The "Americans for Dignity Act". That would have been a splendid name to attain swift and non-controversial passage of a pending bill that would further extend unemployment insurance benefits. The bill, scheduled to pass this week, extends benefits to 99 weeks (one can only figure that the political calculation was that 100 would appear excessive. Items priced as $2.99 are considered a bargain; $3.00 is over the top). But if Democrats had just called it the Americans for Dignity Act they could have pushed benefits out for 40 more years.
Think of it. Who would dare commit political suicide by opposing an act of this name?
Fiscally responsible senator: We should make extended benefits deficit neutral.
Spendthrift senator: Are you saying you're AGAINST dignity?
Thoughtful senator: Wouldn't more benefits just deter people from finding work?
Blowhard senator: Mean-spirited bigot; trampling on those seeking DIGNITY!
Bush had the PATRIOT Act. We all want to be patriots, correct?
Other brilliant ideas for naming bills:
Want to ram through Stimulus Part 2 at, say, $13 Trillion dollars? May I suggest "Save our Country Act"
Unfettered access to food stamps and fine wine? The "Keep Citizens from Starving Act". Oops, that may appear too anti-illegal immigrant. Better call it the "Keep Humans Alive Act". Then again, PETA may object.
How about outlawing political dissent on the airwaves? The "Americans for Truth and Equality Act" should do the trick.
Who dares stand against saving our country, preventing starvation, and the defense of truth and equality?
Hello 1984.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Lessons from the Gipper
Barack Obama's adoration of the power of government is sure-fire confirmation of Ronald Reagan's quip. To wit, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it; If it keeps moving, regulate it; If it stops moving, subsidize it."
Under the Obama administration, we are being deluged with the manifestation of all three parts of the Reagan axiom. Taxes? Going up, thank you. Increased capital gains taxes, termination of Bush tax cuts, and the omnipresence of ObamaCare taxes. With regard to the latter, in September 2009, Obama adamantly denied that the mandatory nature of ObamaCare participation was a tax. However, in response to State law suits against the constitutionality of ObamaCare, his own Justice Department proffers the "government right to impose taxes" argument to defend the "non-tax tax".
Regulation? The about to be signed Financial Deform bill will only serve to make the extension of certain types of consumer credit impossibly difficult and expensive to the masses. This will create another crisis for which there will be the typical Obama response: regulate more, to the point of nationalization.
Subsidize? Here Obama reached a new and somewhat perverted low. He invited three jobless Americans to the White House as props for extending unemployment benefits. Wait a moment now, wasn't he going to put Americans back to work via the $800 Billion (before interest payments) Stimulus Bill? Seeing that the Stimulus Bill only stimulated a desire to spend more money, he now wants to pay extra for what he could not fix in the first place. (Think of buying a cordless vacuum cleaner and then having to buy a broom). The three jobless Americans are a testament to Obama's failure. My prediction is that he will want to extend unemployment benefits through, say, November 2012.
Obama is actually making Jimmy Carter not look so bad.
Under the Obama administration, we are being deluged with the manifestation of all three parts of the Reagan axiom. Taxes? Going up, thank you. Increased capital gains taxes, termination of Bush tax cuts, and the omnipresence of ObamaCare taxes. With regard to the latter, in September 2009, Obama adamantly denied that the mandatory nature of ObamaCare participation was a tax. However, in response to State law suits against the constitutionality of ObamaCare, his own Justice Department proffers the "government right to impose taxes" argument to defend the "non-tax tax".
Regulation? The about to be signed Financial Deform bill will only serve to make the extension of certain types of consumer credit impossibly difficult and expensive to the masses. This will create another crisis for which there will be the typical Obama response: regulate more, to the point of nationalization.
Subsidize? Here Obama reached a new and somewhat perverted low. He invited three jobless Americans to the White House as props for extending unemployment benefits. Wait a moment now, wasn't he going to put Americans back to work via the $800 Billion (before interest payments) Stimulus Bill? Seeing that the Stimulus Bill only stimulated a desire to spend more money, he now wants to pay extra for what he could not fix in the first place. (Think of buying a cordless vacuum cleaner and then having to buy a broom). The three jobless Americans are a testament to Obama's failure. My prediction is that he will want to extend unemployment benefits through, say, November 2012.
Obama is actually making Jimmy Carter not look so bad.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
On Humor
Having a sense of humor is having a sense of proportion. Humor is a lubricant that does wonders under the friction of intense debate. I was saying these things to a close friend as we entered into a discussion of the importance and rightful place of humor within our societal fabric. My friend told me that the influence of humor should be taken more seriously as a conduit of communication. And so the conversation went.
Later, and still thinking about the polemics we had engaged in earlier, I showed my friend a humorous refrigerator magnet of Sarah Palin with the caption: "Bush with tits". Okay, that was clever but it shifted the humor probe into the political realm. For instance, are liberals humorless? Would a store even carry a magnet with the likeness of Obama captioned, I don't know: "Carter with a jump shot"? I find both funny but I must admit that liberals are more than casually humorless when it comes to satirical pokes at their beloved people and causes.
Later, at a comedy club, I focused on how common it is to target "right wing" views for ridicule. Left wing crusades are holy - thou shalt not target nor laugh at a left wing cause. But, come on, Bush (either Bush) was an easy target. They have screwed up syntax and possess comical facial and bodily gestures. All true. But it is also true that Obama can easily be caricatured by showing his abject ineloquence when absent a TelePrompTer. And, come on, that Mussolini pose is to die for when he exudes his air of self-importance (arrogance).
Humor is indeed powerful. It is necessary. It is well, funny and relaxing. It is also selective. It is also political. Liberals lack proportion.
Later, and still thinking about the polemics we had engaged in earlier, I showed my friend a humorous refrigerator magnet of Sarah Palin with the caption: "Bush with tits". Okay, that was clever but it shifted the humor probe into the political realm. For instance, are liberals humorless? Would a store even carry a magnet with the likeness of Obama captioned, I don't know: "Carter with a jump shot"? I find both funny but I must admit that liberals are more than casually humorless when it comes to satirical pokes at their beloved people and causes.
Later, at a comedy club, I focused on how common it is to target "right wing" views for ridicule. Left wing crusades are holy - thou shalt not target nor laugh at a left wing cause. But, come on, Bush (either Bush) was an easy target. They have screwed up syntax and possess comical facial and bodily gestures. All true. But it is also true that Obama can easily be caricatured by showing his abject ineloquence when absent a TelePrompTer. And, come on, that Mussolini pose is to die for when he exudes his air of self-importance (arrogance).
Humor is indeed powerful. It is necessary. It is well, funny and relaxing. It is also selective. It is also political. Liberals lack proportion.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Politics of Boycotting
Those who are antipathetic toward the new Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law clamor for punitive action against the State of Arizona. A favorite call to action involves boycotting The Grand Canyon State. Already a girl's basketball team from Illinois was blocked from attending a tournament in Arizona because Illinois politicians find the Arizona legislative action repugnant. Fanatic hordes yell and rally to recruit "no vacations in Arizona" members. (Perhaps 1% actually planned to visit Arizona in the first place) So boycott they shall.
However, proponents of the Arizona boycott look an awful like those same cats that routinely decry the United States embargo (boycott) against trading with Cuba. Reason against Cuban embargo? It only hurts the Cuban people; therefore, it is an act of cruelty. Much better to engage the Cuban regime so that they can see the light of democracy.
Cuba Si! Arizona No!
May I suggest that these dazed and disturbed political agitators redirect their offensive vile by calling for a boycott against that country whose policy it is to kill those who wish to enter its sovereign via its southern border. The country? Why, Mexico of course.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Hypocrisy
Lectures on political civility by the Trash Talker-in-Chief and chiding on the importance of preventive health care provided by a chain smoker? What next, lessons on business ethics by Bernie Madoff?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
