Things I’d Like to Post About Today ….. (020509, Afternoon)
….. But I Don’t Have Any Time For:
- I’m not a big rumor fan, but I can’t let three of them go without comment. First, there’s the one about Mitt Romney as Obama’s health care czar. Well at least we wouldn’t have to put up with his seemingly daily appearances on Hannity’s radio and TV programs. You would also hope that it would put an end to the idea that the person whose handiwork is ruining health care in Massachusetts could run for president in 2012 — at least as a Republican.
- The second rumor is that Ted Strickland will be nominated as Obama’s Health and Human Services secretary now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn. The bright side: Strickland’s Turnaround Ohio school reforms promised during the 2006 campaign didn’t show up until 2009, and he was very outspoken about how unreasonable it was that we should have expected something sooner. If that form holds, Ted will wait over two years before proposing a national health care plan. The longer the better, Ted.
- The third primarily affects Greater Cincinnati — University of Cincinnati President Nancy Zimpher is apparently on her way to becoming the chancellor of the SUNY (State University of New York) system. The New York Times says it’s more than rumor and that “an announcement could come within days.” What’s most snortworthy is the way the Cincinnati Enquirer’s Cliff “Pitiful Puff Piece” Peale is covering for her to the apparent end — once again without disclosing that Enquirer publisher Margaret Buchanan is a member of UC’s Board of Trustees. He writes that “Her departure would leave UC without its most visible advocate in the face of several ambitious programs. The university still is struggling to repay hundreds of millions of dollars of unpaid debts by departments from athletics to campus services, debts that were built up before Zimpher arrived.” (Sigh) Cliff, Nancy didn’t do anything about them during her first THREE YEARS.
- Thank you, Tom Coburn (HT Michelle Malkin) — “The other 90% of the (stimulus) bill represents one of the most egregious acts of generational theft in our nation’s history.”
- Famous last words — We now know that Hugh Hewitt’s upper limit on tolerable presidential nominee tax evasion is north of Tom Daschle’s $128,000 (ignoring interest and inexplicably unassessed penalties). On Monday, apparently minutes before Daschle threw in the towel (10:17 a.m. PT, 1:17 p.m. ET), Hewitt wrote, “Errors on tax returns related to unusual circumstances and nanny issues are simply not the sort of character issues for which confirmation should be denied. Fixing the ‘confirmation mess’ requires some restraint when presented with targets. The GOP should stay fixed on the stimulus bill, and not go chasing Daschle.” The jaw drops.
Now you’re worried about “egregious acts of generational theft?” Where were you when George Bush turned surpluses to deficits with his tax cuts? Where were you when George Bush left the entire cost of his mistaken war in Iraq to future generations? Were you ever asked to sacrifice even a penny for the war? I wasn’t.
Comment by Tony B. — February 5, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Oh, you’re just a barrel of laughs tonight.
Those surpluses were well on their way to vanishing as the dot-com bubble exploded well before Bush was even in office, let alone passing a budget. That is such a party-hack comment I can’t believe you even tried it.
The deficit for the POR Economy-driven fourth quarter of 2008 either almost as large or larger than any deficit during the Bush years.
The GOP Congress was fairly irresponsible in many ways. The Pelosi-Reid Congress, and now their great presidential leader, have taken irresponsibility to breathtaking heights.
And we won in Iraq, which (unless Obama screws it up, which I suspect he would LOVE to if he could politically get away with it) is a singular, worth-it achievement.
Comment by TBlumer — February 5, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
There is nothing funny about this. Whatever it is you think we won in Iraq, it can’t worth 4,000 American lives and 2 trillion US dollars. And you know we’ve left the entire bill to future generations because it was politically inconvenient for George W. Bush to ask anyone other than our soldiers and their families for sacrifice.
Comment by Tony B. — February 5, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
#3, I’m supposed to give your arguments weight when you exaggerate the cost by a factor of 2.5 (note that it’s a lib link):
If we keep spending $12 bil a month going forward, you’ll be right — in 8.3 years.
Geez, come back when you have some facts, or arguments, or coherence.
With your sentiments, we would never have fought WWII. Hi, Pat Buchanan.
Comment by TBlumer — February 5, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Actually, the two trillion dollar cost estimate was conservative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html
Comment by Tony B. — February 6, 2009 @ 10:30 am
#5, there’s hard cost and opportunity cost. The former is provable, the latter is speculative at best.
By that argument a war like WWII would have cost almost infinitely more in lifetime wages of hundreds of thousands of lives lost and ongoing treatment of hundreds of thousands of vets.
If you’re going to go there with opportunity costs, I’ll just respond that even the $3 tril laugher is barely 1% of GDP over 20 years, and less than 3% of total guesstimated federal spending over 20 years. Considering the significance of having Hussein out of power and the other benes, I’ll take that deal.
But the fact is that many of the costs cited have benefits that have made their way into the economy, and that the so-called opportunity costs are analogous to but much smaller than those we incur because of 40,000 car deaths a year, every year.
Probably 200,000 have died in car wrecks during the Iraq War. STOP THE CARS!
Comment by TBlumer — February 6, 2009 @ 11:38 am
I didn’t buy the book, so I don’t know all the details, but I think their $3 trillion does include $28 billion for the lost lifetime production of 4,000 young people. Your $800 billion was the emergency supplemental funding only, and doesn’t capture all the spending to date. Much of the costs for the war were buried in the budgets of the DoD and other agencies.
Future costs will include rebuilding our military and the country we destroyed while providing lifetime support for our wounded soldiers. Oh, and we’re still there. Quibble if you like about the exact amount but my $2 trillion is likely closer to the truth than your $800 billion.
Tom, it is hard to take you seriously when you maintain that the removal of Hussein was worth even your lowball $3/4 trillion and 4,000 U.S. soldiers. How many other third-rate dictators are you willing to remove for this price? The world is full of them, but the concept of opportunity cost comes to mind. That and cost/benefit analysis.
Comment by Tony B. — February 7, 2009 @ 7:05 am
Discussion over. I like leaving you at characterizing Hussein as a “third-rate dicatator.” Mass graves, WMD programs, Oil For Food. That characterization is beyond delusional.
And I’m supposed to take YOU seriously?
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Tom, you can pretend otherwise, but at the time we invaded, Hussein and his country posed zero threat to us. The cost of this war continues to be outrageous and the benefit is nonexistent. It’s a shame you can’t simply acknowledge the mistake, and it’s ironic you would bring up the term “opportunity cost,” given what we’ve squandered on this war. Think of all that could have been accomplished instead, and you will truly understand the meaning of “opportunity cost.”
Rummy refers to folks like you as “dead-enders.” I just think you’re not a very serious person. More of a cheerleader, really.
Comment by Tony B. — February 7, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
#9, it’s a shame you can’t acknowledge your total misreading of seven years of history.
Saddam was a threat if he concluded that he wouldn’t be invaded, because he was in a position to reconstitute programs quickly, and intended to. He also had WMDs. I have the links and posts that have long since proven it.
The UN Oil For Food corruption, which is IIRC the largest example of worldwide bribery and payoffs in world history, would have continued unabated.
Anyone who doesn’t see the result of 30+ million people living in near freedom vs. what they were in before as not positive and not worthy of comment or commendation is not a serious person. Seriously. Write it down: Objective history will vindicate Bush, if Obama doesn’t fumble it away, which he may do solely because he doesn’t want history to vindicate Bush.
As I said earlier, your mindset would have opposed WWII. The B in your name must really stand for (Pat) Buchanan.
Comment by TBlumer — February 8, 2009 @ 12:59 am
“Objective history will vindicate Bush…”
I’m sorry, I was wrong. It seems you’re way past unserious and well into delusional. Unless, of course, historians find your blog and learn the truth about WMDs and POR.
Comment by Tony B. — February 9, 2009 @ 6:29 am
#11, thx for the unserious comment.
Those who said the New Deal didn’t work were considered unserious for a long time. It took a long time to get past the mindless FDR worship, but it’s now beyond obvious they are objectively right.
So it will go with Iraq, if Obama doesn’t fumble it away. It doesn’t look good; he’s already working on screwing up Afghanistan with the help of the same clowns who said we had to settle for living with USSR and allowed Islamofascism to gain momentum for eight years.
Comment by TBlumer — February 9, 2009 @ 6:36 am