Gavin Newsom Is Totally Wrong About Taxes
-
Robby Soave and Amber Duke discuss Gavin Newsom's turn toward socialism.
13 hours ago
because the unexamined life is not worth living
It's Cost of Government Day! This year, Americans needed to work fully 231 days to pay for the total cost of government — from January 1st to today. You've been working for the government all year.
Whenever liberals point out that the entire conservative case against climate change legislation consists of the ravings of cranks, liars, and know-nothings someone eventually trots out Jim Manzi. Indeed, National Review tapped Manzi to write its big feature-length denunciation of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Manzi, you see, isn’t a crank, a liar, or a know-nothing—he’s cooked up some wonky reason for agreeing with the cranks, liars, and know-nothings on the question of climate legislation.Touché.
Then Jim Manzi read Mark Levin’s book, focused his attention on its climate section, and discovered that Levin is a crank, liar, and/or know-nothing. The result? Manzi is savagely and hypocritically attacked by the staff of National Review. Because, after all, the crankery and the know-nothingness is the essence of conservative politics. The wonks are useful just insofar as they can be used to support the crank agenda—when they take the cranks on, they get trashed, even by publications that were happy to cite them as experts on the very issue at hand just a few months ago.
Even though Democrats likely have enough votes to get onto the bill, below are quotes from conservative Democrats where they condition their vote on the second cloture motion on changes to the bill.
- Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.): "Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday. In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill."
- Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.): "I've told Sen. Reid that I'm strongly inclined, I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined to vote to proceed to the healthcare debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together, because it's important that we start the debate on healthcare reform, because I want to vote on healthcare reform this year. … I also told him that if the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage."
- Sen. Landrieu (D-La.): "My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end. I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done."
- Sen. Lincoln (D-Ark.): "In fact, madam president, this vote for or against a procedure that allows us to begin open debate on health care reform is nothing more and nothing less. … I will vote to support -- will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, but, madam president, let me be perfectly clear: I am opposed to a new government-administered health care plan as part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written. I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the health care reform legislation that is voted on by the senate later this year or early next year. I am also aware that there will be additional procedural votes to move this process forward that will require 60 votes prior to the conclusion of the floor debate. I've already alerted the leader, and I'm promising my colleagues, that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included."
Guildford, UK - A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".Alex Massie is enraged:
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
[..] assuming that these are all the relevant facts, this is worse than absurd: it is monstrous. Next time you hear a copper complaining that people don't respect the police think on this and remember that if the police are mistrusted it is, at least in large part, because they have often forfeited the right to be trusted. This story, extreme as it may be, reaffirms that.NRO adds:
The law is clearly at fault here, but that doesn't excuse the willful, even vindictive abandonment of common sense in this instance. This isn't a miscarriage of justice, it's a betrayal of justice and with the exception of Mr Clarke all concerned, including the jury, should be ashamed of themselves.
The legal explanation for this fiasco is that possession of a gun without a permit is a 'strict liability' offense (ie there are no excuses) which carries a mandatory (ah yes, those mandatory minimums again...) sentence of at least five years. The real explanation is, of course, that the law is insane.
From NRO:Ladies and gentlemen—or as they'd have it, just the gentlemen..... today's conservatism.
Is it time to turn back the clock on female suffrage? John Derbyshire explores.The Atlantic published a similar story:
Ought Women to Learn the Alphabet?That was from February. 1859. When did conservatives stop standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" to standing athwart history yelling "Rewind!"?
The state of Arizona has a huge deficit. It's now 30 percent of its entire budget. Obviously something needed to be done. Over at Neighborhood Effects, Mercatus Center's Eileen Norcross reports on the state's first step to address the problem:
After months of wrangling over how to meet the shortfall -- program cuts versus tax cuts -- a possible solution was reached this week, four weeks into the state’s new fiscal year: the lease of 32 government-owned properties including the State House, a prison, and a state hospital.Of course, the governor of Arizona, like every governor who has leased public property before (think Mitch Daniels in Indiana) is facing protests from voters. This makes no sense. Leasing the state's public property has proven to be the way to go. In Indiana, the state leased its highway, retained the ownership, and made a $4 billion profit. What's not to like? Norcross writes:
The plan involves selling the properties for a quick infusion of cash, and their leaseback over a period of years.
Does the state need to own a Coliseum and Exposition Center? Simply because it hosts the state fair doesn’t make it a state business.With a price tag of $84.3 million, privatization is a win-win situation. Take a non-essential, non-public good off the state’s books, and it has a chance of becoming a profitable (i.e., job-creating) business for a willing investor.Read the whole post here.
From [Jonah's] column this morning [..]:Yes Jonah, Obama's humanity is plain for all to see. Surprise, surprise. Those still hoping for the second coming of Jesus Christ will be disappointed.All presidents go through rough patches, and Obama’s no exception. Odds are his poll numbers will get better — and worse — in the years to come. All of this is typical.Update: I like the synergy with Krauthammer's opening line:
But this misses a crucial point: Obama isn’t supposed to be a typical politician. He was supposed to be The One. He was supposed to change Washington. Transcend race. Fix souls. Bake twelve-minute brownies in seven minutes.
Oprah promised Obama would help us “evolve to a higher plane.” Deepak Chopra said Obama’s presidency represented “a quantum leap in American consciousness.” Last month, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas proclaimed that Obama stood “above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.”
Well, now he’s the god who bleeds, and once you’re the god who bleeds, it’s hard to get the divinity back in the tube, as it were.
Obama undoubtedly has major accomplishments ahead of him, but in a real way the Obama presidency is over. His messianic hopey-changiness has been exposed for what it was, and what it could only be: a rich cocktail of pie-eyed idealism, campaign sloganeering, and profound arrogance.
As president, he’s tried to apply the post-partisan gloss of his campaign rhetoric to the hyper-partisan dross of his agenda. And he’s fooling fewer people every day.Yesterday, Barack Obama was God. Today, he’s fallen from grace, the magic gone, his health-care reform dead.

Political Browser | washington