I make it a point not to argue (too much) with someone who happens to be right. Let me be more specific: I make it a point not to disparage legislators who realize that, to co-opt a little Dylan, “the times they are a-changin’”. “Ron Burgundy had never heard that song, so when he fell, he fell hard.” An amicus asked my opinion the other day about why it was that Democratic legislators seem to be dropping faster than the price of pie in Poughkeepsie. I had this to say to my compadre, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Poughkeepsie - An Increasingly Cheaper Place to Live

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” TJ, of course, was ramping up to tell King George, “Your Highness, we beseech you on this day in Philadelphia to bite me, if you please.” The importance of any government is to affect the will of the people. Vox populi, vox Dei.

The answer to the question is that Democratic legislators are getting caught with their pants down in the same way that dear old Dubs did: when things go wrong, we like to blame people. The people to blame these days (with their high-falootin’ “healthcare reform” and their namby-pamby “Republicans won’t play nice”) are the Democrats in Congress and their Maestro-North-of-the-Ellipse. The fact of the matter is that politicians in this country are facing the stark realization that the Change-meister-in-chief has changed doodly-squat.

Why So Glum, Dems?

Politics in Washington (should I point out he was a Senator?) haven’t changed. The reason that Democrats are dropping so quickly isn’t that, in the words of retiring Congressmen Bayh, “There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress”; the real reason is that the partisanship from the President’s party isn’t carrying the day. It isn’t doing what Obama wanted it to do: be an echo of the Bush year’s dominance.

Remember when most of us were teens-on-the-rise? When I was sitting in my eighth grade English class and watching smoke billow from the North Tower, there was a Texan in the White House. There were Conservatives running the show on the hill. When Dubs spoke, Congress listened; having listened, Congress acted. Obama has yet to get the same kind of fight, the same kind of dominance, out of his Congress. Here’s the punch-line: he has a larger majority. Obama’s margin is larger than Bushes (I’m comparing the 109^th to the 111^th, gang); the reason he isn’t getting what he wants is that what he wants isn’t what America wants. The Bush Whitehouse spun their policies far better than Obama’s has.

Democrats are dropping like flies. The reason is simple: partisan politics are wartime politics; the first rule of war is “fighting to win”. Democrats in Congress have yet to realize that winning is the important part; you bring about change by winning. The retirement spree isn’t just about sex and politics. Democrats are resigning because they’re losing. That’s the ball-game kids, thanks for playing. Democrats are dropping like flies because they’re losing; they’re losing the battle for hearts, minds, and policy initiatives. Until Democrats find their own Karl Rove, the Democratic ballgame is unwinnable.

Riddle me this, riddle me that, who’s afraid of a big Fat Cat?

Give up? It’s not the US Congress! I know, I was shocked too. Here’s the thing: while I was waiting for something to set me off this week, Congress, true to form and typical of fashion, decided that the thing which would solve the increasingly expensive health-care burden in this little nation of ours was to spend money.

Lots…and lots…and lots of money.

I may not be a mathematician (2+2 still equals 5, right?), but it seems to me that $829B dollars is quite a bit of money to spend when nobody has figured out a good old-fashioned solution to the problem. Allow me to throw my hat into an otherwise unpopulated ring: reduce some costs (?)

Amerigo Vespucci, Who Had It His Way

This is going to sound crazy: what if, instead of making health-care coverage more affordable, we just tried to make it cheaper?! ‘Gosh Kyle,’ Amerigo Vespucci would say, ‘if you can figure that out, they should name the country after you instead!’

Seriously friends, Italian explorers aside, my little solution is Tort Reform (go on, you can say it, my “new solution” is deregulation, “how Republican!”).   But it goes beyond that because, and let me be as frank as possible, what’s really got me red-under-the-collar is the ridiculous amount of money spent by the government to which I’ve had the privilege to pay taxes.

“Do you smell bacon, Garth?” “Yes, I definitely smell a pork product of some kind.”

There are lists that detail some excesses in government “porkery”, but I won’t bore you to death. The fact of the matter is that my inner deficit-hawk screams bloody murder at $829B. And to be fair, I realize that there are certain thresholds: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” doesn’t come cheap, and it is our (cliché alert!) moral imperative as the only remaining superpower.

Bridge Anyone?

Ready to be terrified? Bill Clinton was right………to want a line-item veto. Are there projects that need to be funded from which some people won’t see an immediate impact?  Sure, but those are projects like maintenance on the Port of Los Angeles…they’re big picture; Defense spending is another one. But really, if you’re on Air Force Two, do you really need gold-leafed playing cards? In fact, let me be perfectly clear: if you’re on Air Force [Insert number here], or a government craft of any sort, you do not need gold-leafed playing cards.

As a parting thought, friends and neighbors, how about one of Disraeli’s “third type of lies”: average pay for US Congressmen (not including bribes)- $174,000 per annum; average pay for public school teachers (not including apples and birthday cupcakes) – $51,000 per annum. What a country…

By Jonathan Slemrod

On paper, the Obama administration cares deeply about America’s economic recovery, taking bold steps to rescue the failing financial system, helping to save the Big Three automakers, and spending nearly $800 billion to create jobs through an economic recovery package. The reality isn’t so sweet.

Last week, the administration announced they will slap a punitive tariff of 35 percent on tires imported from China, a move which makes no economic sense, other than merely as a gesture to the United Steelworkers Union, who have complained about the influx of cheap Chinese tires for months. The announcement has infuriated the Chinese, who are threatening to retaliate by raising tariffs of their own, or worse, refusing to buy further U.S. Treasury bonds to pay off our gigantic budget deficits. Already, China has announced an “anti-dumping” investigation into U.S. sales of chicken and automotive parts.

Regardless of the fact that Chinese tires coming to the U.S. make up a very small fraction of total Chinese exports, the Obama administration will make a grave mistake if it tries to pursue an agenda of economic recovery and trade protectionism simultaneously. Doing so will hurt investor confidence in U.S. markets, and damage relations between the world’s first and third largest economies. Politically, an administration hostile to trade will send the Democratic leadership in Congress a message to keep stalling two vital free trade agreements that are waiting in the docket; Panama and Colombia.

President Obama and Yang Jiechi

Another blow to economic recovery would be allowing passage of the deceivingly-named “Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)” a labor-backed bill which would slant the rules of union organizing away from workers and towards union bosses. The bill easily passed through the House of Representatives, but has stalled in the Senate where moderate Democrats have been reluctant to embrace the controversial “card check” provision, which effectively eliminates the secret ballot elections for workers when voting whether or not to form a union.

It is possible that some version of the Employee Free Choice Act will emerge soon from Senate negotiators without any card check provision, a move which would be aimed at shoring up Democratic support and possibly luring some moderate Republicans who wouldn’t mind labor’s support in future elections. Yet a provision known as “binding arbitration” would be just as damaging as card check, allowing a government-picked arbitrator from the National Labor Relations Board to set the terms of an agreement (wages, benefits, etc.) if labor and business cannot reach a frivolous deadline for doing so. Arbitrators will likely be biased against employers, forcing business owners to spend a fortune on lawyers, rather than putting resources towards doing business. This drain on business means less profit, less economic growth, and undoubtedly less middle-class jobs in America.

The cliche Hippocratic oath “First, do no harm,” couldn’t apply more to the Obama administration’s wacky move to ramp up protectionism towards China and risk starting an all-out trade war. These tariffs, accompanied by labor legislation which threatens small business at the expense of the secret ballot for workers, should be quickly dismissed as nothing more than the populist, anti-growth measures that they truly are.