Note to Pope Francis: It is Capitalism, not Socialism, which creates the wealth that supports the poor ... and the Church.
Evident
There is no evidence that any of the emails — a small portion of some 60,000 that Mrs. Clinton sent or received as secretary of state — were hacked or caused any harm to American interests, and law enforcement officials have said she is not a target of their investigation. But one of the questions they are seeking to answer is whether her aides or other State Department officials broke federal rules or laws when they sent her information. And arriving at an answer will not be simple, given the complex and often conflicting views of just how diplomatically fragile the information conveyed in the emails actually was. (New York Times, 9/25/2015)
So the final strategy for containing the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal is now in place:
--Hillary did nothing illegal.
--Her aides will take the fall for any criminal acts.
--The whole question of what is and is not classified is just so darn confusing anyway.
The path to the nomination is now clear.
Huma Watch
Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly involved in arranging a new government position for a top aide that allowed the aide to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department, according to documents released on Thursday.
The documents, released by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012. The forms were part of a broader process in which Ms. Abedin, then Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, was transitioning to a role as a “special government employee,” which allowed her to collect salaries from the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the private firm, Teneo, which was co-founded by a former aide to President Clinton. (New York Times, 9/25/2015)
"....which allowed her to collect salaries from the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the private firm, Teneo..."
Wow! Well done Huma. Nothing about this will make anyone cynical about either government or the Clintons. Of course, Hillary previously denied any involvement in Huma's unique job arrangement.
Remind us again why most of America views Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy?
Fishy
“Liberals and progressives will spend inordinate amounts of time and money protecting fish, frogs and flies,” Mrs. Fiorina said, adding: “They do not think a 17-week-old, a 20-week-old, a 24-week-old is worth saving. This, ladies and gentlemen, is hypocrisy, and it goes to the core of the character of our nation.” (New York Times, 9/25/2015)
Just as Liberals think it is OK to kill granny, but not a death row murderer. Well put by Fiorina. We like this "character of our nation" dialog.
Squishy
Despite the criticism from the right of Mr. Boehner as a “squish” or a Republican-in-name only, he was actually a strong conservative with the two-decade voting record and beliefs to match. He was someone who knew how Washington worked and wanted to keep it working as much on Republican terms as possible, given a Democratic president and for a time, a Democratic Senate. (New York Times, 9/26/2015)
Exactly as predicted by conservative commentators, the Liberal press now begins to heap praise upon the departing John Boehner. Why he was so much more reasonable than those radical Tea Partiers!
Cold Steel
Her silver tongue honed by decades in corporate marketing, Carly Fiorina has used two debates, and a steely determination on the campaign trail, to climb near the top of the polls for the Republican nomination.
But Americans should pause on her biggest professional credential for our highest office: a short, disastrous stint atop one of America’s iconic technology companies, Hewlett-Packard. (Steven Rattner, New York Times, 9/26/2015)
Steven Rattner REALLY does not like Carly Fiorina. She was - according to him - a bad CEO. Remind us again, who Steven Rattner is? Oh, that's right, he's this guy:
Quadrangle paid $7 million in April 2010 to settle the SEC investigation, and Rattner personally settled in November for $6.2 million without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. (Wikipedia)
And who does Rattner think was a good CEO? Why none other than Mitt Romney, that rapacious capitalist who plundered companies:
However, the lack of public service or sustained business success makes Mrs. Fiorina unqualified for the nation’s highest office. By comparison, Mitt Romney had built an extraordinarily successful investment firm and served for four years as governor of Massachusetts.
Liberals are just TOO much.
Buffed
House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday rebuffed conservatives who had been urging him not to invite President Obama to deliver the State of the Union address, in protest over his executive actions on immigration.
Boehner reasoned that giving Obama the floor would hurt, not help, the president's cause.
"The more the president talks about his ideas, the more unpopular he becomes," Boehner said. "Why would I want to deprive him of that opportunity?" (Foxnews.com, 12/4/2014)
Who would have guessed that Boehner had such a good sense of humor? He should thank Obama for giving him good material.
Busted
First, while it’s true that most Americans have insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, and employment-based coverage, that doesn’t mean that only the current uninsured benefit from a program that guarantees affordable care. Maybe you have good coverage now, but what happens if you’re fired, or your employer goes bust, or it cancels its insurance program? What if you want to change jobs for whatever reason, but can’t find a new job that comes with insurance? (Paul Krugman, New York Times, 12/5/2014)
It is shocking that Krugman does not know what you do if you lose your employer-sponsored health insurance.
So here's the answer: you buy individual health insurance. It is offered in all 50 states.
We are pleased to be able to provide this public service message...
Evidentiary
A long-awaited report by a New Jersey legislative committee says that there is “no conclusive evidence” whether Gov. Chris Christie knew about the controversial lane closings at the George Washington Bridge in 2013 before or as they were happening.
But in a detailed chronology, the report argues that the governor had many opportunities to know about the lane closings, the political motive behind them and the involvement of his administration, even as he insisted he knew nothing. (New York Times, 12/5/2014)
The Times continues its hard-hitting investigative reporting on what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie knew about a traffic back-up on the GW Bridge. Once reporting has been completed - and not before - they will be able to turn their attention to Lois Lerner and those lost and found e-mails.
Fifths
San Jose now spends one-fifth of its $1.1 billion general fund on pensions and retiree health care, and the amount keeps rising. To free up the money, services have been cut, libraries and community centers closed, the number of city workers trimmed, salaries reduced, and new facilities left unused for lack of staff. From potholes to home burglaries, the city’s problems are growing.
....
“I think it needs to be led by Democrats,” Mr. Reed said. “It can’t become something Republicans are doing to unions.” (San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed-Democrat) (NYT, 9/23/2013)
Reed is correct that only Democrat governors and mayors can forestall the financial Armageddon that will come from public employee benefits. Then again, turnaround is fair play as it was Democrats who created the problem.
Refusnik
House Speaker John Boehner is chiding President Obama for negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin while refusing to negotiate with House Republicans. (Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post, 9/23/2013)
Actually a pretty good line from Boehner.
To which we would add the following: Wasn't it Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama who said "No blue states, no red states?" Whatever happened to that guy?
Even Though
The state Senate has advanced legislation to allow immigrant workers on Vermont farms to become legal drivers, even though they might be in the country illegally.
The 27-2 vote came nearly 19 months after the Vermont State Police stopped a car containing two passengers who were Mexican immigrant farmworkers in the country illegally and turned them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. (Burlington Free Press, 4/5/2013)
Continuing their laser-like focus on the issues vital to an economically sound and prosperous Vermont, state legislators roll up their sleeves to tackle drivers licenses for illegals.
Yesterday while taking our cat out for a walk, RedStateVT conducted an admittedly informal survey in the neighborhood. We asked: "What is the most pressing issue here in Vermont that we want our legislators to address?" Unanimously, our fellow Vermonters answered "drivers licenses for illegals."
Well there you go.
Hard Times
The president could face an even tougher time selling the Social Security change to liberal members of Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., fired off a statement Thursday responding to what was then the rumor that Obama's budget could include the change. "Millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women will be extremely disappointed if President Obama caves into the long standing Republican effort to cut Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans and their survivors through a so-called chained CPI," Sanders said. "In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security. Having him go back on his word will only add to the rampant political cynicism that our country is experiencing today." (Foxnews.com, 4/5/2013)
Whenever defending or advocating for government entitlements Colonel Bernie Sanders will inevitably provide a laundry list of those who would be affected. Working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, women, those with broken bones, with broken hearts, the tired, the poor, those who yearn, those who once yearned, pet owners, people who lost a pet, seniors who lost a pet, the disabled who lost a pet, the recently deceased, those about to be deceased, etc.
On the other side is a single group: taxpayers.
Shore Line
“If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.” (NYT, 4/5/2013)
Excellent point by John Boehner who is slowly rehabilitating himself. If President Obama believes in the absolute necessity of entitlement reform in order to ensure the sustainability of these programs for the long term, then why is such reform tied to tax hikes on the rich? The answer, we suspect, is that Obama is not a true believer on such reform.
Story Time
Our favorite anecdote from the tour, however, came when some protesters against Keystone XL chanted outside another rich man's home, "What do we want from the President? No pipeline for the 1%."
These protesters need to have their consciousness raised too. The 1%-ers writing checks to Mr. Obama loathe the pipeline. The folks who need and want it are the 99%. They're the working stiffs who are "struggling to get by" in this economy.... (WSJ, 4/5/2013)
See yesterday's RedStateVT post. More proof that the Wall Street Journal reads RedStateVT?
Hail Hail
The economy created a net 88,000 new jobs, 95,000 in private business. This means that for every unemployed American who found a job in March, about five left the labor force. If the Obama Administration can convince another three million or so Americans to leave the job market, the President will be able to hail "full employment." (WSJ, 4/5/2013)
Our favorite line from a column on the latest unemployment numbers.
Sensible
Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it. Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress, and the Senate—controlled by his Democratic allies—hasn't even voted on a solution, let alone passed one. By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security. (John Boehner, WSJ, 2/19/2013)
There is a part of us that wonders if sensible Democrats feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi that sensible Republicans feel about John Boehner. Namely, both might prefer a different spokesperson. Boehner is at times awkward and inarticulate and has let Obama get the best of him. Nonetheless, we were thrilled to read his Wall Street Journal piece. No doubt pushed by RedStateVT which has been insistently recycling Charles Krauthammer's reminder that the sequester was Obama's creation, Boehner finally makes this very point. It cannot be said enough as sequester nears.
Scofflaw
Voters should scoff at the idea that a $3.6 trillion government can't save one nickel of every dollar that agencies spend. The $85 billion in savings is a mere 2.3% of total spending. The agencies that the White House says can't save 5% received an average increase in their budgets of 17% in the previous five years—not counting their $276 billion stimulus bonus. (WSJ, 2/19/2013)
Truth in numbers.
Prison Time
The shift to tougher penal policies three decades ago was originally credited with helping people in poor neighborhoods by reducing crime. But now that America’s incarceration rate has risen to be the world’s highest, many social scientists find the social benefits to be far outweighed by the costs to those communities.
“Prison has become the new poverty trap,” said Bruce Western, a Harvard sociologist. “It has become a routine event for poor African-American men and their families, creating an enduring disadvantage at the very bottom of American society.” (NYT, 2/18/2013)
Loved this one from the Times. Long prison sentences are a major contributor to poverty. We don't even know where to begin.
Argumentative
Indeed, the same logic that argues for setting a minimum wage also argues for the government setting wage standards more generally. The government could require businesses above a certain size to increase employees’ wages in line with the economy’s productivity increases, for example, exempting those companies that experienced losses the previous year.
That will never happen, of course (and might be a bureaucratic nightmare if it did). But what are more plausible scenarios for jump-starting Americans’ earnings? A better-educated workforce might command more income, but incomes in most professions have been stagnating as well.
If wages are to rise, the only alternative to giving the government wage-setting authority is giving employees the power to bargain. Today, that power has just about vanished. With union membership down to just 6.6 percent of the private-sector workforce, the overwhelming majority of U.S. workers have no power to bargain for their share of company revenue, and those few who do have a weak hand. Reforming labor laws so that workers could join unions or workers’ associations without fear of firing might ultimately compel chief executives to invest some of that $1.7 trillion on hand to training and rewarding their workers, even if it means they can’t buy back as many of their own shares. (Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, 2/19/2013)
Meyerson hops around the Liberal playbook in this column from which we quote extensively. See if you can follow:
--We really need to raise the minimum wage.
--Actually that is such a great idea that the government should be able to force businesses to raise non-minimum wage workers' pay.
--OK, that probably couldn't happen. (But it would be great if it could.)
--Well then workers should at least be able to join unions. (Apparently that is not possible currently.)
Where to begin?
