Polifact analyzed Obama’s first 100 days in broken promises. Ideapalooza has a downloadable spreadsheet of Obama’s 895 campaign promises. Recently, he called for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, considered a paragon of Democrat wishy-washiness. Of course, this has been on the White House website for a while, and nothing has been done.

Way to go Mr. President. You’ve learned well. Your supporters really don’t pay close enough attention to what you do to realize the truth. Keep making promises. Don’t worry about keeping them. It’s the liberal way. After all, you can earn the Nobel Prize for just saying you’ll do something now. I’d say this plan has already been a success.

Straightaway as he took office, President Obama promoted the so-called “economic stimulus bill.” This three-quarter of a trillion dollar corporate-welfare swindle was pushed on America as the only way to stop the economic slowdown.  By not addressing the true causes of the bad economy, congressional interference in the mortgage, automotive, and energy sectors, it was easier to blame President Bush, and bankers for situations both were forced to endure.  The result? Massive erosion of freedom, as Congress used the stimulus as an excuse to control individual wages, a contiunuation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist in economically harmful ways, and an unemployment rate far above what Obama promised should the stimulus not be passed.

With the stimulus, Obama succeeded in legislation, but failed massively in result.  America is in worse shape because of its passing.

Onward to the next major emergency legislation that must be passed RIGHT NOW. Obama supported the “cap and trade” legislation to “fight global warming” long before he took office.  He actually said, “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”  Obama’s goal wasn’t just to promote so-called “green technologies,” but to force the forms of energy we rely on every day out of the market.  His stated intention was to run out of business an industry that many thousands of working men and women across many states relied on for a living.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives complied, passing one of the most egregious infringements on freedom known to America.

Luckily, word got out about what damage the bill would cause.  The bill would cause increases in energy costs, resulting in increases in costs on everything else.  After all, it takes energy to manufacture, warehouse, transport, display, and retail pretty much everything you buy. Since the end consumer pays all those costs in the final price, the end consumer would pay the bill.  That would damage the economy further, likely resulting in an economic spiral when we need it least.

As it looks now, the Senate is unlikely to continue work on this piece of “emergency” legislation until at least next year. So much for the “if we don’t pass this now” horse manure Obama tried to foist on us so many weeks ago.

With one emergency bill not yet completed, another was brought up.  Now it’s time, apparently, to completely upturn everything concerning the healthcare industry.  Painting the insurance industry’s  profit margin of 3.3% as exhorbitant, Obama and the Democrats maneuvered (manured?) to wrest control of healthcare from their hands.  With deficits, and debt piling on daily, the trillion dollar “healthcare reform” bill had to be passed RIGHT NOW.

Then, people started actually reading the bill.  By people, I mean actual citizens.  I do not mean Obama or Congress.  Obama, asked about a detail of the bill, replied, “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” John Conyers said, “I love these members that get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

You know what? I haven’t read the whole bill.  I have read quite a bit of it, though.  It is convoluted, and boring, but I took some time to actually research the issue.  I don’t even have a vote in the matter.  You might think, though, that Obama and Congress would bother reading a bill before insulting MY intelligence for opposing it on the issues.

Let me give you a hint, Mr President.  You don’t gain the support of America by insulting your opponents, especially when dealing with an issue in which over half of America is in the opposition.

Obama even went on TV multiple times to push the health care bill.  He continually referred to his plan, even though he has yet to actually propose a plan.  He claimed he would veto a bill presented to him if it contained unpopular provisions, but many of those provisions are in the house bill. Unlike Congress, many citizens could find the time to research this information, which is why Obama’s televised appeals each resulted in a DROP in popularity for the bill.

Oh yeah, the Senate probably won’t get to this piece of emergency legislation until next year.  They’re debating over which provisions Obama said he would veto they want to include (really!) and to what extent.

Obama says the economy is turning around, and jobless claims are levelling off.  Almost immediately, new jobless reports show the opposite.  Obama promotes the Olympics to Chicagoans, and Chicagoans demonstrate opposition.

The latest?  Obama goes to the International Olympic Committee to promote Chicago for the Olympics, and the IOC completely snubs him, knocking Chicago out in the first round of voting.

He’s not the savior.  He’s not bringing prosperity.  He’s not bringing America together.  He’s not leading an ethical government.  He’s not, apparently, capable of speaking coherently without a teleprompter.  Heck, he has yet to demonstrate he’s all that smart.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proven that he is really only good at one thing.  He’s a miserable failure, on his way toward having arguably the worst presidency in the history of the United States.

Did you know that it it costs over $300 billion just to service the debt of the US Federal government right now?  Some readers may not know what that means.  It means that the interest payments alone, on past loans given to the US Government add up to $300,000,000,000 every year.  Let’s put that into perspective.

The top company on the Fortune 500 is Exxon Mobil with $45 billion in profits. The top four profitable companies on the list totaled profits of $100 million.  You have to go down to #70 in the list before the profits add up to the interest on the US debt.  If we taxed these companies at 100% of their profits for a year, we could pay the interest, but not the principal on the debt. If you think taxing these companies at 100% is a good idea, you’re an idiot that should have studied some basic economic theory, but nonetheless, I know you’re out there.

We are in an economic downturn, and even if some are saying we’re on the way out, we are going to continue to be in a dire economic situation unless something is done about government spending and debt.  Congress, and President Obama should not be doing anything that would cost, well, pretty much anything. If they do, it adds to the debt, and offers no stimulus to the economy to offset the costs.

That’s right.  As a blanket statement, I said that anything Congress and the President do that costs money will provide no stimulus to the economy.  There may be some ancillary benefits, but all money spent by the government must be, sooner or later, paid for by the citizens of the United States.  Personal income taxes are a direct tax, to be sure, but the rest of the taxes are paid by the citizens as well.  Corporate taxes aren’t paid for with money pulled from trees.  The taxes are a cost of doing business, and that cost is always passed along to the consumer.  If Congress passes a new tax on oil companies, you pay more for gas at the pump.  It’s a simple concept, and one that many cannot grasp.

What do we consider a recession?  A recession is an economic downturn that lasts at least 3 fiscal quarters.  Why do we care if there is a recession?  It’s because of the worry that we, as citizens, will end up with less financial stability, or cash to purchase for our needs.  How do we improve the economy?  We increase the amount of money flowing between individuals, businesses, and corporations for goods and services.

Will the “Cap and Trade” bill, which is designed to put certain power companies out of business, increase the flow of money for goods and services?  Of course not.  It’s designed to do otherwise.  Will the so-called “health care reform” bills in Congress increase this flow?  No, like the cap and trade bill, the health care bill is designed to put a large portion of the health care industry out of business, leaving many thousands unemployed.

What if there was something we could do that would increase the flow of money for goods and services on a large scale?  What if it would also result in a dramatic cut in the number of people able to get insurance?  What if it would result in a turnaround in the home market?  What if it would stimulate the automobile industry?  What if it would mean more jobs, lower prices on many items, higher food production, and possibly even more people driving fuel-efficient cars?

I know what it would take to make this happen.  It would work.  The results would be dramatic, and immediate.

All we have to do is drop the federal personal income tax to zero.

Look at your last pay stub.  How much of your income was taken out to pay the federal income tax? Are we talking $50, which would buy groceries for one for a week?  Is it more like $100? For one month’s income taxes, could you buy an iPod? A new PC? Make a car payment? For some, it may even be a house payment.

What would be the cost to the US Government of a tax cut like this?  It would remove approximately $1 trillion from the government’s coffers.  Let’s not get stuck on that, though, because that number is false.  It isn’t even worth considering without more information.

You see, the influx of cash that a personal income tax cut of this magnitude would cause would have other effects. With more money available, more will be spent.  Sure, some will throw their money away on beer, but that means more sales for beer companies, and they’ll have to hire new employees to meet the demand.  Some will buy cars, meaning automobile companies will have to produce and sell the cars. How many iPods and iPhones will be purchased?  Apple will probably have to build new manufacturing facilities just to handle the demand. More production and purchasing of goods and services means more corporate income, and therefore more money going to corporate income taxes.

That $1 trillion cost for the tax cut would mean more purchasing, more manufacturing, more hiring, more income, and therefore more purchasing.  It’s a wonderful circle that can be helped, or harmed, by government action.  It is likely that, within a year or two, the $1 trillion hit the first year would result in more than $1 trillion in increased tax returns.  The government would, if history is any guide, make more then it cost.

Of course, as brilliant as this idea is (it wasn’t mine originally, mind you) it won’t happen.  You see, this idea is based in one concept that few in Washington DC understand.

Freedom.

So … is there a stimulus plan that could work?  Is there an idea that could put an immediate cash infusion into the American economy?  Could we, with one or two quick decisions, take action to put our economy on the fast-track again, while costing no more than the estimated one to three-and-a-half trillion dollars that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have allocated so far?

Yes.

Before I get into the solution, I’d like to tell a short story.  Not so long ago, I operated a small business in my hometown in North Carolina.  The business was located in a small, rustic little downtown Main Street area that needed some stimulus.  A bunch of the business-owners started a group to try to improve the area, and we began meeting regularly.  It didn’t take long for ideas to start flowing, and one of them was beautification.

It seems that the city had a beautification program that we could take advantage of.  If we would purchase the cement planters to place around our little downtown area, the city would fill them with flowers, and take care of the upkeep.  Not a bad deal, all in all.  We all thought it was a great idea, so the next question was, how to get the planters, and pay for them.  The head of the group, a Republican, was pushing for a special tax district for our area, with a small additional tax being paid by the building-owners that would go into the coffers of our group, the designated business association.  The tax money could then be used to purchase planters, as a first project.

The tax-district idea had been put forth in multiple meetings.  It wasn’t popular.  Honestly, I did my part to make sure I talked to everyone that hated the idea, and make sure it couldn’t be pushed through.  When it was brought up yet again, in reference to the planters, I stood up to say exactly how stupid I thought the idea was, and where I thought the district lines should be drawn so that I was excluded.

The leader of our group looked at me, and asked a simple question.  “Without the tax district, and the money we would get from it, how would we pay for the planters?”

I stood my ground, and presented my idea.  It was simple.  We call around, and find suppliers of the planters.  We find the best price, and any business owner that would like a planter can buy one, two, or however many they need.  We just collect the money, and go pick them up on a truck.

You would have thought I had slapped the guy’s sister.  While others in the room nodded at my suggestion, our leader blustered something about how not everyone would buy them, and we would have planters in front of some stores, but not others.

My response to his objection was, yet again, simple.  If everyone doesn’t buy planters, then not everyone gets planters.  Those who don’t get them will see them appear in front of the other stores, and they’ll want them too.  Before much time passes, a second order will need to be made for those that don’t buy-in the first time.

Well, my idea won, and his idea lost.  Money was collected, planters were purchased, and flowers were planted.  The tiny improvement made a huge difference, and lots of people talked about how nice the planters looked.  Those that didn’t buy on the first round saw the benefit, and a second round of planters had to be purchased.

The point of the story is that we could have gone the tax route.  Money could have been taken from profits to pay the tax.  The tax money could have gone to the city, until the time came to pay the business owner’s group the proceeds (100% of the tax would have gone to the group).  The group would have had to pay costs of accounting, and decide how to spend the money.  Some day, perhaps months down the road, we would have been able to purchase planters for everyone.  Instead, we simply allowed those who wanted the benefit of the planters to buy-in, and we got a good deal.  Peer-pressure worked on the stragglers, and they soon paid for planters as well.  No taxes, and great benefit in two weeks, rather than months.

How does this story apply to today’s economic issues?

Right now, our government is taking taxes at every level.  They take a personal income-tax, which you pay out of your paycheck.  They take a corporate income-tax, which you pay in the price of the goods and services you receive.  They take tax in tariffs, duties, and licensing fees, all of which increase the cost of goods and services you receive, and so you’re the one paying them in the end.

Looking at the bills Congress is passing, and Obama is signing, that tax money isn’t being spent well.  It’s paying for streetscaping, trollies, libraries, museums, sidewalks, “Totally Teen Zone,” fairgrounds, ferries, a swamp canal, a water-taxi service, a Historic Jazz Association, aircraft displays, lobster research, catfish research, and many, MANY, more non-stimulus items. For the record, there’s even at least one downtown revitalization project in there.

All this, and Obama is talking about tax increases “for the rich.”

What if we took a little different path.  What if we cut out the middleman.  It seems to be a good idea for business to cut out the middleman, and passing the savings on to the customer.  The customer pays the money, and the customer gets the benefit of the purchase.  YOU are the customer.  YOU pay the taxes, and YOU are supposed to be the beneficiary of all the good that government does. The government is the middleman.

Let’s do something simple.  Let’s go back and cancel the “Porkulus” bill, that is disguised as stimulus.  Let’s cancel the spending bill with 9000 earmarks.  Let’s replace them with a simple, effective stimulus plan that we can agree on.

Here’s the plan.  We cut the 2008 personal income tax to zero.

That’s it.

I can’t take credit for the idea.  Rush Limbaugh is the one I heard mention the idea, but as I keep thinking about it, it sounds better and better.  Here’s how it would work.

Starting as soon as possible, all federal income-tax withholding would be stopped from your paycheck.  This would result in an immediate boost in available cash to every working person in America.  How much of your paycheck each payment period goes to federal income taxes? Is it 25%?   Let’s just take that as an easy number to work with.

If 25% of your check goes to federal income taxes, and your tax rate is cut to zero, your $1000 in take-home pay will rise to approximately $1330.  That’s enough for a payment on an affordable car. $330 per week for a year is over $17,000.  That’s enough for a nice downpayment on a house, or a full purchase on a slightly-less-affordable car.

In April, anything you’ve paid into the federal income tax withholding before the wittholding was stopped would be refunded to you. If the plan went into action on April 1, then your refund would be almost $4000 based on the numbers above.

What’s the cost to the government?  It would cost one trillion dollars.  That, conveniently enough, would be offset by the cancellation of the last spending bill.  What’s more, unlike the spending bill, the tax cut would actually stimulate the economy.

What would YOU do with your federal income-tax money back?

First, we need to think about why the US auto industry is doing badly, while foreign automakers are performing better with US based plants.  A large reason for this is that the unions have, over time, gained far too much control over the automakers.

When most think about union involvement in the automotive industry, they think of the line-worker.  It isn’t unreasonable that automakers provide decent pay and benefits to those who make the cars. When someone talks about reducing the power of the unions, the automatic assumption is that this would mean lower pay and benefits for the line workers.  While that may be a side-effect of reducing union power, it’s not the area in which the unions need to be broken from the process.

The most cumbersome requirement of the unions is that the automakers rely on unionized vendors.  Let’s take brake pads, for instance.  If Ford has bids from three different manufacturers of brake pads, each capable of producing the same pads to the same standards of quality, they are able to make a decision on price.  Manufacturer #1 can create the brake pads for $20 per car in its North Carolina plant using non-union labor.  Manufacturer #2 can make the brake pads for $30 in Massachusets using some union labor.  Manufacturer #3 can sell their brake pads for $50 per car out of their Ohio plant using nothing but union labor. 

Given identical standards of quality and safety, the choice is easy.  The North Carolina manufacturer gets the contract.  In Detroit, this isn’t allowed.  Union contracts require that the parts that go into the cars be made by union labor.  This means that each part of the car costs more to produce than it should, thus driving up the price

It’s the extraneous requirements on the contracts that have to go.  The best way to do this is the bankrupcy process.  Bankrupcy proceedings could allow the big-three automakers to renegotiate these contracts.  The end result could, and should, be reduced manufacturing costs per car, and therefore a lower cost per car.

Lower prices per car would increase sales, allowing for profitability.

Lower prices aren’t the only answer, though.  In order to be able to sell the cars, the automakers also have to be able to make cars that people want to buy.  That’s easy enough, isn’t it?  A little market research, good design teams, and quality engineering should be able to produce the cars that America wants.

Wait a minute, though.  That isn’t how it works.  Thanks to the US Government, the automakers can’t just produce what America wants.  The greatest impediment to this is called CAFE standards.  CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy.  In short, the CAFE standards say that each automaker must produce CARS with an average mileage defined by the government.

Notice the emphasis on cars in that last sentence.  That’s important, and I’ll get to why in a moment.

My parents love their Mercury Gran Marquis. It’s not a gas hog, but it isn’t going to get any awards for economy, either. The estimated miles per gallon on the highway is 25mpg. This is below the government’s CAFE standard rate of 27.5mpg.  In order to compensate, Ford must produce cars that exceed this standard.  The Ford Focus exceeds this standard.  Unfortunately, the Focus is a tiny car that, quite frankly, wouldn’t meet my parents needs in a car.  By averaging the fuel economy across the full production, the automakers try to keep the number below 27.5mpg.  If they exceed 27.5mpg, they pay civil fines.

Personally, I love my Mustang.  If I change the plugs and wires, and buy a new air filter, it should get more than 27.5mpg.  It is, after all, a six-cylinder model, and I drive conservatively.  I’d really rather have a V8, as I’m sure many other people would.  What happens, though, if  the automakers find that there’s more demand for the V8 model, and other less fuel-efficient automobiles?  They either follow the CAFE standards and make cars that are in less demand, or they pay fines on their cars and pass the costs on to the customers.

There is another answer.  You see, the standards for light trucks are necessarily lower than those for cars.  People in need of more space for their family, more cargo room, more pulling power, or safer cars (CAFE standards kill, but that’s another post and a radio interview I gave several years ago) have to buy a light truck, instead of a car.  The intersection of needs for more car and a family-friendly format created the surge in SUV sales.

The SUV turned out to be the best way you could get a “real car” in the current regulatory environment.  A new format, the crossover, still qualifies as a truck while providing better fuel economy to meet the light truck CAFE standards of 22.2mpg.  They’re lighter, and less safe than the SUV, but still provide more than that little Ford Focus in room and carrying ability.

So, the second thing that should be done is to abolish the CAFE standards, and allow the automakers to create cars based on customer demand, rather than government mandate.  Let’s face it, letting the government decide what you can and cannot buy has never been a good idea.  For the automakers, it’s been a disaster.

Thirdly, the government should reduce taxes on the auto manufacturers.  The fact of corporate taxes is that the companies have to pay the taxes out of money they get from the consumers.  If you buy a car, part of the cost of that car is taxes paid by the company.  Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.  Their customers pay them in the price of the products consumed.

The government should, therefore, start a 12 year tax reduction plan for the automakers.  For the first two years, corporate income taxes on the big three should be reduced to zero.  That’s right, they should pay no corporate income taxes.  The savings should be taken out of the price of the cars, thus allowing consumers to buy new cars at lower prices.  After the first two years, the taxes can be put back into place in 10% increments.  At the end of 12 years, the corporate tax burden would be back where it was in the beginning.

Of course, reducing or abolishing the corporate income tax isn’t just a good idea for the car companies.  It should be done across the board.  Corporate income taxes should be abolished entirely.  The best way to demonstrate this is to experiment with the auto industry in their time of need.  It would be a great benefit to the manufacturers, the employees, the consumers, and the economy as a whole.

Three simple steps.  Reduce costs by reducing union controls over every aspect of the big three automakers.  Remove the crippling restrictions that government has placed on the industry, and allow the companies to create cars that people want for a change.  Finally, cut the unnecessary cost of government out of the automakers’ bottom line by cutting their taxes to zero for at least a short time.

If, after all this has been done, a loan is needed to get the companies past the short run, then maybe that can be done.  Just don’t add on extra requirements that hurt their business like demanding they make certain types of cars, or disallow dividend payments for stockholders.  That’s just more stupid government micromanagement, and that’s been half the problem the automakers had in the first place.

I won’t bother with advising on interactions with the palestinians, since Obama has ties to the palestinians; already. Likewise, he seems to have good ties with Kenya. Heck, some think Obama was born in Kenya, including his own grandmother who says she was in the hospital at the time.

I’d like to talk about some of the other international connections that need to be addressed.

Afghanistan

You’ve talked about increasing the efforts in Afghanistan.  Since President Bush made a point of giving the military the resources they needed, it’s obvious that the military doesn’t know what they need.  You’ll want to give them more.

The forces in Afghanistan at the moment include troops of many types.  On the hunt for Bin Laden, for instance, we have many special forces working throughout the country.  You’ll want to increase that number.  This may extend deployments, cause a reduction in training, an increase in divorce rates, and a general lowering of effectiveness, but you can’t let that affect you.  You made a campaign promise, and you have to keep it.

After all, if Bin Laden actually puts his head up out of his secure hideaway long enough to be seen, you might get lucky where Bush has not.  If you can actually find him, you can take credit for doing something Bush couldn’t.

Capturing Bin Laden won’t actually do much to stop islamic terrorism in the long run, but it can be a feather in your own cap.

Iraq

It is very important that you continue the liberal story on Iraq.  Repeatedly refer to Bush’s “lie” that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.  Whatever you do, don’t tell the truth that Bush specifically said that there was no evidence of such involvement. Don’t let on that things have improved in Iraq so much that military vehicles no longer demand the right-of-way in the streets, but now follow the same traffic rules as the rest of society.

Keep telling the story that Iraqis don’t want us there.  Don’t point out that the fighting against us is primarily by militants and terrorists that came to Iraq from other countries to fight both the US and the new Iraqi government.  Since you’re determined that they don’t want us, and that we must pull out, it is VERY important that you avoid mentioning that the Iraqi government has asked us to stay at least 3 more years.

Keep selling Iraq as a failure.  Keep saying it was based on a lie. Keep your story just as it is, and pull our troops out as fast as you can.  When the foreign militants increase their efforts in the vacuum, you can point to it as an example of our failure, rather than a result of your own actions. 

Don’t worry, your supporters won’t question you.

France

France has, in the past, opposed the multi-lateral actions that the US led in Iraq.  When the US , Britain, and other countries acted in Iraq, France was vocal in standing against us.  They painted our actions as unilateral (meaning we did it alone) and misguided.  It is very important that you understand that France sees unilateral military action against enemies in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia as its own job.  When we took action, it wasn’t so much that we did anything wrong, as it was stepping on their toes.

Things have changed now in France.  The tide has changed a bit, and opposition to our actions has reduced.  Sarkozy’s election was a natural outgrowth of this change.  Part of this has been because of France’s own problems with militant Islam within their borders.

I left France for last, because it is the lynchpin of my foreign policy advice.  In recent years, France’s support has been the key judgement on US foreign policy.  You have to continue this trend.   For that reason, I give you my #1 rule for your foreign policy.

France is the foremost promoter of US interests in the world.  It is imperative that you listen to their advice, and get french approval for any actions taken outside our borders.  If you don’t, then the Democrats will oppose you.

Oh wait… no they won’t.  Who’ll tell them?

When I look back through history at Democrat Presidents, the greatest personal successes came from those who promised a lot.  Promises are an important tool in the Democrat arsenal, and one that you haven’t used to great effect so far.

Through your campaign, you pushed hard on the themes of “Change” and “Hope” without spending a lot of time on the details.  Even when directly attacking an issue, you managed to hedge your bets to cover nearly every possible situation. 

Pull out of Iraq?  You definitely will, within 16 months, but maybe not.  The issue is still open.
Govt. wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists on phone calls to or from the United States?  Against, but supporting.

You can’t do this once you’re in office, making the promises that matter.  No, I don’t mean promises like pulling out of Iraq, ending all the restrictions on abortion that you can, or giving tax refunds to people who don’t have any money paid in to refund.  I mean the little things.

One little promise every day can endear you to one little segment of society every day.  That’s the goal.  On Monday, promise working families additional tax credits to help pay for raising their children.  On Tuesday, go for the minority scholarships.  Wednesday is the day for promising money for targeted education improvements (not reform.  That’s considered racist on the left, because it might place standards too high for minorities.).  Thursday is health-care day, so promise to remove the impediments of [insert disease sufferers here] to receiving the medicines that they need. 

Friday’s promise is an important one.  This promise has to carry you through the weekend.  I highly suggest somethnig that will generate a lot of discussion, and maybe a little controversy.  It should involve spending government funds on something, but then again, most of your promises will if you choose them correctly.  Maybe a promise to spend $100 million on pregnancy counseling services for lower-income single women.  In the paper briefing to accompany your announcement, create the controversy by allocating 75% of the money to Planned Parenthood, 25% to another group that supports abortion, and none to fund counseling for alternatives to abortion.  That will get the pundits talking.  On Monday, you can clarify the issue by saying that the numbers were incorrect, and that the money is intended to offer all alternatives to pregnant, single, poor mothers.

Here’s the most important thing to remember.  You just have to MAKE the promises.  You don’t have to keep them.

If there’s one thing Bill Clinton taught us, it’s that there are two types of people in this world.  There are people who don’t pay enough attention to what happens to know that a Democrat President hasn’t kept his promises, and there are Republicans.  If you demonize the Republicans hard enough, nobody on your side will care what they say.

So, it really doesn’t matter what the numbers on the “pregnancy counseling” promise are.  In the end, it’s not even something you need to bother yourself with.  Those who are interested in the issue will love you for the promise, thinking that the promise is actual legislative action.  The rest won’t remember it.  In fact, the only one on the left that is likely to remember is Christopher Hitchens.  He may even write a book.  Nobody on the left will read it, though, because you can just tar him as Judas to your messianic rise.

It’s the promises that are important, not whether you keep them.  Your supporters didn’t pay enough attention to the truth and facts to care that you weren’t experienced enough for the job.  It was your wife that said you weren’t ready to run because you hadn’t done anything yet, not your supporters.  Your supporters are useful, but not always informed.  Don’t count on them figuring out the truth behind your promises.

So, to summarize:  If you want to solidify and expand your base, with little political or fiscal cost, just make a promise every day.  Not even your own party expects you to keep it.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

But how could NASA have gotten it so wrong?

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records
from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all.
Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and
repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs -
run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the
Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the
notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its
figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for
the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a
new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were
showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that
three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time
last year.

That has to be hard to explain.

Actually, not that hard to explain at all. May I suggest reading The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, written by an actual
scientist who worked on studies about climate change for the United
Nations. Having just finished this book, I can say it’s an essential
read if this issue interests you, on either side.

]]> http://www.lockjawslair.com/2008/11/16/warmest-october-on-record-turns-out-to-be-cold-after-all/feed/ 0