Let me screw up your state, too

DorothyGaleHouseWitchThe cartoon I posted this morning kinda hits a nerve with me.

I thought I told this story earlier, but I can’t find that I did. So, you’re gonna have to put up with it now. And you have no one to blame but yourself for reading it.

Anyway, I was driving into work one day — this was a couple of years ago — and I got behind a car with a Michigan tag. It also had an Obama sticker on it.

I prepared to turn at a light, and the vehicle in front of me, with the Michigan tag and Obama sticker, turned the same way. Next light, same thing. And, sure enough, drove into the parking area at work just ahead of me.

Now, I’m thinking, sure, our company is doing good, and hiring people from all over. But this is going too far.

Somebody from Michigan been voting Democrat, and then they’re having economic issues because, and then they need to move 800 miles south to get a job?

Okay, I’m fine, so far. They screwed up — screwed up bad — and now know better, right? No, they dumb as ever. They brought their Obama sticker with them.

That politics that screwed up their state, they’re bringing to my state, and now they’re going to screw it up, too.

Anyway, that’s why the cartoon last hour kinds resonates with me. The image of the dominoes falling worries me, if they make my state one of those dominoes, too.

Maybe something will fall on them. The most appropriate thing for what to fall on an Obama voter? Dorothy Gale’s house.

Send to Kindle

Sunny Day…

BigBirdWorkI don’t have anything personally against Big Bird, or Bert and Ernie, or any of the Sesame Street crew. And, I’m not happy about the latest bit of news to hit the Sesame Workshop, which makes the show. However, I wonder if they’ll finally come to realize that Obama isn’t their friend.

You see, Sesame Workshop just cut their staff by 10%.

“We at Sesame Workshop are not immune to the challenges of today’s economic environment. After careful review, we have concluded that we must operate, and achieve our strategic priorities with fewer resources. Therefore, we have reluctantly determined that we must reduce our workforce by approximately 10%,” said CEO H. Melvin Ming in a note sent to staff this afternoon.

Oh, in case you forgot, this isn’t the first layoff for the company. A dozen were let go last year. And another 60 were let go in 2009. That’s 102 of the 355 that were employed when Obama took office. That’s right, 29% of the company’s workforce has been downsized since Obama moved into the White House.

I just hope that they remember that today’s layoff’s are brought to you by the letter “O.”

But they won’t.

Send to Kindle

The beatings will continue until morale improves

You’ve heard that phrase — “the beatings will continue until morale improves” — in comics or on signs or in statements made by coworkers.

Well, you’re about to live it. Or, if you already are, others are, too.

Government regulations are the beatings on the economy. And when the government regulations cause the economy to falter, the government will simply issue more beatings, in the form of regulations.

Obamacare is one of the major problems. It’s causing business expenses to increase, and businesses are cutting where they can. That includes wages.

Some businesses are reorganizing internally and reclassifying some positions so that jobs that were salaried are now hourly. Businesses are also cutting back on hours for some employees; some cuts to simply reduce wages, others to exempt those employees from full-time status and the requirement to cover them under Obamacare. Those employees get to pay the Obamacare tax — they call it a fee or a penalty, but it only passed Constitutional muster because it’s actually a tax — so they are covered, as required by law.

When this impacts people, particularly people who voted for Obama, two things will happen.

  1. Karma
  2. More regulations

What will the new regulations do? Make it worse. And then more regulations. And more problems with the economy.

Now, everyone on the left will say how great the economy is because of all the number of people with jobs, even though more of those jobs will be part-time, and even though more and more will stop looking for work because it’s not worth it.

The numbers, because of the way they arrange them, will look good. Well, not all numbers. The numbers on people’s paychecks and in their bank accounts won’t look so good.

But rest assured, the government has a plan to deal with the economy: the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Send to Kindle

The Parable of the Talents: 2012 Version

Hunter (who you should remember from his previous appearances) offers this updated version of the Parable of the Talents.

Please note that the “ruler” in this piece is not Obama, but rather more along the lines of the imaginary President who Hunter recently had lecturing Congress on fiscal restraint.

By the way, I’m pleased to announce that, after some encouragement (and maybe a TINY bit of waterboarding), Hunter has taken my advice and started his own blog:

Atomic Monkey Action Squad.

Stop by and wish him well on his new adventure.


The Parable of the Talents, 2012

(with deep apologies to Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-28, and with no claim or attempt to represent this version as being strictly biblical)

…Therefore stay alert, for a nation turning its attention to its own affairs and not being mindful of its elected representatives is like a wealthy ruler going on a journey, who summoned his bureaucrats and after drawing up a contract between he and them, placed into their keeping the divisions of his government. To one he gave oversight of five departments, to another two, and to yet another one, each according their popularity and personal appeal, saying “promote and enable the nation’s businesses with these so that they flourish and grow until I return, drawing responsibly from my Treasury only what you need”. Then he went on his journey.

The bureaucrat who was given five departments went off right away and began hiring additional staff, diversifying and expanding his influence, spinning off narrow oversight functions into separate departments, building his scions up into full-fledged divisions, constructing beautiful, ornate, and highly-secure premises within which to office his staff, requisitioning soldiers to guard all his facilities, showering largess upon all who looked in his direction (most heavily upon his subordinates), and institutionalizing his expansion policies until the number of offices and sub-bureaus under his control could only be drawn as an increasing geometric curve, with each org chart only as stable as the sand in which it was inscribed, giving chronic nightmares to the royal actuaries.

The bureaucrat who had been given two departments did likewise.

The bureaucrat who had been given one department feared his master, so he did all he could to support the kingdom’s merchants with his meager staff, and yet he refused to expand his authority. Quickly realizing that no amount of under-spending on his part could make up for the actions of the other two, he counseled them to reverse their course and return to the contractual boundaries in place with their king. When they didn’t listen, he found he could not get his message to the people because the Heralds’ Union was now highly regulated, and happily so, and they did not wish to endanger their new pension plans.

After a long time, the ruler returned and summoned his bureaucrats to settle accounts.

The one who received five departments came and said “Master, you entrusted me with five departments, and now they are as many as the stars in the sky!” The one who received two departments came and said “Master, you entrusted me with two, and now they are more plentiful than the sand along the sea!”

Then the one who had received just a single department came and said “Master, I know you are a hard man, and will not wish to harvest what has been sown! I was afraid, and I and my staff worked tirelessly day and night to facilitate trade, and to enact as little restraint upon business as we could ethically manage, so that the economy might not be stifled! But the public has been turned against me. For trying to keep the kingdom on the path you decreed, I have been accused of wanting to slay children and the elderly, and hating those who look different than me, and of being insensitive to the endless needs of our invaders (this last I will admit is true, but feel that it is a strange accusation nonetheless).”

“I have had to fear for my life, the lives of my family, and for my diligent servants because my reluctance to, for example, provide public funding for the arts is now equated with attempts to both censor and enslave the citizenry! These others have rendered for naught all of my efforts!”

The ruler sat quietly on his throne, aghast in the dawning realization of what had been done in his absence. Turning to the first bureaucrat, the one who had received five departments, he asked “How stands my Treasury?” Seeking to dissemble, the man replied “My lord, there is some disagreement among the royal accountants, what with different accounting standards, closing schedules, and economic schools of thought…”

The ruler asked again “How stands my Treasury?”

Continue reading ‘The Parable of the Talents: 2012 Version’ »

Send to Kindle

It’s all so clear to me now

Thanks, Nancy Pelosi.

Without her brilliance, I would be a simple conservative Neanderthal that thought that more people getting unemployment meant that more jobs were being lost.

Silly me. And you, if you thought the same way.

Turns out that, according to Pelosi, when more people are paid unemployment, that means more jobs are being created, not lost:

[Direct link]

Now, don’t you feel silly?

This new awareness got me to thinking. If more people getting unemployment checks means that more jobs are being created, what else having I been wrong about?

I’ve compiled a partial list:

  • Rain falling from the sky means we’re in a drought.
  • People flying planes into our buildings means that we are evil.
  • Water flows uphill.
  • You can get out of debt by borrowing more money to spend.
  • Record snowfall means it’s hotter.
  • All your base are belong to us.
  • You can secure the borders by leaving them wide open.
  • You can lose weight by eating more and exercising less.
  • Government money is really free money that doesn’t cost anyone anything.
  • Resistance is futile.
  • Cats are not evil.

I wonder what other lessons are there for me to still learn?

Send to Kindle

Not Even a Trillion Dollars!

If you’re following the health care debate, the CBO (I don’t know who they are) estimate that Obama’s bill will cost $940 billion over the next ten years which somehow saves us money ($100 billion over ten years, though Obama can easily fritter that away in a month). I don’t get government math. I had my own plan which involved shutting down all the government and exiling all of its employees to Antarctica, but the CBO told me that would actually increase the cost of government. The CBO also told me that if I gave them ten dollars, it would be like I was saving twenty. I didn’t understand that, and when I gave then ten dollars they just ran off giggling.


Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit has a good explanation of how the numbers were fudged in this post. To make the 10 year estimate trillions less, they just wait four years to actually implement anything (only $17 billion of the estimated $940 billion is spent the first four years). So the cost is really $927 billion over six years, with those last four missing years being the greatest cost.

Send to Kindle

How to balance the federal budget without raising taxes

How can Congress possibly balance the federal budget without raising taxes?

It’s easy. Make Congress make up for any shortfall in the budget. Take it out of their pay. Cut Congressional pay (House and Senate) for every dollar the budget is in deficit.

What about the president? Well, if he vetoed the deficit budget, he’s off the hook. If he signed it, he’s liable. Dock his pay, too.

Now, what happens if the deficit is more than the pay of Congress? As is the current situation? Congress is on the hook for the balance. Personally. If Congressman A has twice wealth as Congressman B, he’s responsible for twice as much of the deficit.

When that still doesn’t cover the deficit, spread the debt around to other members of the government, exempting military pay only.

If Congress tries to get around it by raising taxes, count every tax increase as deficit money, and cut Congressional pay accordingly.

I learned a long time ago, that if someone had the solution to a problem, but had no interest in solving the problem, it was because it didn’t personally affect them; it wasn’t their problem.

Make it their problem.

Send to Kindle

We have too much not-enough-unemployment

The Associated Press is reporting that Friday’s unemployment report will be … bad (tip: Don Surber). But the administration says it’s the weather’s fault. (At least it’s not the climate‘s fault.) The AP calls shenanigans.

The report can’t just be dismissed. Once the snow effect is filtered out, they say the data will still signal weak hiring: Little if any job growth, and an unemployment rate predicted to rise to 9.8 percent or more from 9.7 percent.

While everyone’s getting their panties in a wad over the number of unemployed, they don’t realize that there is an easy way to solve the unemployment problem.

Make more people lose their jobs.

Now, sure, this sounds like a Barack Obama solution. He’s one to address a problem of too much government by having more government.

But, this isn’t the same thing. You see, I’m thinking that we could get more people back to work if a few certain select people joined the ranks of the unemployed. I can think of 257 people that need to lose their jobs, and things will get better.

Wait! I just thought of 59 more!

This will work.

You’re welcome.

Send to Kindle

Maybe people would listen if Obama said “I inherited this Democratic Senate”

Barack Obama keeps saying he inherited problems. And, the statistics show that, just maybe, he did.

Look at this graph from the Bureau of Labor.

[Source: Bureau of Labor]

Notice that unemployment was on its way up before he took office. It looks like Obama did inherit rising unemployment.

But then, take the statistics from this source — the Unites States Senate — showing which party controlled the Senate, and apply it to that graphic.

What do you get? This:

[Source: American Thinker]

So, when you go to criticize Barack Obama for his dismal performance, keep in mind that it’s not just his fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault.

And the fault of those that keep electing Democrats.

Send to Kindle

Things That Count As Creating Or Saving A Job

Three of these were actually counted on the government’s report of the number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus package.

The rest might as well be.

“Before/After – no more wallowing in freakish misery.”

* Getting Nancy Pelosi the reconstructive surgery needed to stop people from describing her face as “had a swordfight ‘To The Pain‘ and lost”.

* Hiring people to fill out the government paperwork on how many jobs you created with your stimulus money

* Hitting on college freshmen (just the hot chicks).

* Buying cars for a Driver’s Ed class.

* Giving the baby-sitter a raise.

* Putting even MORE chocolate chips in Chips Ahoy! cookies.

* Requiring road construction projects to employ both primary and back-up “shovel leanin’ guys”.

* Shopping cart repair for homeless people.

* Lawnmower drag race pit crew.

* Re-felting old muppets.

* Upgrading the nation’s energy grid to allow it to receive power directly from the Energizer Bunny.

Feel free to chime in with the fruits of your own research, as commenting on IMAO counts as creating or saving a job.

Send to Kindle

Job losses

The job numbers for August are out. And they don’t look good.

Unemployment is now at 9.7% — the highest it’s been since 1983.

The “underemployment rate” — the unemployed rate plus part-time workers who prefer a full-time position plus people who want work but have given up looking for a job — is at 16.8 percent, a record.

What does all this mean?

Obviously, nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. But what else does it mean?

It means that the wrong people are losing their jobs.

We need to fire some elected officials. I’m thinking the entire Obama administration would be a good place to start. But then, I said don’t hire those rascals to begin with. But did America listen to me? No. 52% of American voters went and did something stupid.

Oh, sure. They were frustrated. They didn’t like how things were. But not putting any thought into a solution is a bad solution.

So, we have unemployment near 10%.

I think we ought to give Congress a 10% unemployment rate. That would mean 10 Senators losing their jobs. And 43 or 44 Representatives being sent packing.

Some say to throw them all out. But, as a Representative said yesterday, there are downsides to doing that. Remember, that’s basically what happened to put Obama in office: a desire to get rid of who was there. They seemed to forget that Bush wasn’t running for a third term. Stupid Obama voters.

So, which 10% of Congress should be unemployed?

Oh, I have some ideas.

Senators who are up for reelection in 2010:
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
…Oh heck, I could go on and on with Representatives. But I’d start with this group.

If 10% of Congress lost their jobs … the most useless 10% … then unemployment might not be a bad thing after all.

Imagine this group having to work for a living. Or even trying to find a job.

Send to Kindle

Not Sure How This Helps

Somewhere back when That One was suckering people for their votes, he mocked McCain’s proposed summer gas tax holiday because it would only save “about 25, 30 dollars“.

“Tax breaks for mind-bogglingly wealthy Ultra-Yuppies?”

Now that he’s President, he’s offering a National Park Fee holiday, where – on three select weekends this summer – you won’t have to pay to get into any National Park.

Fees range from $3 to $25.

Now, I hate slipping the government even the thinnest of dimes for anything, so I’m all for ANY instance of not having to render unto Caeser. However, I’d like to point out that this program is utterly useless, other than as a political publicity stunt.

I’ll explain.

It’s like those schemes to punish oil companies for high gas prices by not buying gas on some particular day. People don’t actually use less gasoline, they simply shift the date of purchase to a day earlier or later than normal. The same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don’t lose any money.

In this case, nobody’s going to make a special trip to a National Park on “no fee” day. All that will happen is that some people who were going to visit National Parks this summer anyway (mostly tree-hugging, Obama-voting liberals who only like nature when somebody else pays for its upkeep) are going to re-schedule their visits for the free weekends. Total visitorship won’t increase. Tourism won’t increase. And the government will go deeper into debt because it still has to pay National Park staff the same wages whether it collects fees or not.

So what he SHOULD do is permanently double the fees on all National Parks.


Because going to a park is a choice, just like smoking, and he raised taxes on that, even though it disproportionately affects the po’ folks who vote for him.

Also because park-goers are a HUGE burden on our health care system. They get lost, need rescuing, starve, dehydrate, break legs, get eaten by bears, and get itchy bums while being naughty in the poison ivy.

I think it’s about time they paid their fair share.

Send to Kindle

Obama Is Taking Your Questions!

The White House web site has a new page called “Open for Questions“, where citizens are encouraged to submit their questions on the economy. On Thursday, Obama will answer all the ones that make him look good, like “The economy is so much better now that you’re president. Why are you so awesome, and how can we best praise you? Would a large, golden idol be appropriate?”

Personally, I’d go a little less softball. Here are some of mine:

“That’s a tough question… let me have my staff dig up some dirt on you to release to the media, and I’ll get back to you on that.”

* You say America needs jobs, green energy, and cheap health care, yet all you’ve done is “invest” trillions in financial institutions that are too stupid to earn a profit. Isn’t this like promising to buy your daughter a pony, then going out and buying yourself a Mustang?

* Could we maybe take your $3.5 trillion budget to Vegas and play blackjack with it? Statistically, we should still have $3.4 trillion left afterwards, which is better odds than we’re getting from you.

* You’re planning to lower the deduction on charitable giving. Are you also planning to spank your children when they share their toys?

* When asked why it took you so long to express outrage over the AIG bonuses, you said “because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” Didn’t you actually mean to say “my teleprompter was broken”?

* A two-part question: In your speech on the economy, you said “there are no silver bullets”. If that’s true, then – first – how will America defend itself from a werewolf invasion, and – second – have you considered asking the Lone Ranger for assistance?

* You criticized AIG executives for “enriching themselves on the taxpayers’ dime”, calling it “inexcusable”. Does this standard apply to your $500,000 book deal? Or is your book deal OK because it was done before you assumed the Presidency? And does this make the AIG bonuses OK, because they were set up before they accepted the bailout?

* You said we “can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit”. Does that mean you have a list of people that you CAN afford to demonize? Does that list consist of the names of people who submit unflattering questions to the Open For Questions web site?

* Senator Benjamin Cardin has proposed a measure to help newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat by allowing them to reorganize as non-profit entities. If you support this measure, would you support a similar measure for bloggers? I mean, I sit around all day making stuff up, and I’m not making any money at it, either.

* If Treasury Secretary Geithner is fired or resigns, who will replace him. Are there any Democrat tax cheats left in Washington who aren’t already part of your administration?

* Although you expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses, you don’t seem too upset about the millions in Fannie Mae bonuses. Are you saying that it’s OK to use bailout money for bonuses as long as your company name sounds like a character from the Beverly Hillbillies?

Anything YOU want to ask That One?

Send to Kindle

Other Link of the Day

Hart of ThatHero.com sums up the economy with a very simple graph:

Further discussion available here.

Send to Kindle

Quote of the Day

From XKCD, on the MSM’s faux outrage over $165 million in bonuses coming out of a 175 BILLION dollar bailout:

The difference between a million and a billion is the difference between a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter and a bottle of gin and a night with her.

Send to Kindle