United Liberty
Democrats still working on options for ObamaCare
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:04pm | posted by Jason Pye
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is still working with members of his party in both chambers of Congress to figure out how to shove ObamaCare down the throats of taxpayers.It looks like reconciliation is what we’re looking at.
However, in his comments to the media, Reid noted that it may not be procedurally feasible for the Senate to move first on the controversial legislative tactic:
Emerging from a meeting Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hopes Democrats can decide by next week on a way to move the health care bill forward.
“We had a discussion and we have a number of options,” Reid said. “We don’t have anything finalized yet.”
In terms of procedure, Reid said the Senate cannot pass a reconciliation bill before the House does because revenue measures must start in the House .
“We can’t go first,” Reid said. “I don’t know how procedurally we can start reconciliation.”
But Reid acknowledged that there is consideration of the House passing the reconciliation bill first, followed by the Senate. The House could then pass the comprehensive Senate bill.
The Constitution is clear in Article I, Section 7 that “[a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” That is why Reid is saying this, not that he ever cared what the Law of the Land said, otherwise they wouldn’t be pushing this bill.
Over at Reason, Peter Suderman lays out a political reality for Democrats if they choose reconciliation:
3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Be Upset About Big Bonuses
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 3:09pm | posted by David Carlson
In the State of the Union Address President Obama again attacked banks and proposed a special tax on those businesses because of the big bonuses they are giving out:
To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
Attacking banks for giving out big bonuses is simply ridiculous, and here’s five reasons why:
1) Unless you have ownership in the company, it shouldn’t matter to you
Let’s say that a company like Home Depot decides to pay out big bonuses to their managers. The only people who should be upset are the stock owners. These owners could have received some of this money as dividends but instead it was used to pay big bonuses to the managers. This should be the same concept related to the banks: their bonuses really have nothing to do with you, unless of course you are owner of the company stock.
2) But the taxpayers own part of the banks!
Yes it is true that we “bailed out” the banks. Here’s the problem: Americans should be upset at the government for being irresponsible with their money. If the manager of your investments put a high percentage of your cash into a company that was likely going to fail sometime soon, wouldn’t you be upset? That’s what our government did: bailed out failing companies. If anything your anger should be directed at our government for even MAKING us owners of these failing institutions.
A lesson in monetary policy from a cartoon
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:41pm | posted by Jason Pye
Here is an economics lesson from DuckTales:
How big is Obama’s budget?
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:11pm | posted by Jason Pye
Just how big is President Barack Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2010? Michael Shermer, a well-known skeptic, breaks it down:
The brain consists of about a hundred billion neurons, which is about the same as the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. A hundred billion is 1011, or a 1 following by 11 zeros: 100,000,000,000. That’s about what Obama plans to spend on Veterans Affairs ($57 billion) and Homeland Security ($43 billion) combined. It’s a huge number. It is literally an astronomical number. But that’s nothing. A trillion is a thousand billion. How much is a trillion?
Start counting seconds as “one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand…” and when you get to 86,400 that’s the number of seconds in a day. When you reach 31,546,000 that’s the number of seconds in a year. When you get to 315,460,000 you will have been counting for ten years, but you are still not even close. Add another 0 to get to 100 billion, and another 0 still to get to 1,000 billion, and you will have finally reached one trillion seconds. If you make it that long you will have been counting for about 30,000 years. Now, do that 3.8 times and you will have counted out the number of dollars that the Federal government plans to spend in just one year.
Rand Paul releases first TV ad
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:31am | posted by Jason Pye
Rand Paul’s campaign for United States Senate in Kentucky is airing its first ad, purchasing $50,000 worth of air time on the Fox News Channel.
In the ad, Rand Paul discusses national defense and keeping accused terrorists at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:
This ad is going to make many of Ron Paul’s supporters very angry, much like his comments blasting Barack Obama over trials for Gitmo detainees back in November. He risks alienating a lot of people. However, the overwhelming majority of them aren’t casting a ballot in Kentucky Republican primary on May 18th.
It’s certainly smart politics, I don’t dispute that, but I don’t like that he is towing the fear-mongering party line.
Democrats 60-seat majority ends today
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:05am | posted by Jason Pye
Scott Brown (R-MA), who won a special election last month to finish the term of Sen. Ted Kennedy, will be seated in the United States Senate today due to some pressing votes:
Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R) will be sworn into office Thursday, a week earlier than expected, officials in Washington said Wednesday.
Brown’s admission to the Senate will officially end the 60-vote majority Democrats have held for much of the last year and give Republicans enough votes to band together and block legislation as they choose.
[…]
Congressional Republicans said privately that seating Brown earlier could help them block Democratic nominees opposed by the GOP, specifically noting the nomination of Craig Becker, whom Obama has nominated to join the five-member National Labor Relations Board. Becker isan associated general counsel for the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. A Senate committee is due to vote on his nomination Thursday, setting up a confirmation vote on the floor by next week.Republicans blocked Becker’s nomination much of last year, after complaints from business groups that he is too biased in favor of labor unions to serve on the NLRB. But the Obama administration renominated Becker to the post last month.
Supposedly, Brown was not set to be seated until February 11th, but with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) certifying the election results tomorrow, he wants in immediately.
MoneyBomb 101: Successful Fundraising Drives through your Campaign Website
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:32am | posted by Martin Avila
I know many United Liberty viewers are considering kicking off campaigns this cycle, so I wanted to share some thoughts I’ve gathered since our big success with various moneybombs over the last few years.
What is a Moneybomb?
“Moneybomb” is a term for an online donation drive managed through a campaign website and attached to a predetermined financial goal; a time limit is placed on the event to add a sense of criticality, often 24 hours but potentially as much as a week.
The first such event completed by Terra Eclipse was during Constitution Week of Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. This set the stage for later single-day drives which were timed to meet quarterly financial targets and immensely successful in doing so.
Setting a Plausible Goal
The first thing I tell anyone about a moneybomb is that 95% of them are doomed to failure at the hands of overzealousness. Politics is largely a game of expectations — setting an unattainable goal and missing the mark can destroy supporters’ confidence in your campaign. Conversely, vastly exceeding expectations makes your campaign appear much stronger and more capable. Think of it this way: when considering your public image, a house party spilling over into the streets will play much better than a football stadium only one quarter full.
Setting an attainable goal — even if it seems less significant — is far better than attempting to shoot for the moon and raise an impossible sum. Even for established political figures, setting a modest initial goal of $50K allows for supporters to easily throw their hat into the ring and fuel measurable success. If something sounds easy, people will gladly participate; if it sounds completely implausible, they will instinctively shy away from it.
Why I Don’t Support The Calls For An American “Question Time”
Wed, 02/03/2010 - 4:04pm | posted by Doug Mataconis
Today’s Politico notes the birth of a bipartisan movement:
A politically diverse group of bloggers, commentators, techies and politicos on Wednesday will launch an online campaign, Demand Question Time, urging President Barack Obama and GOP congressional leaders to hold regular, televised conversations like the extraordinary exchange in Baltimore on Friday. Supporters include Grover Norquist, Joe Trippi, Mark McKinnon, Ed Morrissey, Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel and David Corn.
Original endorsers include Grover Norquist and Eli Pariser, Joe Trippi and Mark McKinnon, Markos Moulitsas and Ed Morrissey, and many more, including Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ana Marie Cox and Nate Silver. The steering committee is made up of Micah Sifry, David Corn, Mike Moffo, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke and Glenn Reynolds.
(…)
Demand Question Time invites visitors to sign a petition: “We live in a world that increasingly demands more dialogue than monologue. President Obama’s January 29th question-and-answer session with Republican leaders gave the public a remarkable window into the state of our union and governing process. It was riveting and educational. The exchanges were substantive, civil and candid. And in a rare break from our modern politics, sharp differences between elected leaders were on full public display without rancor or ridicule. …
Chart of the Day: Federal spending explosion
Wed, 02/03/2010 - 3:36pm | posted by Jason Pye
Chris Edwards shows the out of control growth in government spending over the last 50 years. In this case, non-defense spending includes entitlement spending.
A libertarian ethnography
Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:14pm | posted by Michael O. Powell
Recently I was prompted by an anthropology student at the University of Washington to answer several questions about libertarianism. The exchange was great, and provided a means to clarify several things that have been otherwise muddled.
Basic Questions:
1. How do you define a libertarian?
To me a libertarian is someone who believes in a limited government, which provides basic needs that most people believe to be necessary but does not try to stuff ideology down the citizens’ throats, the freedom of the individual to become whatever it is they want to be and a free market that allows great deals of mobility and ingenuity.
2. What influenced you to become and/or remain libertarian?
I love this country (for the ideals it was founded on, not because of nationalism, regionalism or nativism), and when I entered college, it became very clear that other students and professors didn’t. A bit of a blanket statement, I know, but it’s relatively true. I found myself defending slanderous left-wing statements about this country’s history, and in that process I realized I was libertarian. Liberty is the foundation of American society and government, and even if they don’t call themselves such, I think most Americans who love their country and find it exceptional are libertarians to a certain extent.
