A POLITICS-FREE ZONE TODAY...

No politics in the Chaos today, as all Americans stand together; united as one.  Much has been said & much more will be said.  We will not seek to add more than what we've already said before.

Here's a link to what we wrote a year ago.
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/09/of-life-and-love-and-death-remembering.html

WE ARE LABOR

Labor is good.  Labor works.  Labor built America.  Labor will meet the challenges of tomorrow.

If only we, the Unions, don't get in the way.

From the words in Genesis, "By the sweat of the brow, you shall eat bread" to the letter of  Paul, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" whose word were echoed by our early settlers Miles Standish and John Smith, America has been built by the labor of our people.

From our early communities of shared property and limited prosperity, we progressed to a bountiful land of private property and free markets.  Unfortunately, much of that early prosperity was built by a labor that knew no freedom.  But thanks to the spirit of our American ideals, this nation came to fight against the plague of slavery.

But we find a lesson within our darkened past.  Despite all that we know of the evils that lurk within it, our free market economy is the greatest system of prosperity and wealth creation known to man.  But we must remain vigilant that sinful man in his greed is held in check from abusing the lowly station of the common laborer.  The sin of greed lies in the heart of all men, waiting to be released; in both that of the master and of the slave. 

Today we celebrate Labor Day, not for the excess of our unions, but for the work and productivity of our people.  Labor has organized to serve as a counterweight to the worst designs of our masters.  Like a balancing scale, the balance of power requires constant adjustment to maintain an equitable relationship. 

In Washington, many of our union masters fall under the same greed motive as the owners of production.  Despite their actions and words, the true power of labor resides in the heart of the working man.  We are at our best when we can all work together to make America the most productive nation on earth.  That desire must not be overshadowed and distracted by the petty issues of our union leadership.  Labor is much more than the words and desires of a powerful few.

We are Labor.
We are American pride.
We are the American working men & women.
We stand together for a better tomorrow for our families and a better, more united America for your family.
We are Labor.

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?

"Facts Take a Beating in Acceptance Speeches" - New York Times
"FACT CHECK: Romney's deficit vow lacks specifics" - AP 
Top 5 Fibs In Paul Ryan’s Convention Speech - Talking Points Memo

Paul Ryan’s brazen lies  - Salon

FACT CHECK: Romney's deficit vow lacks specifics - Yahoo

 

Fact Checkers, the Watchmen of our political arena seek to help us find the truth among a sea of lies; or so they say.  In theory, there is probably not a need for such a thing as a fact check.  But like the question of the title, who watches the watchmen?  In a media world where finding a non-partisan is not only impossible, but actually un-American, where do we go?  Well, sometimes there is no oracle who can simply step in and give you the anwers you seek.  I, for one, am definitly a partisan part of the conservative right, but I will do my best to simply lead you to the evidence and let you decide.

In the final headline above you will notice that Yahoo's fact check attacked vagueness.  I'm not sure how that is a fact check unless, Romney stated, "My plan is not vague in anyway."  Some of these fact checks have gotten out of hand as they no longer check statements for factual content, but for intents, impressions and ineptitude.  Fact checks should stick to, well...you know, facts.  So I will attempt to do Fact Check the Fact Checkers.  Follow at your own discretion.

The majority of all the fact checks for both Romney and Ryan's speeches at the RNC found these to be the facts in question.

1.  As part of Obamacare,  $716 B was cut from Medicare to pay for the health care reform law.

2.  Obama pledged to keep the Janesville, WI plant open yet it closed under Obama.

3.  Obama failed to listen to his own deficit commission.

4.  Ryan attacked Obama for the credit rating downgrade.

5.  Romney said Obama went on an apology tour.

6.  The 2009 Stimulus failed.

Let's get started with these quick ground rules.  I will do my best to keep my 'opinion' to a minimum and will attempt to note where it appears.  I will simply do my best to quote authoritative sources or the subjects own words.

1.  Was $716 B cut from Medicare?  Here's President Obama in his own words being interviewed by Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.”

BARACK OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “You saw that with the ‘doc fix’.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.”

Obama's main argument for the cuts is that they are only cuts to provider payments which will extend the life of the program.  But that is not true as the cuts that he says pay for health care reform are the same money he says is to be used for strengthening medicare.  Here's HHS Sec'y Kathleen Sebellius under questioning before a Congressional subcommittee (when the cuts were estimated to be $500 B),

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

Did the actuary really say that there was double counting going on?  Actually, yes and that even if not, they concluded that any lower payments to providers would be unsustainable in the long term.

"We estimate that the aggregate net savings to the Part A trust fund under the PPACA would postpone the exhaustion of trust fund assets by 12 years—that is, from 2017 under prior law to 2029 under the proposed legislation.

The combination of lower Part A costs and higher tax revenues contributes to a lower Federal deficit based on budget accounting rules. However, trust fund accounting considers the same lower expenditures and additional revenues as extending the exhaustion date of the Part A trust fund. In practice, the improved Part A financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to

extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.

The estimated postponement of asset exhaustion for the Part A trust fund does not reflect the relatively small impact on HI payroll taxes due to economic effects of the legislation or the increase in administrative expenses resulting from the HI provisions. As noted in our April 20, 2010 memorandum on the estimated financial and other effects of the PPACA, reductions in Medicare payment updates to Part A providers, based on economy-wide productivity gains, are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis. If such reductions were to prove unworkable within the period 2010-2029, then the actual HI savings from these provisions would be less than estimated, and the postponement in the trust fund exhaustion date would be shorter."

Read the evidence and decide for yourself if Ryan lied about Obama's cuts to Medicare.

2.   In his RNC speech, Ryan noted that Mr. Obama had visited the plant in 2008 and said,

“I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years.

“Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.”

When did the Janesville plant close?  That's not the issue because he never said when, only within a year of Obama's speech.  The point was about auto bailouts, but about a false promise and failed policies. Here's the timeline:

* On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

* In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

* In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant open: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

* In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

* In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

* In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

* Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised

Again, you decide if Ryan told the truth here.

3.  Ryan never said whether he supported the final report from Obama's appointed commission, only that the president ignored it.  Some Fact Checks have stated that because Ryan voted against the final report, this as a lie.

Here is what the Democratic co-chair of Obama's deficit commission and Clinton's former WH Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles had to say about Paul Ryan.

“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere. And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.

The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”

 So did the President try to ignore the commission?  Did Ryan try to put together a proposal similar to the commission?  You decide.

4.  Who's to blame for the credit rating downgrade?  Was it because of a debt limit fight?  Or is it because the Obama administration was preventing a serious discussion about getting our debt in order as Ryan suggests?

Here is what S&P said.

• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United
  States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term
  rating.
• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from
  CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
  that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
  what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
  medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
  stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
  institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
  challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
  negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
  gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
  pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
  able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
  consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
  time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
  long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
  reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
  fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
  debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
  ...........................................................................................

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the

prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related

fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the

growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an

agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and

will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal

consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week

falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the

general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

S&P blames a contentious fight that failed to cut spending and entitlements heavily enough to instill confidence that the government's debt would be stablilized in the next few years.

So which side do you blame for not cutting spending or entitlements?  Was it the fight, or that the fight was unsuccessful for the side that wanted to cut spending?  So who deserves any blame for the downgrade?  You decide.

5.  This one isn't even worth mentioning.  Rhetoric is just that rhetoric.  We don't fact check rhetoric.

6.  Do we really need to fact check whether the stimulus failed?  Well here we go.  Here's a good summation from a year ago.  Let me know if anything since then has changed enought to consider the stimulus a success.

The president's economic advisors projected that in the stimulus would halt unemployment at eight percent.  In its absence, they warned, unemployment could reach as high as nine percent.  This was a major selling point of the bill.  Two years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the national unemployment rate remains above nine percent, and the numbers aren't improving.  If the active labor force were the same size as it was when Obama took office (it has shrunk considerably due to discouraged workers), the national unemployment rate would be approaching 12 percent.

(2) The president said the stimulus would "lift two million Americans from poverty."  US poverty levels have now reached all-time highs.  In the year after the stimulus passed, 2.6 million Americans fell into poverty.

(3) The president said middle class family incomes would soar by thousands of dollars thanks to his stimulus.  As reported above, the national median income (a good measure of the middle class' collective financial standing) has dipped to its lowest level since 1997.

(4) The president incessantly trumpeted the promise of countless "shovel-ready" projects to sell the public on the stimulus.  Earlier this year, Obama himself joked that such projects didn't really exist. 

On top of all that, just last week the Wall Street Journal had a report that median income was down $4019 since the beginning of the recession in 2007, but that over half of that decrease came after the recession ended.

Once again, you decide whether to call the stimulus a failure is a lie.

I've heard a lot of people on TV claim that Romney and Ryan have lied.  I'm still waiting for any of them to present a solid case for it.  Disagree with me if you want. Think you have the facts to back it up? 

Then as my new favorite Republican would say,

"Make my day."

GO CRAZY, FOLKS! GO CRAZY! - (UPDATED)

When I finished watching Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC, I was really curious to see what the liberal talking heads over at MSNBC thought.  I, despite our well known "mancrush" on Paul Ryan here at the Chaos (heck, even my daughter said, "He's hot!"), tried to remain objective and see the speech as an independent voter might.  After flipping stations, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell complain that although the speech was very good and effective, it lacked much substance. With that, I smiled and got ready to head to work.

What, pray tell, caused me to smile you might ask. (No, really, ask me)  It was this.  My chief complaint about Ryan's speech was that it didn't include the type of policy depth that I like about him.  The truth is that the young VP candidate is totally in his element when the facts & figures are flying.  He's sincere, he's knowledgable, he controls the discussion with a fully logical and rational mind and temperment.  His sincere honesty, in tackling America's great fiscal problems exposes a deep and abiding love of this nation.

So I smiled.

CALM DOWN. LET'S TRY TO TALK THIS OUT.

Here is a letter that I received from one Sandra Fluke on behalf of President Barack Obama's relection campaign.  Following it I also submit my response and following that, I will also include the entire wording of the Sanctity & Dignity of Human Life plank of the Republican Platform.

From: Sandra Fluke <info@barackobama.com>

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:37:40 -0400

To: <samschaos@att.net>

ReplyTo: info@barackobama.com

Subject: "Legitimate rape"

Friend -- In a recent statement that was both factually inaccurate and horribly offensive, Republican Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to distance themselves from the remark -- but the fact is they're in lockstep with Akin on the major women's health issues of our time. Just this morning, the Republican Party voted to include the "Human Life Amendment" in their platform, calling for a constitutional ban on abortions nationwide, even for rape victims. Several Romney supporters and advisers stood silently by while this vote took place, and the Los Angeles Times reports that the platform "was written at the direction of Romney's campaign." President Obama spoke out in response to Akin's comments: "What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women." This controversy is not an accident, or a mistake, or an isolated incident. It's a reflection of a Republican Party whose policies are dangerous for women. There is a clear choice for women in this election: Stand with President Obama. I entered this national debate on women's rights in February, when, as a Georgetown Law student, I testified before members of Congress on the issue of contraception. Without knowing me or my story, Rush Limbaugh called me a "slut" and a "prostitute" on his radio show. Many Americans stepped forward to tell me they agreed with me, and supported my right to speak out without being verbally attacked. President Obama stood with us. Mitt Romney, on the other hand? He didn't even condemn the remark, instead saying only: "It's not the language I would have used." Since that moment, I'm even more resolved to continue the fight to make sure every single woman -- and every man who cares about the women in his life -- knows exactly what's at stake in this election. The Republicans are frighteningly clear on these issues. The party platform itself includes a "salute" to states that have pushed "informed consent" laws, such as those that force women seeking an abortion to first undergo an invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound. Just last year, Paul Ryan joined Todd Akin and more than 200 other Republicans in co-sponsoring legislation that would have narrowed the definition of rape, limiting which victims of rape were "legitimate" enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care. Mitt Romney famously says he would "get rid of" Planned Parenthood if he had the chance. And both Romney and Ryan pledge to go back to a system where insurance companies can discriminate against women and charge us more than men for the same health insurance. Akin's comments shouldn't be surprising. But this isn't about him -- just like it was never about me. President Obama has told us what he's fighting for: "I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons." Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan, have made it clear that they want to make our decisions for us. President Obama trusts us to make our own. It's as simple as that. Join me and stand with him today: http://my.barackobama.com/A-Clear-Choice Thanks, Sandra Fluke ----- Election Day is closer than you think -- make a donation to fund this campaign in the time we have left.

Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible

This email was sent to: samschaos@att.net. If that is not your preferred email address, you can update your information here. We believe that emails are a vital way for the campaign to stay in direct contact with supporters. Click here if you'd like to unsubscribe from these messages. This campaign is a community, and all ideas are welcome. We appreciate any feedback you might have -- positive or negative. Click here to contact the campaign with any questions or concerns. Obama for America, P.O. Box 803638, Chicago, IL, 60680

Here was my response.

From: "Sam Ritter" <samschaos@att.net>

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:25:49 +0000

To: <info@barackobama.com>

ReplyTo: samschaos@att.net

Subject: Re: "Legitimate rape"

Miss Fluke,

Doesn't the President's Health Care Law put more & more of our health care decisions in the hands of such men? Wouldn't it be more prudent to achieve health care reform that seeks more outright liberty & freedom rather than mandates & requirements if you seek to avoid governmental interference?

Does sex-selective abortion to achieve a greater certainty of having a male child qualify as part of the "War on Women"? Were you aware that banning such an act that is highly offensive to women is part of the Republican Platform as well as greater protections for all babies or infants once they have been born?

Are our quarrels over the unborn worth such derogatory & inflammatory words for a group that has always sought to act out of a deep & abiding love for innocent life in all its forms?

I hold no ill will for you & I hope that you will thoughtfully reconsider your words of hate.

Thank you & God bless,

Sam Ritter
Sam's Taste of Chaos
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

 

Here is the GOP Platform section.  Its always better to form an opinion from actually reading something, than just reading about it.

 

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the self-evident truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a revision of federal law 42 USC 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take conform in the tremendous increases in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

This is just my opinion, but I'm not sure where I see any extremism in these words. If everything we disagree about must be thought extreme, how can we ever continue our conversation?  This isn't about Todd Akin.  It's about Americans living side by side in harmony. 

So, calm down.  Let's try to talk this out.

SHOW-ME THE RECOVERY (BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE IT)

[I'm posting this, because its always good to hear a proper Missouri "Show-me" view in Washington.]

Weekly Republican Remarks by Rep. Vicky Hartzler

Hi, I’m Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler from the great state of Missouri. Just a little bit about myself: in addition to serving on the House Agriculture Committee, my husband and I own and operate a farm near Harrisonville, where we raise cattle and grow corn, wheat, and soybeans. We also run a small business that sells and services farm equipment — we’ve got three stores and about 50 employees.

Around the country, it’s that State Fair time of year. Our fair, taking place this week in Sedalia, showcases the best of Missouri agriculture, and this year that means recognizing the perseverance of our farmers and ranchers as they face the worst drought our country has suffered in decades.

Like you, I was relieved earlier this month when the House passed a bipartisan measure helping farmers devastated by the ongoing drought. A lot was riding on this bill, but the Senate, a body controlled by the president’s party, left Washington for the month of August without even bringing it to a vote. The president has seen fit to politicize this issue, but the fact is he didn’t urge the Senate to act.

That is a true shame. Drought conditions continue to worsen, and the shaky state of the economy only amplifies our anxiety.

You’ve probably heard the president say recently that the private sector is ‘doing fine’ and that his plan ‘worked.’ If only that were true. Just take a look at the chilling report the Associated Press issued a few days ago confirming our fears, that this is the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. 

Unemployment has never been this high for this long after a recession. Even those who have jobs are seeing their paychecks shrink. Rising prices on everyday things from gas to groceries certainly doesn’t help matters.

Yet, hard as it is to believe, the president and his party think now is a good time to raise taxes on small businesses. Perhaps they haven’t read the independent report from accounting firm Ernst & Young, which shows this tax hike would destroy more than 700,000 jobs. Perhaps they haven’t been listening to the manufacturers and small business owners who are already canceling plans to hire and expand. Or the group of 88 economists who warn this tax hike must be stopped.

Senate Democrats haven’t acted to stop the small business tax hike scheduled for January 1st, but the House has.  Because while the president tells small business owners like me ‘you didn’t build that,’ Republicans know better and are committed to getting government out of their way.

That’s why the House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that eliminate excessive red tape, empower small businesses, and approve the Keystone XL pipeline — a critical project the president and his party continue to block.

We’ve also passed a budget that protects our economy for the long-term by fixing our tax code and preserving Medicare for today’s seniors while strengthening it for future generations. The president, on the other hand, still has no plan to save Medicare — in fact, he took hundreds of billions of dollars from it to help pay for ObamaCare — while Senate Democrats haven’t even offered a budget in more than three years.

Here in the Show Me State, we expect our leaders to offer solutions to our most pressing challenges, especially when the going gets tough. But these days, the president doesn’t even want to talk about the bad economy, let alone do anything about it. That, too, is a shame.

Focusing on jobs and acting on better solutions remains Republicans’ pledge to you.

Thanks for taking the time, and may God bless the United States of America.  

CHOOSING PAUL RYAN.....

If there is only one thing you take from me today, I want it to be this - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you would ever, ever consider voting for me - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you would like to see America restored to her greatness and see much of the past decade erased - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

In case this is the only chance you will ever have to do so - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you hold out any hope that this nation will ever find a way to balance the budget and erase the deficit - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you are tired of seeing politicians talk, but not do - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you ever wanted to vote for someone who you knew was doing his absolute best to make America the best she can be - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you ever wanted to have a politician drop the political talk and level with you - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you think a politician should know more about his work than his staffers - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you think achieving affordable health care  for all is more important than paying for college student's contraception - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you want every man, woman and child living in these United States to have a better tomorrow - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you disagree with commentators and still believe in your heart that America has better days ahead - vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you cheered for Tony Stark (Ironman) when he stood before the Senate and, talking about something that he had built, said, "You want my property? You can't have it." - vote for PAUL RYAN.

If you believe that America is an evil place without free health care - don't vote for PAUL RYAN.

If you believe that it's so important to keep abortion-at-will, that allowing a parent to abort all girls to get a boy is fine - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you're looking for dumbed down education standards- don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you like higher taxes and even higher spending - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you want crony capitalism instead of free enterprise - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you want the President to use your tax dollars to make deals with green companies that will soon go bankrupt - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you want more sleazeball tactics that disrupt and distort the real issues - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you want higher energy costs - don't vote for PAUL RYAN.

If despite its success, you think taking work out of welfare is a good idea - don't vote for PAUL RYAN. 

If you booed when Tony Stark told the Senate they couldn't have his property, and thought to yourself, "He didn't build that!" - don't vote for PAUL RYAN.

With Mitt Romney's selection of PAUL RYAN as his running mate, the lines are drawn and the choice before us couldn't be more clear.  We must choose ROMNEY/RYAN.

1-21-2013

THE RECOVERY BEGINS

After Aurora: SolvingThe Wrong Problem

First, before I speak further let say that my heart & prayers go out to the lives that have been lost or harmed by one deranged individual. I do not seek to exploit this horrific event with an axe to grind. I am simply joining a discussion already in progress at this point. I will add that whatever decision is to be made must be made in the light of reason & not in the heat of the moment.
.......................................................

Our first instinct in times such as these are off predetermined by our biases. When we first heard that a gunmen had shot up a theater in Aurora, Colorado our individual reactions were varied. Some asked "why?". Others instead asked "how?".

Many followed that initial reaction with "See, I told you so". A few probably thought of their own idealogical group & prayed, "please don't let him be one of us".

Soon the discussion turned from hospitals to politics. While one friend said that it's time for the public to say "Enough!", I couldn't help but think "Tread carefully".

Hidden from view behind our petty disagreements & fear mongering is this truth - sick & disturbed people sometimes do bad things.

The guns weren't the cause, they were only the tool. While they were purchased legally, they could have just as easily been acquired illegally. The cannisters of irritants & the booby-trapped apartment show that he had the ability to use other means to accomplish his goal.

The argument goes that access to such deadly weapons caused the heavy loss of life. But that's not really true either. Think of other mass murderers of recent memory. Truck bombs & airplanes come to mind as quickly as guns, killing thousands in the process.

In 2011, there were 8,775 deaths from firearms (of that, the majority are suicides). As a comparison, there were over 32,000 motor vehicle deaths last year. Firearm deaths reached their high point of 17,075 in 1993.  Background checks were instituted that same year.

Since 1993, deadly firearm encounters have decreased even as gun ownership & gun control laws have eased. In 1999 gun deaths began a small uptick through 2004 & have decreased since then. The assault gun ban expired in 2004 after seeing a decrease & increase while in effect. During that same time, concealed carry laws have expanded nationwide.

I've spent the past couple days looking at the statistics & the best conclusion that I can make based on the available data is that concealed carry & quality background checks have had the greatest effect on gun violence in America. I believe that its because of these two policies that firearm fatalities have dropped nearly 50% since 1993. (Read that again - a 50% decrease over the last 20 years).

As for our current debate, all I can really say is that James Holmes was a disturbed individual, possibly mentally ill. If society has dropped the ball, it is not on guns, but on how we treat the mentally ill.

Guns don't shoot 71 innocent people, crazed minds do. Arguing for greater gun control at this time goes against all the statistics & implies that shooting only 7 instead of 71 is more acceptable. Far better to learn the greater lesson of Aurora's pain & suffering by disarming the next James Holmes before he acts & let today's successful gun laws continue their good work.

Taking the emotion out of it & examining the issue in the light of reason shows me one thing. Keeping guns out of criminal & unbalanced hands while allowing greater access for law-abiding citizens is still the better path forward.

RIP - George Jefferson

In honor of the passing of Sherman Helmsley & to celebrate the terrific character that was George Jefferson, I offer this rerun of a post from March 2011.  Fortuitously, my take on George & his 7 area dry cleaning stores stands in contrast to how President Obama feels about small business owners such as him.

May Sherman rest in peace, but let him live on in perpetuity as the small (statured) businessman who got his piece of the pie in the days before politicians tried to stake a claim on his success.

http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-republicans-love-george-jefferson.html

BACK TO SCHOOL BARACK

Barack Obama, noted Constitutional Scholar, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, US Senator and current President of the United States of America needs to go back to school.  

He needs to take a basic freshman year American Civics course similar to what I took when I was 14.  If he were to attend that class, he would learn that roads, police and firefighters are predominantly local matters.  Instead he is out on the campaign trail attempting to justify higher federal income tax rates by arguing that small businessman can't succeed without roads, police and firefighters.  

I agree that successful businessman should be accountable for that success; and they are.  The top 10 percent pay well over half of all Federal income tax while the bottom half pays none.  But the President won't ever tell you that.  Instead he claims jurisdiction over local community issues in an attempt to blame his poor economic record on the wealthy.

The president should be sure to stop by an Intro to Economics class while he's passing through the halls.  Perhaps, he might come to understand the laws of supply and demand.  Investing sizeable amounts of our Federal revenues into Solyndra and other green investments only to watch job losses and bankruptcy ensue holds a lesson if he were willing to learn.  The government cannot create demand for a product no one wants by simply funding it into supply.

Instead he would learn that when you tax something, you get less of it and when you subsidize something, you get more of it.  Raising taxes on income means less income.  Subsidizing and extending unemployment benefits and other temporary aid gets you more unemployment and needy citizens.

BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT!

I posted this picture on my Facebook page this week in response to the Supreme Court Obamacare ruling and specifically to Chief Justice Robert's opinion.  Following a very heated debate in this nation on the constitutionality of the health care reform law and intense debate in court, we have awaken to a world where we must face the fact that for all parties in this debate, we've been both right and wrong at the same time.

Congress and President Obama were right and wrong, often simultaneously since they tended to speak from both sides of their mouth.  I said it at the time, that no matter how you looked at their tax penalty, it was simply a tax.  Despite all the rhetoric from the president that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, this was a tax.  Penalizing inactivity is the converse of rewarding activity.  All they had to do was raise rates across the board for all and then offer a deduction or credit to those who had health insurance.  The end result is the same; it's just a different process to achieve that end.

The Supreme Court got it both right and wrong.  Despite my argument, the Chief Justice was wrong in ruling that the mandate was allowable as a tax.  It would have been if they had wrote it in some way similar to what I wrote.  They have the power to give preferential tax treatment to health insurance consumers; but only by raising the income tax for all and offering a deduction or credit to some.  That is most definitely not what the law does and no matter how the court twists and turns it, the law can't be read that way.

Even after the ruling, Obama and the Dems are running from the 'mandate as a tax' line as quickly as possible.  They point out that they voted for a penalty, not a tax.  But Congress did not have the authority to assess such a penalty and can only have their cake as a tax.  So either eat it or get rid of it and stop trying to shove it down our throats.  If I was in Congress, I would offer a bill to change the health care law's language to reflect the Court's opinion and read as a functional tax raise/deduction mechanism, then watch the supporters of Obamacare decide their fate.  Tax or penalty - which is it?

Robert's and the de facto majority at least did get it right when they found that the Commerce Clause was not broad enough to grant Congress the ability to regulate that which does not currently exist, even if it one day may exist.  To have allowed the law to stand under the Commerce Clause would have made possible for Congress to begin regulating entire markets that don't exist at this time, but that may exist in the future.

Under such a broad reading of the Commerce Clause, Time Travel could find itself under heavy regulation, even though it is scientifically impossible provided you don't consider trans-multiverse travel.  Congress in it's limited faculties could easily weigh down the potential for trans-dimensional travel in it's attempt to eliminate the still theoretically impossible trans-temporal trip.

And what about regulating non-living apparitions.  Say what you will, but I think we all long for the days like 1985 when Time Travel was a wide open field for Marty and the Doc and being a Ghostbuster was a legitimate capitalistic venture.  In fact, I believe it was the government regulator who caused all the trouble in New York City for Dr. Peter Venkman and his co-workers.  Maybe Mayor Bloomberg might one day ban astral projections in the city's eateries and hotels in his further attempts to kill the free market.

As for the picture above, as well as those who have said similar things, they are correct.  No founding father ever imagined such a thing as coercive commerce, apart from public goods (police, roads, gov't expenditures, etc), or taxing/penalizing such economic inactivity.

But we are quite wrong to believe that it's unconstitutional.  In fact, it's already been happening for decades.  Buy a house? You get a mortgage interest deduction.  Rent a home? Sorry, but no deduction.  Have a child? $1000 tax credit.  No children?  No tax credit.  Buy a Chevy Volt?  $7500 tax credit.  Buy a Chevy Suburban?  Not only no credit, but the more gas you buy the more taxes you are paying on that fuel.  Those are all either taxes or penalties on your choice of consumption and/ or lack of activity.

We're right to think it's wrong.  But we're wrong to think that argument matters at this point. The system is so bogged down in this nonsense that only a total reform of our tax system can fix it.  And that's a worthy reform - when government reforms itself to make it more efficient.  But government attempting to reform industry?  Katy bar the doors.

The truth is that we are right to be mad that the health care industry is dysfunctional and that so many fall through the cracks, but we're wrong to think that government planning can fix those structural problems.  Innovation and competition will always build something better if we just get out of the way.  A marketplace that can put into the hands of the poorest Americans, a $600 hand held computer that also serves as a phone, camera, video recorder, alarm clock, calendar and music playing device, something completely inconceivable in 1985 when Marty and the Doc traveled to the future year of 2015 - that type of marketplace can produce a health care system that works.  

Trying to regulate the Health Care Insurance today is like trying to regulate land-line telephones in 1985.  In the future, the type of all-compassing insurance plans of today will probably be as few and far between as land line phones are becoming today.  It's a fools game and I'm tired of feeling like we're all fools.  To my friends who want to help, I say, "Just stop!"  Help is on the way, if we would just get out of the way and let it pass.

Instead, we will attempt to coerce people into one-size fits all, minimum coverage plans rather than letting the consumer buy products that meet their specific needs.  Just watch a car insurance commercial and wonder how such regulation would help there.  

"I want to buy car insurance."

"Well you also need to have boat, home, and property insurance."

"I don't have any of those things and I don't need that."

"Well that doesn't matter.  You might one day."

"But I just need car insurance so I can drive to work.  I can't afford anymore than that."

"Look, I can't sell a car-only insurance plan.  The government says we must sell plans that cover everything -- hey, where you going?"

(somewhere off in the distance, one small gekko runs away)

SUPREME COURT DECISION - "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!"

Wake Up America by John McNaughton

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way." - Charles Dickens

Chief Justice Roberts would not have been improper, I believe, to have quoted dear Dickens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold President Obama's Affordable Care Act.  While many believe the reasoning duplicitous in that it finds that the individual mandate was never really a mandate, but much to Congress' surprise, was in fact a tax, the decision serves to spotlight the duplicitous nature of President Obama and his administration.  

While forming support for this legislation over many months and fighting to get it passed, the president and his party worked tirelessly to convince the American people that this was not a tax.  When it came to light that the IRS would be involved in collecting the penalty, they still insisted that this was no tax.  But this can now be seen for the bait and switch betrayal that it was.

As the case against the health care law and the individual mandate in particular made their way through the court system, a switch was made.  The administration began quietly arguing that the mandate was constitutional because it was not a mandate, but simply a tax.

During arguments before the Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause was the primary focus.  In truth, the court had done nothing to slowdown the ever expanding scope of the Federal government while acting under the Commerce Clause, but defense of the individual mandate seemed very weak under questioning from the justices, which gave hope that the mandate, if not the entire law would be ruled unconstitutional.

When it was time to defend Obamacare, the president's lawyers were happy to point out that the law that he signed really included a tax rather than a mandate anyway.  As their seemingly inept lawyer might have said, "Don't worry about it.  It's not really that anyway, it's this...so, ya know....it's all good."

So, while Roberts seemed to give Obama a victory, he simply said, "You're telling me you passed a huge tax increase and not a mandate.  Well, that's not what you told the American people, but there's nothing that says this can't be considered a tax.  So here ya go.  You own it, now take it to the American people and explain to them how they were duped."

For Roberts, it doesn't matter how you sold the law, but only what the law does.  Like many of us argued in the past, no matter how you dress it up, it's a tax.  Under our Constitution, Congress can pass a tax, even when they're afraid to admit it.

The lesson to be learned in this Supreme Court ruling can be found in Robert's words of the opinion,

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

For today, those words haunt us.  But in the words of Dickens, we look toward tomorrow.  

"We have everything before us or we have nothing before us."

Tearing Down the Wall...

Imagine a group wholly opposed to something, who inadvertently rush forward into just such an occurrence.  It's what you might call a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the movies, we see it all the time.  Fearful for your life, one attempts to run away, only to realize too late that you have ran headlong to your death.  One can remember watching Gene Hackman on the  S.S. Poseidon, yelling back at a group walking off to such a fate, "You're going the wrong way, damn it!"  It seems awful, watching people running toward perceived salvation only to find destruction, but it happens all the time.

With the uproar over the Obama administration's HHS mandate on contraception and religious freedom, the argument has become so clouded in invectives that people are not seeing clearly.  There is a group that believes the Church is attempting to control access, which is not the case.  The Church is simply stating that they don't like it and they don't want you to do it, but  if you do, don't expect them to pay for it or condone it.  It seems to me that I've said the same about a great many things to my teenage children.

But a certain group of people see this debate along with other issues, as part and parcel of a movement that seeks to remake America into a theocracy.  In a MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews, Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger said, "Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment..."  They seek to fight the impending Theocracy by legislating Religion into either non-existence or irrelevance. 

Under the HHS mandate, employers who oppose contraception as a matter of religious conscience must pay for it against their will.  Yes there are exceptions for "churches", but not for followers of those churches.  The First Amendment becomes a trivial annoyance in pursuit of what they consider to be good public policy.  But herein lies their fatally flawed reasoning.  The Freedom of Religion is not the monster to be feared, but the gatekeeper that protects us all.

At the time of its writing, the American people found Madison's constitution lacking  While the overall structure was adequate to the task of building our system of government, there was concern for limiting it's power.  A bloody and expensive war was fought for our freedom and it would have been in vain if we were to simply exchange one oppressive regime for another.  The Bill of Rights, a set of amendments outlining the express rights of the people and setting definite limits on the federal governments exercise of power, became the linchpin that brought agreement to our constitution.

In that day, the people understood what it meant to live under oppression.  In fact, many of these peoples, like the pilgrims, came to this new land expressly to escape religious oppression.  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The rights established with those words work to prevent the Federal body from acting as a Theocracy, whether Catholic, Anglican, Islamic or even Secular Humanism.  It's true that of the individual states, several formed theocratic states, where one must have met certain tests and taken oaths ascribing allegiance to a church and God, to participate in that state's body politic.  The Bill of Rights protects the people from the Federal government, but left much open to the states.  Over time, as the states became more pluralistic, tolerance for others became the norm and theocratic rule disappeared from the states.  Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 14th amendment brought the Federal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The First Amendment is the gatekeeper; the wall that Jefferson spoke of protecting all of us from whatever ideology or ideologues happens to hold power at any given time.  While today's government mandates employer funded contraception, tomorrow's could mandate employer  paid time off for church attendance or chastity guards for teens or even homosexual rehabilitation.  Further down the road, the use of Sharia and the resulting downgrade of women's rights might be deemed "in the public interest" by the ruling class.

When public policy trumps the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution, then where do we go for protection against harmful and wrong public policy.  When our rights are only guaranteed till the next election, then we will fight a new revolution on every ballot.  We will cease to be the America that has stood from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, through Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

When the constitution becomes flexible enough to allow the ruling party to force men and women to ignore the teachings of their church to provide an already accessible and affordable consumer good in the name of public policy, what happens when the "feared" theocrats take power?

And even if we toss out the whole freedom of religion issue, I still haven't seen anyone articulate why the government should have the power to mandate that employers must purchase for their employees, anything unrelated to their job.  Take the words "health care" & "contraception" and replace them with "firearms" & "handguns" in this discussion.  Why would a court see any difference?  At the very least, our right to firearms represents an explicit right in the constitution, as opposed to any implicit or legislated rights.

Now that the Federal government can force employers to buy their employees health care, why stop there?  Surely there are many other consumer goods that may reinforce other policy goals of this and future administrations.  Health care is good, but what about housing or food and water; maybe even broadband access?  It's a list without end.

As in Gattaca, Brave New World, 1984 and other novels and movies of dystopian futures, a government that can achieve control of access, will sooner or later limit access.  Heck, a government board limiting access is explicitly written in the Obamacare law.  I know that it's always clearer in hindsight (and may we never have reason to see it that way), but even proponents of affordable access to health care need to understand that we're going the wrong way.

(Scene from The Poseidon Adventure)

Reverend Scott (Gene Hackman): You're going the wrong way. You're going toward the bow.

Wrong group: That's right, Reverend.

Scott: Wait a minute. You can't get out that end.

Wrong group: Why not?

Scott: Because we're settling by the bow. The bow's underwater. Go to the stern. We'll exit through the engine room.

Wrong group: lt's gone. The only way out is forward.

Scott: How do you know? Did you check the engine room? Did you see it?

Wrong group: l don't have to. We're going forward. Please, come with us, Reverend.

Scott: You're going the wrong way, damn it!

Keep this in mind as you "Lean Forward" - simply moving forward does not necessarily mean that you are making progress.  And sometimes the preacher was right all along.

A Cowardly Proposal

President Obama submitted his budget proposal on Monday.  This budget lays out the president's priorities and represents his vision for America.  As a sidenote, it shows that Obama is a coward and a colossal liar.

In 2009, the president made it clear that spending on a large stimulus was needed to end the recession and begin a recovery.  In 2010, his top priority was passing health care reform, which he argued was key to lowering costs.  In 2011, he came to realize that our booming deficits were an issue and pushed for a balanced program of tax increases and spending cuts.

But today, we can honestly say that President Obama is quite simply full of it.  In 2012, he proposes raising taxes well beyond anything ever discussed in the last 30 years and the final result is a larger deficit that last year.  Despite his words to the contrary, this budget makes it clear that raising taxes is not about fairness or lowering the deficit, it is only about spending more money; and spending it on his special interests, not America's interests.

This budget raises the tax deduction for buying an electric vehicle from $7,500 to $10,000.  This deduction has little effect on sales and the average income of those who purchase these $40,000+ cars is $177,000.  At the same time, the President would kill a Washington DC scholarship program for poor children that, by all marks, is succeeding. 

So the president who once said that he only cared about what works, has decided that putting more money into a failed effort for the rich is more important than a successful program for poor children.

When Obama took office he said that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Instead he doubled it.  If passed this budget would raise revenue from 15.4% of GDP to 20.1%, far above the post-WWII average of 18% and yet he spends even more, raising the projected deficit to $1.39 trillion.

The president has said that we need to temporarily spend more to fight this current crisis, yet his budget lays out a ten year plan that never spends less than 22% of GDP and is nearly 23% in 2022.  Given that spending was as low as 18% under Clinton, there is no way to call such a spending spree temporary.

The tax increases he proposes are unrealistic.  Dividend income would rise from it's current 15% to 39.6%.  The president has spent much time talking about the so-called Buffett rule that would tax the wealthy at a 30% minimum, but that is found nowhere here.  Why?  Because for Obama, 30% wasn't really enough.  With certain phaseouts on deductions, the actual tax rate for the wealthy will now be nearly 45%.  Is there a better way to kill economic activity than this?

Remember when Bill Clinton talked about the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War?  That peace dividend under Speaker Gringich went a long way toward balancing our budget.  President Obama's budget would make deep cuts in our defense budget, but this peace dividend would be transferred into more green boondoggles and high-speed rail projects. 

So what we have is a budget that would raise taxes beyond the thinkable, cut defense and still lose more money than before.  President Obama's budget claims to cut spending and lower the deficit but it doesn't.  He claims that this is a vision for an America built to last, but it isn't.  President Obama has talked a big game about being responsible and remaining true to our American values, but this budget makes that a lie; and the president is a coward for not having the temerity to level with the American people and tell them the truth.

Remembering 2006 - When $296 billion was a lot of money

Later today as President Obama submits a budget that will show a 4th consecutive year of $1 trillion plus deficts, it's helpful to put that into perspective.  Here is how ThinkProgress described President GW Bush's 2006 budget with a projected deficit of $296 billion:

Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

In other words, Bush's 2006 budget (the last with a Republican majority) was not only on a downward trend over several years, but was similar to a budget deficit from 14 years prior. 

I will not be the first to defend Bush from the charge of being a big spender.  But despite the terrorists attacks and already burgeoning recession in 2001, policies were in place to bring spending under some modicum of control.  The following years of the Bush Presidency saw a democratic Congress, so the outlying years naturally told a different story even though it topped out at just under $500 billion.

What Obama proposes today will not be the actual budget that passes Congress.  Thankfully we now have a Republican Congress and a real hope of bringing the annual budget back under the $1 trillion mark.  But wouldn't it be nice if we could all be complaining about a record Obama deficit that was at least similar to any. other. President. we've. ever. had.  

Perhaps with a leader who actually cares about such things, we might even have a democrat-controlled Senate that would actually pass a budget - something that hasn't happened in three years.  Perhaps if the President could simply understand that free doesn't really mean free, we wouldn't have so many new "free" programs and mandates.  Perhaps if the President understood that the axiom "you have to spend money to make money" only works in the private sector.  Perhaps if the President wasn't too busy transforming America into something unrecognizable, he might notice we are in a perilous position.  Perhaps if the President cared about America as he does about himself.....well, nevermind.


UPDATE:  The budget has been released.  For an early analysis check out Veronique du Rugy's post on NRO's The Corner.