Just say "No"

To Card Check.

Governor Romney wrote an op-ed for The Washington Times called "Cautionary Tale of Card Check." In it, he shares his experience as the Governor of Massachusetts in vetoing a piece of card check legislation, only to have it reintroduced after he left office and signed into law by the next governor.

Since that time, Romney points out some (unintended?) consequences of allowing the legislation. The two paragraphs from his op-ed that struck me the most were these:

Conservatives like me are opposed to card check, but not to unions. At their best, labor unions have always fought for the rights of workers, and generations of Americans have been better off for it. But the card-check proposal is not an example of unions at their best - it is a case of union organizers rewriting the rules at the expense of working people.

Its advocates claim that card check is a step forward for labor, as if workers should thank them for making unions less democratic. But anyone who would deny a worker's right to vote on unionization by secret ballot is not advancing the cause of labor. They are just expanding the power of labor bosses. No one should be forced to publicly declare their intention before their employers and co-workers.

First, I thought it was interesting that "conservatives like [him]" aren't opposed to unions. Discussions usually seem pretty polar: the liberals push for more union power and rail against "the man" who's keeping the workers down and getting rich of of them, and the conservatives who rail against the pernicious unions and how they're destroying the very fabric of free markets.

Recognizing the value unions have, and do, provide for workers is great from a rhetorical standpoint, it also helps level out the discussion and, I feel, puts him in a better position. For, unions are good - they helped get workers decent pay, better working conditions, and other things. And I think conservatives should remember this more often.

But, I also agree with the idea that suggests that unions should be "localized" to one company, not across an industry. I think this industry-wide unionization has not helped workers, or the economy, in the long run. See the automakers for some case studies on this. But I digress.

It seems strange that the unions want to "give more" to workers by "taking away" a liberty I think we take for granted: the secret ballot.

Romney continues:

Leaders in the Democratic Party are eager to pay back the union bosses for their campaign support, even if it means selling out the American worker. Responsible members of Congress need to make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on businesses. It is undemocratic, and it would devastate business formation and employment, worsening the present economic crisis.

By guarding against coercion and intimidation in the workplace, we can protect our economy from great harm, and secure the rights of employers and employees alike. The working people of America should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did - by free choice and secret ballot.

There you have it. Just say "No" to card check. And tell your Senator and Congressman to do the same.

In recent news, Senator Specter stands up and in "a blow to card check" says he will vote to block the card check legislation.

White House Easter Egg Roll

For those who have children 10 years old or younger, make a note of March 26, 2009.

That's when you can get online and reserve your tickets for the Annual Easter Egg Roll.

The White House Easter Egg Roll dates back to 1878 and is an event designed to encourage children and their families to come outdoors and celebrate the start of the spring season. This year’s theme, ‘Let’s go play’, encourages America’s youth to lead healthy and active lives. The White House will open the South Lawn to children age ten and under, along with their families, to enjoy sports, cooking classes, live musical performances, storytelling and, of course, the traditional Easter egg roll. Please come dressed to be active and participate in all of the events.

Ticketing will be available here beginning Thursday, March 26th

A maximum of six tickets will be issued per order. Children age ten and under, along with their families are invited to attend. There must be at least one child ten years old or under and no more than two adults per group. Tickets are required for every attendee, including small children and infants, to enter the South Lawn of the White House.

Three things they're not talking about in "Bonus-Gate," but should be

Most of you have heard the rumblings (and sometimes screamings) surrounding the $165 million (ish) that was paid out in retention bonuses to AIG employees. I personally think Congress has better things to do than tax these bonuses (and what, get back enough money to cover 0.015% of the "Stimulus" outlay?). But I can see how the AIG bonuses give people a "face" to the whole crisis of credit, something to lash out at in anger, ill-informed.

So, the three things they're not talking about, but should be:

1) If the bill is not sufficiently narrow (i.e., does not only apply to AIG bonuses), like the version that passed overwhelmingly in the House, there are other businesses that will be unfairly and negatively affected.
* For example, I was informed by a friend who works as a Tax Policy Advisor for a member of the Senate noted that some banks did not request TARP funds, but the Treasury "forced" them to take the funds anyway. Now, based on the House version of the bill, those banks, and other financial institutions in similar circumstances, cannot give bonuses to their employees without being affected by this bill (should it become law).

2) Despite outrage from the Congress, the bill that came out of conference committee and was signed by President Obama grandfathered in specific AIG bonuses. In other words - not only did they know about them, they passed a law that would protect some of them. Now, they want to hit the UnSend button? Senator Cornyn speaks about this situation (I only wish he came at it with a little more "fire power" [that's for you, Marriott.]).

3) The bonuses are not just going to "employees of the division that had been the primary source of AIG’s collapse."
* Many of these employees have since left the company. Since that time, AIG (and other financial institutions) have either collapsed (Lehman Brothers disappeared and some employees have been merged into other companies, such as Barclay's) and others have been held up by tax dollars (AIG). Since AIG is still operating, it needs employees. Those that left or were fired have likely been mostly replaced by (hopefully competent) people who were brought in to help turn the company around.
* Would you take a job at AIG? What if you were really good at your job in the financial sector, and could possibly help get us out of this rut? What would it take to get you to go to a failing company? Maybe, just maybe, you might be enticed, er, encouraged, er, persuaded to go work for AIG if they promised you a bonus as part of your hiring package.
* Now what? You signed on to help out, and Congress and some pausing-from-thinking American people want to take your bonus away.
* Are the bonuses excessive? Perhaps the answer to that question doesn't really matter. What we're seeing is that the financial industry has long rewarded its employees with bonuses. Perhaps the market should take another look at employee compensation - but Congress should not start deciding that some people who make more than others should give up their money.

[Go see this interesting post. Although a bit extreme ("So ask yourself; how much do you make? Is it more than your neighbor? Might someone else think that its not fair that you got something that they didn't? Because that’s all it will take. If we let them get away with this."), it also points out some legal questions that should be considered.]

Thankfully, the Senate is delaying their action, for the time being. Hopefully calmer heads will prevail there and allow Congress to focus on other issues.

Red Rover, Red Rover,

send China right over.

Ok, maybe that's not the best tag line for this blog, but I wanted to share some videos that the Navy released recently regarding a run-in one of its observation ships had with five Chinese vessels.

Basically, the incident occurred in international waters, and two of the five ships came within about 50 feet of the US ship. It appeared, among other things, that the Chinese were trying to disrupt the towed array that is part of the ship's surveillance equipment.

I posted them below in the sequence that they were labeled. *CAUTION* Some of the clips do have audio, and these are sailors. [I think the "announcer" is funny in Clip #3.] [Some brief language in Clips #5, 6, 8.]
#1 [below]

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Psychology and Heroes

Apparently, the top economic advisers for politicians also like to get into the fields of psychology/psychoanalysis. I heard on the radio while driving home that

Lawrence Summers, the president's director of the National Economic Council, told a think tank gathering Friday that "fear begets fear" and that "is the paradox at the heart of the financial crisis."

The line that really caught my attention: "excess of fear".

It reminded of another psychological prognosis that someone else's economic advisor made half a year ago.

Connection? I dunno. Just a thought. What do you think?

On another note, my HBS Daily Stat just told me that "Barack Obama has replaced Jesus Christ atop a list of America's heroes" according to a recent poll. Check it out - some fun facts about who Americans regard as heroes. (BTW, Hilary passed Bill this round).

In re: slk29 comment of 03-05-2009

slk29 commented on "In Case You Were Counting" earlier this month and asked some interesting questions about Governor Romney.

slk29 asks about Romney's shift "to the far right of the [Republican] party" and expresses concern that such a shift "will make it very difficult for him to appeal to the broad middle of the American Electorate in the future (a clear electoral majority of "moderate Republicans," independents, and "conservative Democrats)."

I too have been concerned with the apparent shifts over time. This ties in to my concern over the tight leash that I felt those close to him during the primary kept him on. The "Mitt" that I knew and interacted with was not always the Mitt that appeared out in the media. Some of that I think was the MSM portrayal of him; some of that was what seemed to me was dogged determination to stay on message--even perhaps at the expense of saying what he really thought vis a viz what the strategy/message was.

The concerns surrounding Governor Romney intrigue me. Some feared he was too moderate, and pointed to his election and leadership in Massachusetts and some of his "hands off" government policies that appeared to contradict personal beliefs. These individuals opined that he would need to move right in order to garner votes during the primary campaign. I think we saw this during the 2008 primary season.

According to some studies, past election data has shown that primary voters may not accurately reflect the attitudes and values of the general election voting populous; hence the need to cater to the party "extremes" and then "swing back" to the center during the general election campaign. Other studies disagree.

Others, such as slk29, fear that he is too conservative, and will not be able to gather enough votes in a general election.

Both sides have valid points: Romney needs the support of the so-called ultra-conservative primary voters to win the GOP nomination; and he needs the broad-based support from moderate Democrats and Republicans to clinch the Presidency through the Electoral College.

John McCain faced similar challenges this cycle. Billed as not really conservative, a maverick in the party, he was the party outcast for much of the primary battle. It seemed he had no "real" conservative stance--whether on immigration, campaign finance, or other issues. Then, come general election time, he and his ticket were too conservative, unable to bridge the gap to the independent and moderate Democrats who might have swung the other way given the proper candidates.

[ASIDE: I feel the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin only further strengthens the claims that he was, or was trying to be, too conservative. While her selection rallied the base and brought in loads of much-needed cash in a short amount of time, she only served to shore up a largely disinterested base and made little attempt to woo the independents/moderates. In the lingo of disruptive innovation, what some hailed as a brilliant strategy and thought was a "disruptive innovation" for the McCain campaign was really a dangerous "sustaining innovation" that ended up getting beat by the truly disruptive candidate Obama. There's a great write-up about this over at the Innosight Blog.]

I agree with slk29 that Governor Romney "has the capacity to be an exceptional Center/Right candidate" - but question the conclusion that "he seems to want to be just a Right-wing candidate."

Does he want to be a right-wing candidate? Or has he been placed in that box and hasn't found his way out yet?

Perhaps his measured response to the questions about the Obama Administration's "Stimulus" Bill indicate he's trying to get out of that box. He said, as reported by a [surprisingly?] positive Boston Globe article:

Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good," he averred. "But too much of the bill was shortsighted and wasteful.

"So far, the administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital," he said, arguing that an elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest could spur investment.

While conceding it is "ridiculously early" to be talking about 2012, the Globe suggests that "Romney's latest moves have put him in a far stronger position than most people would have imagined just six months ago."

I posit that the challenge is this: Romney needs to connect with the people.

He needs to pick one persona and stick with it, no matter the situation (donors, stump speeches, small groups, press interviews, etc.). I vote for the persona that embodies his turn-around attitude from Bain and the SLC Olympics, the quick-thinking "Hillary response" Romney, the moderate politician who was the governor of Massachusetts and used common-sense principles to make things work.

My apologies for the half-hearted research attempts and scattered unsubstantiated claims. But hey, this is a blog, right? And it's been a long day, but I've been meaning to respond to this comment for some time now. I welcome discussion and suggestions for improving the line of thought presented here.

Low and Behold: Still More Double-Talk

The Heritage Morning Bell from today takes us into a new area of President Obama's double-talk. Today's topic is Education.

Speaking about education, the President said: "I want every child in this country to have the same chance that my mother gave me, that my teachers gave me, that my college professors gave me, that America gave me.”

Then, he turns around and gets rid of 1,700 scholarships in the omnibus bill that would have allowed students from low-income families to attend private schools--like his children do.

What is it really, Mr. President - the same opportunities for every child, or just the select [read: privileged or luck] few?

“They won’t work in my White House!”

Back in 2007, then-candidate Obama pledged:

I'm in this race to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign; they will not work in my White House.

Watch him say it here:


The call for improved "ethics" in Washington was part of his campaign stump and his website. But stories continue to crop up how he "tweaked" his promise

[ASIDE: interesting verbage, considering his past, admitted drug use.]

and allows lobbyists to join the ranks of the Obama Administration.

The count is now up to about two dozen, according to an article on The Hill.

Apparently tax problems and the revolving door aren't such big issues after all - especially when you have billions and billions and billions of tax dollars to be spending.

Crossposted at RedState.

Cleaning Up Obama

President Obama vowed to clean up American politics; he said "enough to the politics of the past."

But this story from World Net Daily points out that this "cleaning up" is being taken too far by some people out there on the Web.

Apparently, Wikipedia editors have been cleaning up President Obama's Wikipedia page. In fact, the page is currently protected from editing "until disputes have been resolved." Several issues--which all received substantial media attention during the primary and general election races--are not covered in the Wikipedia page. In fact, posting comments relating to these stories have resulted in users being banned and the content being scrubbed. Here are two sections from the World Net Daily article:

The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.

For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright,, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.

What? POV junk edits? Good golly. It's a matter of public record that Ayers and Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. In fact, the Obama wiki page links to the Woods Fund of Chicago, and both Obama and Ayers are listed (although about a dozen lines apart, although their times of service overlapped).

Compare this "clean" Obama wiki with the article for President George W. Bush, which lists his record of alcohol abuse and includes a note about the current recession immediately following challenges in his administration.

I'm not sure this is the kind of cleaning up of Washington that President Obama had in mind. Wikipedia users who add relevant and news-covered information to his article should not be banned, nor have their content immediately removed by the Obama "Clean Police" on the site. Hopefully this Wikipedia review recognizes the right to include relevant information and keeps the "critical" information on his entry. He may have been hailed as a messiah, but Wikipedia doesn't need up his entry in an attempt to substantiate that.



Crossposted at RedState.

Great minds think alike

On Monday, March 9, 2009, Robert J. Samuelson wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post titled, "Obama's Double Talk." I was interested in what he had to say, since I myself had written some articles about what I called Presidential Double-speak and Administration Double-speak. The first post highlighted the disconnect between the Presidential Proclamation that called upon Americans to support charitable organizations like the Red Cross, while threatening to hinder charitable giving by reducing tax benefits when times are already tight. The next one brought up the disconnect between "matching spending increases with spending decreases, dollar for dollar" (as promised during his debates), the administration claiming that the budget won't bloat the federal government, and the administration and other agencies admitting that they project hiring of many new individuals.

In "Obama's Double Talk," Samuelson visits the budget issue and calls President Obama "the great pretender."

He repeatedly says he is doing things that he isn't, trusting his powerful rhetoric to obscure the difference. He has made "responsibility" a personal theme; the budget's cover line is "A New Era of Responsibility." He says the budget begins "making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline." It doesn't.

And another favorite line or two:

The gap between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality transcends the budget, as do the consequences. [...] Obama thinks he can ignore these blatant inconsistencies. Like many smart people, he believes he can talk his way around problems. Maybe. He's helped by much of the media, which seem so enthralled with him that they don't see glaring contradictions. During the campaign, Obama said he would change Washington's petty partisanship; he also advocated a highly partisan agenda. Both claims could not be true. The media barely noticed; the same obliviousness persists. But Obama still runs a risk: that his overworked rhetoric loses its power and boomerangs on him.

Then will the MSM catch onto and highlight these "double talks"? It's not just President Obama who's at risk - it's the entire country.

On charitable giving, the UK

I wrote earlier in this on-going saga regarding charitable about one person's suggestion that instead of lowering the deduction allowed for charitable giving, that you tax the rich who don't give to charities.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that the British have gone the opposite route that the Obama Administration wants to take. The proposal would allow "50 percent tax relief on contributions that support the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, a set of antipoverty and social goals."

Wow - make it more tax deductible to give to charities? And, use "tax breaks" as an incentive to get wealthy donors to give to causes that benefit the UN development goals? I think I like this idea.

The Obama Administration could take a lesson from the British here: incentivize charitable giving with tax benefits and encourage them to give to organizations that benefit societal goals.

Two authors who support this UK proposal "argue that instead of mocking wealthy donors, the critics should consider what philanthropy has accomplished in America."

Notice the tense: has accomplished. Philanthropy's accomplishments in America is in danger of taking a turn for the worse as donors continue to feel the effects of the economic crisis and wonder about how the Obama plan will affect their taxes.

Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8

The battle re. Prop 8 continues in California. It has now gone from the people to the courts to the people and now back to the courts. The California Supreme Court is hearing arguments concerning the constitutional amendment that California voters passed last November.

 

West Coast: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8 (SF Gate)

East Coast: California Court Weighs Same-Sex Marriage Ban (Washington Post)

"Hometown" News: Group will hold gay marriage vigil in Visalia

Utah New: California Supreme Court weighs same-sex marriage ban

Other MSM: Live Blog: State Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Hearing (MSNBC)

Other MSM: Gay Marriage Backers Grilled by California Judges (Reuters)

Wednesdays = Party Days

Wonder what's happening over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave tonight? If recent events holds true, it could be a par-tay!

According to an AP story, "The White House is the place to be on Wednesdays."

Since the presidency changed hands less than six weeks ago, a burst of entertaining has taken hold of the iconic, white-columned home of America's head of state. Much of it comes on Wednesdays.

The stately East Room, where portraits of George and Martha Washington adorn the walls, was transformed into a concert hall as President Barack Obama presented Stevie Wonder with the nation's highest award for pop music on Wednesday.

A week before that, the foot-stomping sounds of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a female a cappella group, filled the East Room for a Black History Month program that first lady Michelle Obama held for nearly 200 sixth- and seventh-graders from around Washington.

Cocktails were sipped during at least three such receptions to date, all held on Wednesdays.

Sounds like fun? Read on HERE.

Unfortunately, we didn't get our invite for tonight... What are you doing?

More Administration Double-Speak

Earlier, I wrote about some "Presidential Double-speak" that discussed the disconnect between President Obama's Proclamation to make March 2009 "American Red Cross Month" with its call to "support this organization's noble humanitarian mission" and Obama Administration Budget Proposal that included a plan to "to impose new limits on charitable tax deductions for wealthy people."

Now what's see what more the Administration has to say about its budget. A Washington Post article by Philip Rucker from today highlights another disconnect.

A lot has been said about Obama's budget proposal. Let's hear what the White House budget director, Peter Orszag, has to say about it:

"We have no desire to bloat bureaucracy -- indeed, just the opposite -- and the budget will not do that."
But, he added, "in several key areas -- from properly auditing contracts to providing quality medical care to veterans and reducing errors in Medicare and other programs -- investing in skilled professionals will not only pay off over time but also immediately deliver better service to taxpayers."

Wait - so the budget won't bloat the bureaucracy? Or it will?

How will "investing in skilled professionals" not add to the size of the federal government? Are you planning on laying off individuals from other departments to save head count for these new skilled professionals? Is this going to be another one of those I-know-but-I-can't-tell-you moments, like when he promised to have "a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

(Quote from within the first minute or so)

The article reports that "one independent estimate was 100,000 [new federal workers], while the conservative Heritage Foundation said it is likely to be closer to a quarter-million."

If there wasn't enough disconnect between the Administration's "dollar-cut for dollar-increased-spending" and "not bloating the federal government" and "investing in [lots and lots of] skilled professionals," there is apparently a disconnect between the White House and the rest of the Administration.

The article continues, "Administration officials said they cannot determine overall hiring projections until the president's full budget is released this spring, but acknowledged that significant new hiring will occur."

And,

Several major agencies said they are already making plans to grow their workforces, some significantly. [...]
Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs, for instance, said they expect to hire more than 17,000 new employees by the end of the year, many at hospitals and other facilities to fulfill Obama's pledge to expand veterans' access to health care. The agency -- whose budget will grow by 11 percent, to $56 billion, under Obama's plan -- will add about 7,900 nurses, 3,300 doctors, 3,800 clerks and 2,400 practical nurses, spokeswoman Josephine Schuda said.

So, even your own team is planning on your budget increasing jobs...

Apparently, the Obama Administration is trying to adapt itself to the Paradoxes of the Presidency, only they've added some new categories. To the paradoxes suggested by Cronin and Genovese that "that Americans want the president to be both a leader and a follower, partisan and bipartisan, and innovative and conservative," we now have the
* Stimulate the economy with $1 trillion in government spending AND cut the deficit in half in four years
* Support charities and non-profits AND we're going to remove tax incentives while doing it
* We won't bloat the size of the federal government BUT we'll "invest in new professionals"

What other paradoxes in the new administration have you seen so far?

Crossposted on RedState

still more on charitable giving

An update from the Chronicle on Philanthropy continues to talk about some of the effects I mentioned earlier (HERE and HERE). However, this line caught my eye:

The budget proposal, if passed, would essentially be a tariff on giving by the most-generous donors, Mr. Sharpe said. “If we need this money for social purposes,” he said, “why not tax wealthy people who do not give to charity?”

Now there's an idea. Use taxes to incentivize charitable giving. Since charitable organizations, relief groups, and non-profits are--and should be--stepping in where the government does not provide services, individuals of all income levels should be encouraged to support them. The idea is to let these groups be a resource for those who need assistance -- going up the chain from trying to accomplish something on your own, then turning to family, then to churches and other organizations, before turning to the government. Since these non-profits are taking some of the social service burden off the government, it seems only fair that individuals who contribute to them get some tax relief.

And, it seems only fair that the wealthy who choose not to give to non-profit organizations be taxed so that some of that money can go towards government programs--or even government assistance to non-profits.

(ASIDE: Have you ever stopped to think what even portions of the government bailouts given to auto makers, banks, and others could do for an organization like the Red Cross? In 2003, the Red Cross estimated that their costs for disaster relief assistance for the victims of Hurricane Isabel would $14 - $17 million. An infusion of portions of the billions going to GM, Chrysler, AIG, and others could be used to make sure that the Red Cross--and other relief organizations--have the resources they need to help others. And they can do it cheaper than the government can because of their vast network of volunteers and other resources! That sounds like some "change" well spent, especially as this new year brings a new cycle of disasters and other calamities.)

I wonder what something like this proposal would do for the charitable giving "market." Your thoughts?

Take 5

A fun jazz number performed by the Dave Brubeck Quartet.


Or, in cinematography, the filmed version of a particular shot or set up. You keep counting up until the shot/scene is completed.

It's in this light that Mimi Hall of USA Today talks about "Tax Troubles: Take Five." Although not as cool or smooth as the Brubeck version, this fifth take regarding an Obama Administration appointee relates to--you guessed it--tax problems. Hall writes, "another of President Obama's Cabinet-level nominees has problems with unpaid taxes," Ron Kirk, nominee for trade representative. He joins the ranks of the following individuals:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had failed to pay $34,000 in taxes, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, whose husband had roughly $6,400 in tax liens against his business, both were confirmed. Former senator Tom Daschle and former Treasury official Nancy Killefer, nominated for Health and Human Services secretary and chief procurement officer respectively, withdrew their names amid revelations about unpaid taxes.

But don't worry- Kirk's nomination is "on track." "The White House on Monday characterized Kirk's tax troubles as 'minor' and expressed confidence that he will be confirmed by the Senate."

Must be nice.

Are taxes not part of the vetting process? Do they just not care?

One can only hope that the Rangel Rule gets adopted before the rest of us (gasp) common American citizens have to pay our taxes.

Crossposted on RedState

In case you were counting...

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the CPAC Straw Poll for the third year in a row, beating Jindal, Palin, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and others.

You can check out the Conservative Political Action Conference website from this year's gathering HERE.

And, if you're feeling like you're in a place to contribute to help conservative candidates, please go HERE and tell them I sent you.

An update on charitable giving

In my last post, I talked about how the Obama Administration tax plan would seriously dampen charitable giving. Michael Barone, a senior write for US News and World Repot gives his take HERE, pointing out that the plan threatens charities and universities. Adding to the points presented in the earlier post, listen to this:

This is an attempt to channel money away from voluntary associations and direct it to the state. Some of that money, in turn, would be directed to public employee unions, and much if not most of that would be directed to the Democratic Party.
[...]
Barack Obama evidently wants us to shift vast sums of money from the voluntary associations extolled by Alexis de Tocqueville to the bureaucratic networks described by Max Weber. This is a profoundly bad idea. I will be interested to see whether nonprofits dependent on major gifts, like our great universities, take this in stride or whether they see it, as I do, as a threat to their institutions.

Read the rest of what he had to say about de Tocqueville vs. Weber.

What do you think?