Introducing … this week’s roundup

Authored: April 19th, 2010 @ 9:44 PM

Those of you who come to the Rice-Scott BPOU meetings already know Stephen Kallestad as one of the leading thinkers in the party.  His insights and understanding of political issues makes him a very good friend of liberty, and we are happy to bring his editorial round up of recent stories to you.

Stephen writes a brief intro teaser and provides the links so you can follow up with the full story.  Enjoy these gems!

Is it going to take a new generation of politician to seriously look at entitlement reform?  Or are we just going to have to wait for the whole house-of-cards to come tumbling down.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040904000.html

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said Congress needed to pass ObamaCare so that people can find out what’s in it?  Well the NY Times reports that Congress may have accidentally cancelled their own insurance.  LOL at the justice of this!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

If you plan to retire on your private pension, because Social Security will be gone before you try to draw on it, maybe you should think again. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/5504137/Argentina_seizes_pension_funds_to_pay_debts_Whos_next/

There are those Republicans that thought George Bush was a great President and there are those who found him wanting.  It looks like all Republicans and a large number of Independents, regardless of what they think of him, think him better than Obama. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/92141-poll-46-want-bush-back
A really interesting article on the Tea Party movement. They did extensive polling to find out exactly who these people are. What they found sure doesn’t sound like the characterization I’ve seen anywhere in the media, except maybe the Economist magazine. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html?tag=pop
My favorite magazine The Economist say, don’t get too excited about “the recovery.”  http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/04/recovery_0

What’s happening to U.S.-Israeli relations http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530422

The main stream media is trying to paint the Tea Party movement as a bunch of radicals!  Maybe we need more radicals, try these on for size.  http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2010/04/13/reasonable-men/

…and why wouldn’t they want to reform this?  http://thehill.com/homenews/house/92377-few-members-file-own-returns


The Swiss have something nice to say about a Republican Congressman http://www.thedailybell.com/971/Ron-Paul-Ties%20Obama%20in%20Polls-US-Polarization-Grows.html


Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results

Authored: April 9th, 2010 @ 10:02 AM

A recent report in the NYTimes (see below for an excerpt) suggests that the American people, or at least their most popular pundits, are not buying it when told that the recovery is gaining strength. Even the White House is not using the rosiest of tinted glasses. Perhaps the burgeoning Tea Party movement is onto something that we Republicans have known for some time, which is that “the future ain’t what it used to be” (Yogi Berra).

Fasten your seatbelts ...

Maybe we conservatives are on to something when we stand on the edge of this fiscal abyss and ask if we really can restart the economy using the old growth-based schemes that assumed unlimited capacity to consume on borrowed money with no morning after fiscal hangover? Are the people more self-aware of the limits to the old models than the politicians who represent them?  At a recent townhall meeting in Northfield, Dahle and Bly were asked if their projections for future growth were adjusted by their staffs to account for the changing demographics of our society (the age pyramid is now a silo, and last decades economic models are no longer valid). Their answer was less than assuring, and it sounded to us like it was a sort of “yeah, the analysts know what they are doing” so similar to the attitudes that set us up for this mess by not looking closely at the assumptions made about the housing bubble (that past performance WAS an indicator of future results). Like the sign says, “Please, fasten your seatbelts …“

Excerpt from NY Times.

Why So Glum? Numbers Point to a Recovery

By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: April 8, 2010

The American economy appears to be in a cyclical recovery that is gaining strength. Firms have begun to hire and consumer spending seems to be accelerating.

That is what usually happens after particularly sharp recessions, so it is surprising that many commentators, whether economists or politicians, seem to doubt that such a thing could possibly be happening.

…

Why is good news being received with such doubt? Why is “new normal” the currently popular economic phrase, signifying that growth will be subpar for an extended period, and that the old normal is no longer something to be expected?  [emphasis added]

Thoughts on the health care debate.

Authored: April 2nd, 2010 @ 9:11 AM

During a recent conversation with an avowed Northfield Marxist over the health care bill we quickly realized two things. The first was that she did not even have a concept of what the new bill would cost and frankly, she did not care because “health care is a right”. Which leads to the second realization, which is that we did not even have a common concept of rights are. She is clearly in the cohort that says that everyone has a “right” to food, shelter, education, (and now) health care. Maybe phone service, cable and a TV too (since we can’t isolate people from society based on income). Meanwhile I am talking about rights in terms of freedoms, personal choices, and liberties. No wonder she and I cannot find a common ground. Its as if we were on the sinking Titanic and I was arguing for getting into the life boats while she was arguing for a better dinner selection. We are not even using a common measure of value, and we are certainly not addressing each other’s concerns. If we are losing the health care arguments in the press, it is may be because we have never been able to speak with a common voice on the core principles of freedom that we believe trump any call for a “right” to services. We are all equal before the law, but in matters of economics, we are free people. Bill Paulsen (former candidate for the SD25 Senate endorsement) was very careful to make it clear that society might want to provide public assistance to the needy, but he always seemed to be equally careful to not use the entitling language of “rights” to back that position. This is a subtle distinction that may be lost in the translation from principled discussion to campaign rhetoric.