of a uniform cross-section of Hollywood’s super-wealthy, have long supported the Democrats; for the fantastically wealthy, a regulated society is a predictable (and, for currency speculators like Soros, exploitable) one.

And in the last election, Wall Street contributors backed Obama over Mac.

There might be a bit of morning-after remorse from that last, though:

Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obama during the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America – and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

A top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: “I’m appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it’s the real world. I’m surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He’s a real class warrior.”

The bad news is that people on Wall Street seem to be very stupid.

The good news?  Michelle Obama’s campaign claim that our best and brightest go into hedge funds rather than teaching and nursing would seem to be wrong.

“These big companies are based in New York Boston, Seattle and Silicon Valley, where Democrats dominate,” [Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute] said. “Obama’s tax plan is already cleaving him from his big corporate supporters,” he said.Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the “working rich” (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Note to self and world; next time, let the whole gabbling bunch of Brooks-Brothers-clad cretins go bankrupt.

“They” being the Obamanistas running our nation. Government doesn’t grow like grass growing on a peaceful prairie; more like a brain tumor.

Would-be Obama Administration Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg speaks out on why he turned around and walked back out the door, embarrassing the President yet gain with another failed or controversial cabinet appointment (I’ll bet he pays his taxes) and even more so with his postmortem.

[Obama] may be “a charismatic person” with “a very strong understanding of who he is and what he wants to do,” but when it comes to the substance of what Mr. Obama seeks to accomplish, Mr. Gregg is less charitable. “They have a goal,” the senator says, “and he’s very open about it. They are going to grow this government.”

Why? Because that’s what liberals do. Why? Because they got nothin’ else in their quiver. Big government is to be made bigger for its own sake. How does that bode for the future?

“We’re headed on an unsustainable path. The simple fact is these [budget] numbers don’t work and the practical implications of them are staggering for the nation and the next generation.”

And as a result of all that spending, “You see the size of government growing from 21% [of gross domestic product] to 22%, to 23%, 24%, 25% . . . toward 30%.”

For the sake of credibility let me remind you liberals, this is the guy that Obama picked for his cabinet.

We post on torture and war and our liberal readers go ape. We post on Tea Parties and liberals argue semantics rather than addressing the fiscal crisis behind them. Why aren’t both sides freaking out about what liberal politicians, both Democrat (mostly) and Republican (sadly) are doing to our country financially?

I suppose liberals aren’t enraged because they’ve been sold on all these Hopey Changey concepts like wind-powered scooters and affordable health care for everyone without weighing the costs – costs beyond what we can afford as a nation – unless we borrow. Costs that without any market forces keeping them in check will make the current health care “crisis” look like the panacea liberals are looking for. But liberals in both parties have no aversion to borrowing and spending other-people’s money so long as the cause is “noble” enough – so for them, problem solved!

For Mr. Gregg, this is like living a nightmare. He has been a hard-nosed advocate for government spending restraint since his days as a Congressman (1981-87) and governor of New Hampshire (1987-93). At times, his commitment to fiscal responsibility led him to oppose tax cuts when they weren’t matched by spending restraint. Those stances incurred the ire of his Republican colleagues, but he always stuck to his fiscal-responsibility guns. Now he’s staring down a spending explosion that makes those battles look picayune.

What hope have we that prefer our nation not become completely insolvent?

…the runaway spending and growing pile of debt, could yet set the stage for a Republican comeback, and sooner than most pundits would predict. Mr. Gregg will not run for re-election when his current term ends next year. Republicans, he says, “became very clouded as to what we stood for under the Bush presidency.” But now they’re getting their “definition” back.

Once again, liberals will have screwed up our nation’s finances so badly that conservatives will be called back in to restore confidence. When will America learn?

Watching Wall Street (for the umteenth time) this week had me thinking about my last post and our Great Recession. Conservatives accurately lay the blame at the feet of liberals who forced banks to loan money where it should not have been loaned in the interest of “fairness.”

Liberals lay the blame at the feet of greed, capitalism, lax regulation – or all of the above.

But greed and capitalism are not the same thing – although liberals will assert otherwise; if not in their words, then certainly in their policy making.

While greed is a necessary element of capitalism, as attraction is to procreation, the villain in this Great Recession is not greed or capitalism.

In Oliver Stone’s Wall Street, Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” speech to the shareholders of Teldar Paper is widely celebrated and at the same time offered as a cautionary tale respectively by proponents and opponents of the American entrepreneur’s quest for profit.

Having heard it again in its entirety, I was reminded of another famous passage, misused and misunderstood by those who would unintentionally, or intentionally as it were, twist its meaning by ignoring it’s full context or deliberately plucking it therefrom.

Exhibit A: “Money is the root of all evil” which is derived from scripture. Observe it however, in full context:

1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV) [emphasis mine]: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Exhibit B: The infamous and polarizing “Greed is Good.” Now, behold the famous passage from Gordon Gekko [emphasis mine]:

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we’re not here to indulge in fantasy, but in political and economic reality. America, America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions. Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company!

…

The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated.

…

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.

As an aside, read it again.

…and pretend he’s not speaking in 1985.

Now there have been plenty of bubbles and subsequent crises where unchecked greed coupled with insufficient regulatory oversight or intervention led to systemic havoc and widespread suffering.

This just isn’t one of them.

Only the federal government led by ill-informed “visionaries” can create a crisis this wide and this deep. More of the same can not and will not restore our economy.

It’s high time the other 53% of us came to grips with that fact.

…as they say in every investment ad and prospectus.

But hopefully this time it offers tuition for those that would rebuild Wall Street. Again.

Wall Street, or what remains of it, has dealt a catastrophic blow to its reputation in the past eight months of bonuses, bailouts and bankruptcies. What its current leaders, and the young who are lucky enough to be entering business, have to do now is begin rescuing and restoring that reputation.

This will, in fact, be the great work of a generation of American business leaders.

More is at stake than their standing. At stake is the standing of a free-market system that has flourished since America’s founding and made it the wealthiest nation in the history of man.

Peggy Noonan likens these days to those not so long ago when Wall Street was literally rebuilding itself after an unprecedented disaster.

Those days offer hope to those that would count Capitalism dead. They serve as a blueprint for redemption for those vilified justifiably, or more predominantly in this left-dominated environment, those vilified for the sake of political opportunism – lest this crisis be “wasted.”

And so the next morning, Monday, Sept. 17, 2001, the New York Stock Exchange opened with a podium full of firemen, cops, emergency medical workers and elected officials. A Marine Corps major sang “God Bless America.” There was silence. Then a Port Authority police officer, one of the last guys to come out of the pile, began to ring the bell. The others on the podium joined in. And as the bell rang out in triumph, the traders on the floor began to cry and cheer and shout themselves hoarse. Catherine Kinney was below the podium. “Was there a cheer—oh my God, you wouldn’t believe. I cried, I did. And prices start to go across the tape . . .”

America was open for business again.

It was a great moment in Wall Street history.

I dare say, despite speaking from the bottom of a metaphysical crater this time, that Wall Street has had a great many more good days than bad, for all Americans.

Financial advisors are by no means infallible but tend to work with clients that plan for the future, heavily discount  government’s role in their planning, and are self-employed. As such, they probably tend to have a pretty good handle on what drives investors and the economy – not to mention often times being self employed themselves.
What say they regarding our governments efforts to salvage our economy?

from Financial Planning Magazine yesterday:

Brinker Capital, an investment management firm, published its Brinker Barometer, a gauge of financial advisor confidence and sentiment related to the economy and the markets. It concluded that advisors across the industry are skeptical of the government’s attempts to shore up the economy. “Financial advisors continue to be concerned about the state of the U.S. economy and are critical of the Obama Administration’s efforts to introduce a meaningful stimulus package,” said John Coyne, president of Brinker Capital, in a public statement. “Fully 77% of respondents say the final stimulus plan will not be effective, while 88% of advisors contend that the plan itself was not the product of a bipartisan effort.”

About 43% of advisors surveyed said that government’s efforts should have job creation as the top priority. Tax cuts came in second at 30%, with housing and mortgage relief third at 16%.

How about Mr. Obama himself?

When asked to grade President Obama’s performance so far with a mock school-grading system, nine percent gave him an “A,” while 66% graded him between “C” and “F.”

Despite the Governments worst (and predictable given the current administration) efforts, advisors think that the markets, in anticipation of the economy, will improve – albeit slowly – despite the Obama Administrations ill-advised tactics.

Sixty percent of respondents think that the economy will emerge from recession in 2010. And more than one-third of respondents believe that it will take more than six years’ for portfolios to recoup their losses.

Just in time for Obama to take credit although it will be too late as his supporters will have realized by then that they are still making their own mortgage payments and filling their own tanks with gas.

So the banks – some of them, anyway, who bet long on toxic assets and lent like 14 year olds with too-big-allowances – are in trouble.  The government, rightly or (koff, koff) wrongly, is stepping in and socializing the major bank industry in all but name, and spreading the love downstream with an immense “stimulus” program that promises money to just about everyone.

The question is, how is this going to be paid for?

“Borrowing?”  Sure – but eventually loans need to be paid back (unless the government has ordered Fannie and Freddie to underwrite the loans, but that doesn’t apply in this situation).  And that’ll be “The taxpayer”

Who is this “taxpayer?”

Well, let’s find out who it’s not.

For starters, let’s leave out the 91 million Americans who pay no tax at all, leaving 209 million people to pay taxes.

Who are the patriarchs who caused the problem?  Men!  That leaves out the 51% of the population that are women, taking us down to 98 million.

Remove those in State and Federal prison, (3.8 million), as well as the 3% of Americans on parole (another 9 million), and you’re at just under 86 million people on the hook for these plans.

Of course, you can’t count the 73.5 million Americans who are below age 18, obviously.  They’re kids.  It’s not their fault.  That leaves 12.5 million of  us – except we’re going to have to leave out 10 million illegal immigrants, leaving us at 2.5 million), the military (since they’re busy), the employees of federal and state governments (since they’ll be the ones solving the problem and…

…that leaves two Americans.  You, and me.  We are the ones who are going to wind up paying for all this.

(more…)

That hope that may now become a reality as the American people come to realize what the WSJ observed today…

The dismaying message here is that President Obama’s policies have become part of the economy’s problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it’s become clear that Mr. Obama’s policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence — and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

I don’t have time today to elaborate but this picture is worth a thousand syllables…

…and why?

[Jimmy Carter II] has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his “stimulus” spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

The powers in Congress — unrebuked by Mr. Obama — are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery.

That’s Change^® you’re going to lose your job over. Hopefully not you – the President.

US Bank essentially avoided the mortgage crisis and as such had no need for government bailout dollars. What does their CEO think of the government’s efforts to assist less discerning banking organizations?

While government leaders were well-intentioned in setting up the Troubled Asset Relief Program, it’s a “lousy program,” U.S. Bancorp CEO Richard Davis said at a business leaders forum Tuesday.

U.S. Bank was told, not asked, to participate in the program, which is a Darwinian attempt to “synthesize” weaker banks into stronger banks through consolidation, Davis said at the forum.

The problems with the U.S. Treasury Department’s program are that its goals and rules have changed since its inception last fall, it’s poorly defined and it’s caused collateral damage to healthy banks.

Davis said he would be “darned” if Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank would suffer collateral damage from the government’s “sloppy attempt at nationalizing the [banking] industry.”

No, that doesn’t sound like Socialism at all.

Source Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal