Saturday, September 20, 2008

Fannie Mae

This video will put into perspective how much influence the Democrats, especially Barack Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus, had on Fannie Mae. In this video, you'll see Fannie's CEO tell the CBC that they are Fannie's "family" and "conscious." Watch. Learn.

Hat tip to Kim Priestap


Who Am I

Who Am I ?

I am under 45 years old,

I love the outdoors,

I hunt,

I am a Republican reformer,

I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,

I have many children,

I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.

Have you ever heard of me before now?

(before you click for the answer, who do you think it is)

I am Teddy Roosevelt.


Friday, September 19, 2008

Obama and Fannie Mae

McCain came up with this ad about Barack Obama's connections to Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey

And the loony left accused him of playing the Race Card because there were sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman. Well they were not just any two black men, they were Obama and Raines, and what Fannie Mae did hurt a lot of people, including vulnerable-looking elderly white women. But if you want an ad with a white man (Jim Johnson) also in charge of Fannie Mae, who not only served as an economic adviser to Obama but also originally ran his running-mate search committee:

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey


Patriotism (for Democrats)

Joe Biden calls paying higher taxes a “patriotic” act.


Women upset by Palin Pick

New York Sun reported "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,"
Unless you liv on the first floor, that procedure is not advised.
an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."
Calm down. The next President will be John McCain. Palin is only his VP. It will be 2012 (or 2016) when she runs for President, against Hillary.
Ms. Kricorian allowed that she was among those driven to distraction, upon occasion, by Mrs. Palin's nomination. "My Facebook status last Monday was, 'Nancy is freaking out about Sarah Palin yet again,'" the writer said.
See your doctor. They have drugs that can help.
A posting on a New York-based Web site for women,, spoke of unbridled anger. "What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel,
Has the Secret Service been informed?
Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."
Definitely see your doctor. And take your meds.
.... Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views.
I don't think either was hidden.
"The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."
What has she not talked about?
Ms. Grose posited that some of the anger was because Mrs. Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, resembled a high school homecoming queen. "She has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys' game with her big guns and moose murdering,
moose murdering?????
and that she keeps being rewarded for it," Ms. Grose wrote.

A psychiatrist and conservative blogger, Patricia Santy, said the strong emotional reactions are driven by Mrs. Palin's differing with the left-leaning political agenda of many feminists. "Their entire image of themselves is based on the fact that they are paving the way for women. What do they see? Women getting ahead, women being empowered who don't agree with them," Dr. Santy said.
Ah, ha. The wrong "kind" of women.


Wednesday, September 17, 2008

McCain Rally

Hat tip to Allahpundit


Hillary cancels after she learns Palin will be there

Washington Times reported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.... Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters. "Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
It was supposed to be non-partisan, and that is why both women were invited. Apparently Clinton intended to turn it into a partisan event, with just her being there, and withdrew when she learned that was not going to be possible.


Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Enough is Enough

New McCain Ad addresses the financial crisis dominating the headlines.


Health care

A professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign plus two other professors think Obama's Health Plan is better. They wrote in The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care.

Actually the biggest threat is the credit crisis which the Democrats would not let Bush fix. And food prices were driven up by foolish efforts the Dems made to buy votes in corn producing states by pushing for corn to be used to make ethanol, and if they had not blocked drilling the last 30 years we would have much more domestic producion and gas prices would be much lower.
The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.
A lot of the increase was because Dems blocked tort reform, and the doctors order many unnecessary test to avoid being sued.
Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies. Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.
I don't really like either one.
Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:

- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.
The money will be wasted.
- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.
So rather than the insurance companies dumping skck patients, the doctors and hospitals will have an incentive to dump sick patients, to improve their "patient outcome" numbers.
- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.
A better plan would be to abandon employer provided insurance and let people be responsible for buying their own insurance, and then when they change jobs they can keep their insurance. Provide large pools for patients who elect not to carry insurance until after they get sick.
- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around.
How many doctors tell their patients to stop smoking and lose weight. And how many fat smokers are there?
Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.
Tort reform would save more because doctors would not have to waste money with unneeded tests.
In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.
And help destroy an already burdened medicare system. If you feel the government must help people with no insurance, build clinics for them, and revoke the law that says emergency rooms have to take people that can't pay. Let them wait in line in the clinics.
Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.
We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.
Then why do Canadians come to the US for health care they can't get in their own country.
The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market.
Just think how many workers they could hire if they did not have to worry about paying for their health care.
It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.
And if people did not depend on their employer for health care, they could do that even easier.
In contrast, Sen. McCain, who constantly repeats his no-new-taxes promise on the campaign trail, proposes a big tax hike as the solution to our health-care crisis. His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage. A study conducted by University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller and colleagues published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that the McCain tax hike will lead employers to drop coverage for over 20 million Americans.
Good. People should buy their own health care policies.
What would happen to these people? Mr. McCain will give them a small tax credit, $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual, and tell them to navigate the individual insurance market on their own.
Which is what they should do.
For middle- and lower-income people, the credits are way too small. They are less than half the cost of policies today ($12,000 on average for a family), and are far below the 75% that most employers offering coverage contribute.
Let them buy insurance from any state, and avoid the requirements some states impose that insurance must cover certain things people may not want to pay for coverage for.
Further, their value would erode over time, as the credit increases less rapidly than average premiums.

Those already sick are completely out of luck, as individual insurers are free to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Mr. McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work.
It is not the government's job to put that money forward. If everyone was responsible for his own insurance, and could buy any policy he wanted in the country, smart people would have their insurance covered even if they changed jobs, and foolish people could join the high risk pools if they waited until they got sick, or go to the charity clinics.
Even for those healthy enough to gain coverage in the individual insurance market, the screening, marketing and individual underwriting that insurers do to separate healthy from sick boosts premiums by 17% relative to employer-provided insurance, well beyond the help offered by the McCain tax credit.

The immediate consequences of the McCain plan are even worse. The McCain plan is a big tax increase on employers and workers. With the economy in recession, that's the last thing America's businesses need.
Obama wants to raise business taxes more.
Finally, Mr. McCain does nothing to bend the curve of rising health-care costs downward. He does not fund investments in learning, rewarding and preventing. Eliminating state coverage requirements will slash preventive service availability.
The high cost-sharing plans he envisions will similarly discourage preventive care. And as he does nothing about the hidden costs of the uncovered -- expensive ER visits, recurring conditions resulting from inadequate follow-up care.
That is why I said add clinics for the uninsured, and keep them out of ER rooms.


Historic, bigoted choice

ELECTION 2008: Your chance to make a historic, bigoted choice -- no matter who you vote for!

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds


Monday, September 15, 2008

Palin Hired Friends

NYTimes attempts a hatchet job on Palin When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.
Would it be ok for her to consult with her husband if he was a state employee, but is it wrong for her to do it because she has not put him on the payroll?
.... Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering "our Sarah" and hissing at her critics. "She is bright and has unfailing political instincts," said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. "She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future." "But," he added, "her governing style raises a lot of hard questions."
Sounds like the sort of person we want for Vice President.
Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article.
Would it have been a puff piece rather than a hatchet job if she had granted you the interview?
The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public’s interest. "Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska," he said.
A conservative populist.
.... And, her supporters say, she cleaned out the municipal closet, firing veteran officials to make way for her own team. "She had an agenda for change and for doing things differently," said Judy Patrick, a City Council member at the time.
That sounds like a good reason to clean house. And it probably upset the entrenched people that wanted to continue doing what she wanted changed.
But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. "He told us they only wanted two,"
It is called "Smaller Government"
recalled Esther West, one of the three, "and we had to pick who was going to be laid off." The three quit as one.
Smaller than intended, but she could always hire new people.
Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. "It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that," he said.
Maybe it was becoming too progressive for the majority.
.... As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.
And is she the firt politician to do that? In the unlikely event Obama is elected President, do you think he is going to keep Bush's cabinet ecretaries? Do you even think McCain will?
Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. "The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people," he said.
That is what is important.
.... Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account "when there was significant state business." On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: "Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account." Mr. Bailey responded: "Whoops~!"
Most politician use state assents for their personal business. The NYT is castigating Palin for using her personal e-mail address for state business.


This is funny

This is funny. I am sure it is not true, but it is still funny.