There's Never Been A Plan

Economist Sachs Hits Obama

"We're almost three years into this administration, and there's never been a plan.

There is definitely a plan, and it is to destroy the US Economy. And Obama is following the plan. The plan just does not care how many are out of work. Because he wants the US to be more like Europe, with everyone on the dole, and rioting when the government has to cut back.

And that's what everybody feels. And the president didn't lead. He waited. The quintessential image, sadly, of an administration that I supported and hoped for much better, is the president waiting by the phone to hear what Congress calls to tell him.

When the Dems controlled both houses he did not care about jobs. He just wanted to saddle us with another entitlement program: Obamacare. And they did that. He does not care about jobs, except his own. He will pretend to care about jobs to make sure he is reelected.

It doesn't work in this country that way. It's not a matter that it's August. It's a matter that it's August 2011. So we've been drifting for a very long time. And we've been drifting down. And we had a short-term plan that failed. A short-term stimulus that was supposed to get the economy back on track, but it failed. And now we have nothing behind it. And we have no agreements, and we have no leadership. And, frankly, I do think it's pretty odd the president's on vacation right now. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, but the world markets are in deep crisis. It's no joke. This isn't just an up-and-down little blip. This is a very serious situation."

And it will not be fixed until January 2013 when the new Republican takes office.

Where’s the Syria plan?

Eugene Robinson wondered

Where’s the Syria plan? .... What we need is something the president has refused to provide: an Obama Doctrine governing the use of force to defend civilians against their own despotic governments, or at least spelling out how the United States views its role in the unfolding Arab Spring.

The confusion comes from assuming the Arab Spring is a desire for democracy. Democracy is a form of Government, and Islam is not just a religion, it is also a form of government, called Sharia Law.

What they want is restoration of the Caliphate they lost when the Ottoman Empire lost in WWI and the land was Partitioned in a bunch of individual countries. In some the leaders installed retained control, but had to get stronger to do so, and in some they were overtaken by someone stronger. But only a few of those demonstrating really wanted Democracy. What they wanted is what is going to happen in the September elections in Egypt, the one time election of an Islamic government, and that will be the last time they get to vote. And soon those Islamic governments will either persuade weaker Islamic governments to allow themselves to be taken over, or they will be attacked in an effort to reform the Caliphate.

An 'inconsequential' Washington?

Jeff Greenfield opined

Whatever Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s political fate, he has already carved a niche in history with his first appearance as a presidential contender. He offered up the single most galvanizing sentence in any announcement speech. “I’ll promise you this,” Perry said. “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

He did not say inconsequential, he said as inconsequential as I can. But to a progressive, that wants to make it as consequential as possible, I guess any retreat must be frightening.

For ardent conservatives, it is the latest — and sharpest — battle cry for limited government. A lineal descendant of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 Inaugural assertion that “in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” First cousin to George W. Bush’s charge that Al Gore “trusts the government; I trust the people.” It offers a twist on the famous hope of Grover Norquist — self-described head of the “leave us alone” caucus — that the federal government should be “down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.’

Grover might have gone a bit far, but I agree with Reagan and Bush.

For former President Bill Clinton, Perry’s promise prompted a scornful rejoinder: “He’s saying ‘Oh, I’m going to Washington to make sure that the federal government stays as far away from you as possible — while I ride on Air Force One and that Marine One helicopter and go to Camp David and travel around the world and have a good time.’ I mean, this is crazy.”

Is that what the Presidency meant to Clinton? Besides providing him with interns to pleasure him.

There is, however, something far more fundamental. It is a formulation of a brand of current conservative thinking that breaks radically with two centuries of American history: There is no mission — other than defense against foreign foes — that is the proper task of Washington.

The Constitution lists a few other jobs, reserving the rest to the states and the people, but Defense is certainly a big one.

Whatever America’s view about the size and scope of government — how much it should tax, what it should regulate, who or what it should subsidize — it has never embraced the idea that it should be “inconsequential” in the lives of its citizens.

Certainly not since the Progressive Era began, which is the problem, but is was not always that way.

Before there was a federal government, the Confederation Congress passed in 1787 the Northwest Ordinance — from which came the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Apart from forbidding slavery in those states, the act also provided that revenue generated from the sale of a portion of each township in the state would go to fund public education. It was, in other words, the first instance of federal aid for education.

Did the revenue come to Washington to then be doled out, or did it remain in the state, or even the township, earmarked for that purpose?

.... Beyond money matters: It took federal force to bring civil and voting rights to the black citizens of the South some half-century ago. That force clearly disrupted life in the South as it had been lived for generations. It was about as “consequential” a use of federal power as can be imagined. Is that the kind of power a President Perry would scorn? I doubt it — at least, I hope not.

It is not a problem. The slaves have already been freed, by a Republican, and the oppression of black citizens o the South by Democratic Governors has been dealt with.

Perry has been nothing but blunt about his disdain for Washington; about his view of Social Security and Medicare — probably the two federal programs that have the biggest impact on the lives of most Americans — as “Ponzi schemes.” As a political matter, Perry himself has some tough questions to answer — and he may be willing to stake out an argument based on the “unsustainability” of these programs.

Does Greenfield think they are sustainable as now formulated?

For me, the larger issue is how deep the disdain for all things Washington has grown. To argue that the federal government has grown too large and too distant is one thing Robert F. Kennedy, for example, made this argument often during his last years.

I do not know what Kennedy thought but it has grown too large and too distant. Any decision that can be made in the state rather than in Washington should be made in the state, and any decision that can be made in a town should be made there rather than in the state capital.

To argue that there is nothing of moment that Washington should be doing marks a version of that argument that is nothing short of astonishing.

Not nothing. Little.

Dem suggests fracking causes STDs

PennLive.com reported

A state lawmaker is explaining his remark that suggests the impact of Pennsylvania's booming natural gas industry includes the spread of sexually transmitted disease

This is the sort of problem you get when legislators don't understand their talking points. He knew he was supposed to badmouth Fracking, a technique used break rocks apart underground in gas production, and he confuses it with a slang word for sex.

"amongst the womenfolk."

I wonder how the women in his district liked hearing themselves referred to that way.

Democratic Rep. Michael Sturla of Lancaster County was expected to discuss the remark at a previously scheduled hearing Wednesday on gas drilling. His remark was made in comments e-mailed to a reporter in which he accused a Corbett administration official of downplaying the seriousness of community impacts created by drilling.

Does the man understand what community impact refers to. Gas drilling results in more jobs for drilling crews, who spend more money in the community, resulting in more jobs for the locals, but if the local "womenfolk" can't keep their pants up and their skirts down they might get STDs

The state Republican Party on Tuesday evening called the remark offensive and incredibly stupid, and called on Sturla to apologize. However, Sturla was apparently citing testimony by Troy Community Hospital from May that says among its experiences with the influx of drilling crews is an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

And if the jobs had not been created that brought the drilling crews in with their STDs, people would have remained out of work, with nothing to do, and they would not have spread their own STDs?

Regulations

CowboyByte reported

During a town hall meeting at Wyffels Hybrids in Atkinson, Illinois, a farmer expressed concern to President Obama about forthcoming regulations.

A reasonable concern. He would rather be farming than filling out forms.

The man stated that people would rather be farming than “filling out forms and permits to do what we like to do.” President Obama told the farmer “don’t always believe what you hear” and blamed Washington for ginning up speculation.

But they have seen the regulation his Czars have already promulgated.

Obama added that, “Nobody is more interested in seeing our agricultural sector successful than I am, partly because I come from a farm state.