Budget deficit projections. Is this what Obama voters think will work? To me it looks like a recipe for inflation and unemployment.

Washington Stimulates Alaska

Patti Higgins, chairwoman of the Alaska Democratic Party excoriates Sarah Palin for not wanting to accept the Federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached. Those strings would bind Alaskans to onerous costs and conditions for years to come. Higgins is apparently willing to reduce Alaskan liberty by putting Alaskans under the whip of Washington. She is like a mouse eyeing the plum pudding on the pan of a mouse trap, determined to have it. This is called short term planning.

Boycott Bailoutees

For my part, I refuse to do business with any company that asks the taxpayer to bail their sorry behinds out. In our family we have canceled our Citibank credit cards and I will not buy a vehicle from Chrysler or GM. If they go begging to the hardworking productive people of this country, rather than using chapter 11 to force the unions to be responsible, then the people should respond by wiping them out. Chapter 11 is a perfectly fine bailout, use it or die. Clearly, Congress will not do the right thing.

Chicken Little's Tough Sell

Roy Spencer posts updates of global satellite based temperatures. Due to the fact that these records began in 1979, which followed forty years of cooling from the 30s to the 70s, the baseline or zero point is lower than if the record extended back to the 30s. Even so, it is difficult to find cause for alarm here. The new bubble to burst, following the dot.com, the subprime, and the looming dollar bust, may be the alternative energy bust, as investors see CO2 as a fading threat and reverse their investment in green energy, and their support for taxpayer subsidies of green energy.

Socializing Home Ownership

The current stock market crash is yet another demonstration that socialism doesn't work. It is rooted in the long building and recently accelerated attempts by Democrats in Congress to socialize home ownership. They did this by forcing banks to provide subprime mortgages (ACORN, community reinvestment act, anti-redlining), and by transferring the resulting risk onto the taxpayer using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's implied government backing (Barney Frank, Dodd, Johnson, Raines, Gorelick, Obama). Banks discovered that Fan/Fred would buy subprimes thus burying the risk and "laundering" the securitized mortgages. The govt. licensed credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody's) cooperated with AAA ratings! Wall street was thus protected from the risk and went on a feeding frenzy of MBS, and derivatives trading. As always happens with socialism, somebody eventually has to pay the piper. That somebody is the taxpayer. This is short term compassion causing long term pain, sort of like feeding the seed corn to a hungry child, thus dooming the entire village, or paying tribute to pirates.

Now, of course, the Obama Democrats try to blame Bush despite the fact that he tried for his entire administration to rein in the excesses of Fan/Fred but was blocked by the Obama Democrats.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html
A long list of people saw this coming.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599777668249845.html?mod=article-outset-box

The quickest way to turn this mess into a severe depression would be to raise taxes, restrict free trade, suppress competition, and socialize home ownership and health care. Obama's policies are exactly the way to cause this perfect storm.

Palin-Jindal, 2009

Let's see. How could this happen?

Refundable Tax Credits

If a person has a $1000 tax liability but qualifies for a $1000 tax credit, we could probably agree that the net tax take by government is zero. But if person A has a $1000 tax liability and person B, who owes no tax, qualifies for a refundable tax credit of $1000, what is the net tax take by government? In other words, can a politician credibly claim that wealth redistribution is possible without taxation? Obama claims that his economic proposals would result in a total net tax take of 18.2% of GDP. This is a very reasonable number and is close to the average since WWII. How does he get this number? He gets it by considering refundable tax credits to be subtractions from the tax! Taking $1000 from person A and giving it to person B as a refundable tax credit results in a net tax of zero! It should be accounted for as $1000 in tax receipts and $1000 in welfare spending. With this brilliant accounting tool at his disposal, Obama wants to fund all sorts of social welfare with the magic of refundable tax credits. College tuition, mortgage assistance, health insurance premiums, saving incentives, child care, earned income, are all on his list for refundable tax credits. When he increases these credits which he subtracts from the net tax take, he declares it a tax cut! He ignores the negative effect that the tax on person A has on the unemployment rate, because, after subtracting the refund, it didn't happen! Are the American voters stupid enough to go to the polls without getting this?