…have to do with finance regulation?
One of the Dems I’d love to see get booted out this November is Henry Waxman. Unfortunately, some of the most destructive politicians (e.g., Waxman, Frank) are in the safest seats. That’s not a coincidence, of course. The safer your seat (or at least the perception of safety), the more outrageous the behavior.
Thoughts on the Wall Street Democrats:
…every time the president accuses Republicans of trying to “block progress” or of defying “common sense,” as he did that night, he is executing a dangerous tightrope walk. His party’s electoral fortunes depend on his making forceful calls for reform of our banking laws. His party’s fundraising fortunes depend on his ensuring that no serious reform—of the kind that endangers the big banks’ size and power—ever happens. That may be why the Democrats’ strategy of painting the Republicans as obstructionists on finance reform has gained little traction. By the same token, if Republicans ever did get serious about reforming the banks—and even about breaking up an industry that has turned into a Democratic war chest—they would put Democrats in mortal peril. There seems no chance of this. Obama’s taunts show a confidence, verging on certitude, that Republicans’ hypocrisy is as deep as his own.
Sounds like the Republicans suffer from false consciousness. I still think that low marginal rates are a good idea, though.
California is the worst state in the country in which to do business. I can believe it.
It’s a tragedy what the vandals in Sacramento have done to such a beautiful and naturally wealthy place.
An interesting discussion (at least to me) on the power and limitations of government regulation.
Our noble leaders in Washington were shorting America while they wrecked the economy.
About three months ago, I had a couple phone conversations with Charles Homans, an editor at the Washington Monthly, who had contacted me as a result of reading The New Atlantis piece. Apparently, he’s been doing a lot of other research in the interim. This long article is the apparent result of it.
One of the major tells of The One’s socialism was when he said in that debate that he’d increase the rate, even it it hurt the economyreduced government revenues, out of “fairness.”
Most people think that government spending hurts the economy. You have to be an economic dolt to think otherwise. Unfortunately, we have a lot of those, some of whom are currently running the country. Not to mention making fools of themselves in my comments section.
…you have grabbed enough power:
The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle’s concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” James Madison and others held that the “first object of government” was to protect the rights of property. Numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were incorporated to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.
Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. As Michelle Malkin observes, he spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his administration this week: “I think at some point you have made enough money.”
The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama’s other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.
But don’t call him a socialist.
A new video.