Guy Benson – The short and obvious explanation is that the revamped proposal emphasizes spending reductions, which is a blow to Democrats’ false mantra du jour; namely, that the country doesn’t have a spending problem. The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson gripes that the new bipartisan framework, advanced by the former co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission earlier this week, emits a distinct whiff of Republicanism. The MSNBC crew is predictably unimpressed, as are lefty bloggers like Matt Yglesias. Conservative economist Kevin Hassett (who goes out of his way to describe his own misgivings over Simpson-Bowles 2.0) explains why the president’s ideological kin probably regret his decision to assemble the commission in the first place. Pretending to care about deficits, then utterly ignoring the advice of the council you charged with fashioning a workable way forward, has its consequences — as does basic budgetary math, it turns out:
This new plan calls for about $1 trillion more in total spending cuts than was previously sought by the two gentlemen; in addition, the tax revenue they seek is about half of what was contained in their original plan. It seems that Simpson and Bowles have moved in the Republicans’ direction big time. Their plan emphasizes the pressing need to contain the debt and makes it clear that spending cuts are necessary to do so, something Democrats have seemed to be woefully ignoring in recent months. This shift in position clearly suggests that they were strong armed by the president the first time around, and forced to push a plan that they viewed was harmful for the economy. Despite making concessions towards higher taxes, they were double crossed by Obama, who dropped their plan the minute it was delivered. Overall it seems like this exposes a big gap between Simpson and Bowles and the president. President Obama has pretended to be an advocate of their position, but never been serious about doing anything. This is payback time, and Simpson and Bowles have not made any friends in the White House today.
[H/T Toby Toons for the image.]
This past week in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner (that killed six people and wounded nine others–including the congresswoman), the mainstream/liberal media instantly pounced on “the violent rhetoric” by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as the cause of Loughner’s mad shooting spree. Oh, and they did this within half an hour of the victims being shot, before any of the facts of the case had come in. To be specific, the likes of Andrew Sullivan (he of “Trig Truther” fame), Markos Moulitsas, Matthew Yeglesias, Paul Krugman, The New York Times Editorial Board and just about everyone at MSNBC immediately implied that “right-wing rhetoric”, and specifically Sarah Palin, were accessories to this tragedy. In fact, Markos Moulitsas even went so far as to tweet out “Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” immediately after the shooting, and blamed her based an obscure map that she had put out almost year ago on her Facebook page “targeting” certain districts for the 2010 election. To quote Alex Knepper, according to liberals, “Guns don’t kill people, Sarah Palin’s metaphors do”. (See an image of her Facebook map below.)
Except that it didn’t take conservative bloggers long to learn that the Democrats had put up a similar “target” map in 2009 (before Palin did) stating which Republicans they wanted to “target” for opposing the now infamous stimulus bill.
For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.
Tech analyst Tavis McCourt examines developments at Apple in this informative interview on Bloomberg Television. He expects the IPad, just launched a few months ago, to rapidly become one of the prime drivers of the company’s growth, following the path of its other phenomenal successes, the IPod and IPhone.
Regardless of one’s own opinion of the IPad, Apple is a great illustration of what makes a successful technology company- constant innovation, an exciting pipeline of new products, and sensitivity to customers and markets.
A cautionary note for liberals. The type of culture needed to run a success story like Apple is the exact opposite of that which characterizes Big Government and its corporate dependencies. Barack Obama, take note.