Making Sense of the SCOTUS Ruling on ObamaCare...

NOTE: It is well worth your time to read through all of the linked stories and analyses.

So, Chief Justice Roberts says that it's not a penalty, and it's not valid under the commerce clause, but it IS a tax.

Gee, what did Obama say about whether it was a tax or not??? (via Gateway Pundit, from an ABC News interview):



Ace went nuts:

It wasn't a tax for purposes of getting it passed politically, also wasn't a tax for purposes of delaying judgment based on the Anti-Injunction Act, but then magically became a tax in order to be upheld.

If the government now has the power under the taxing power to enforce its preferences regarding how citizens live their lives, Ed Morrissey proposes, modestly, a new tax on those who refuse to buy a gun.

Allah considered a similar question yesterday: Whether the government could put a punitive tax on you for owning a gun. Gun ownership is a right, he thought, so the ObamaTax logic wouldn't fully apply. You can't burden a right.

Well, owning a gun is a right, but not owning a gun is not a right. Or at least it's no more of a right than not owning insurance. 

We can pass a great many laws like this, enforcing our preferences in any area that isn't an explicit (or penumbra-ish) right under the Constitution. 

Don't go to Church regularly? Why, we can tax that. And before you say it's your right not to go to church -- of course it is, but we can compel all Americans to spend at least two hours each week on philosophical contemplation, whether it be at church or in Quiet Home Study of non-religious philosophical texts. 

If a temporary majority in Congress thinks it's a good idea -- tax away! 

The Constitution apparently gives the government the right to dictate almost all of our personal choices, so long as it enforces these preferences via punitive taxes. So let's get started.

Major fraud is being charged by one of the leading attorneys who argued the case in front of the Supreme Court.  This same attorney, Michael Carvin, had this other analysis that Ace posted on March 30.

Erick at RedState is seeing the decision from a different angle.

Thomas Crowne at RedState has a different opinion, and is not happy with Chief Justice Roberts.

Slate headlines that Obama may have won the battle, but Roberts won the war. because it guts the commerce clause and prevents the penalties on states that opt out of the MedicAid expansion.

Real Clear Politics also has a lengthy analysis on what they term "The Roberts Gambit".

Erick at RedState posted 24 hours later and points out the fact that the sleeping giant (The Tea Party) has been rudely awakened, and will make it's collective voice heard come November.

The US Catholic Church is NOT happy with the decision as it stands right now.  The HHS mandate has already riled them up.

For those who compare the ObamaCare mandate to auto insurance and fire insurance, there's this response.

On March 23, I posted this analysis about that same point:

[F]irst of all, it's the states that mandate auto coverage, not the federal government. Second, you are required to only have coverage for others and their property if you are at fault in an accident. You are not required to have coverage on yourself. And you are only required to have coverage on your own vehicle if you are still making car payments, and don't own the car outright (it's a required coverage not by the state but buy the financier of the vehicle to protect against any potential loss).
The same with home owner's insurance. You are only required to buy it if you still have a mortgage to pay (it's, again, a requirement of the bank to protect against a potential loss). If you own your home outright, you're free to not have HOI.

The Republican Party just got energized.  So did the Romney campaign.  So much so that in just 24 hours they've raised over $4.6 million from 47,000 donors.

Santelli chimes in.

So does Bachmann, who states that they only need 51 votes in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare, not 60.

The Republicans plan to bring up a repeal vote on July 11 to get set the record on who and who is not for the continuation of ObamaCare, and to set the stage for the November elections.

And LA Governor Bobby Jindal vows to never implement ObamaCare in his state.  (I reeeeally like him as a VP choice).

It's been a crazy 24 hours.

UPDATE:

The RNC already has up another new ad:



The AFP also has a new ad:



The Daily Caller tries to read the tea leaves of Roberts' decision.

Justice Thomas had this to add in his dissent.

And Ace of Spades continues along the reasoning that, yes, this can be voted down with a simple majority vote in the Senate as a reconciliation...because it was a tax bill. (hehehe)

Ray Bradbury Forever Alive at 91...

One of my all-time favorite authors, Ray Bradbury, passed away yesterday at the age of 91.

A couple wonderful articles on his passing here and here, and an interesting article from two years ago here.




Below are re-posts from my blog in 2007 on Ray Bradbury:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy Birthday to Ray Bradbury (87)

Yes, it's Ray Bradbury's 87th birthday today. One of my all-time favorite writers. Back when I was 12 or so my brother, Ray (yes, I have a brother named Ray), gave me his worn paperback copy of The Martian Chronicles. I was immediately rocketed into space by this master of the metaphor. I've read that book countless times, and have since devoured many of his other tomes, including his period-piece detective/suspense thriller, "Death Is A Lonely Business" (another favorite of mine).

I'd highly recommend any (if not all) of the following classic titles:

The Novels:
The Martian Chronicles

Fahrenheit 451

Death Is a Lonely Business


The Short Story Collections:
The Illustrated Man

Bradbury Classic Stories 1 (which includes R is for Rocket and Golden Apples of the Sun)

Bradbury Classic Stories 2 (which includes S is for Space and Medicine For Melancholy)

The Toynbee Convector



On the Process of Writing:
Zen In The Art Of Writing



The Sam Weller Biography:
The Ray Bradbury Chronicles


So, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, RAY... from one "crazy" to another!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Illustrated Man - stage play (review)

This past Sunday evening I attended the final performance of the one-man stage production of Ray Bradbury’s “The Illustrated Man”. It was another fine production by the Rubicon Theater Company at the now-famous Laurel Theater in Ventura. Tobias Andersen (veteran actor of TV and regional theater) gave a stunning two-act performance that lasted nearly two hours.

The play is loosely based on the concept of Bradbury’s famous novel, “The Illustrated Man” which centers around a wandering soul of a man with intricately designed full-body tattoos that eerily come to life and tell their tales. The stories used for the play were, instead, taken from other Bradbury short stories and novels.

From hilarious little stories about “The Murderer” (a man who confesses to killing off all the technological gadgets in his home), “There Was An Old Woman” (who is visited by the grim reaper who calls for her soul, though she’s determined to put up a fight), and the “Anthem Sprinters” (about a bunch of Irishmen who make a competition of racing out of movie theaters before their dreaded national anthem begins to play), to poignant stories such as “The Chicken Ranch Motel” (loosely based on Bradbury’s childhood memories of his family driving across the country during the Great Depression).

One story (“The Fog Horn”) was the lone weak segment of the performance. A story about an ancient sea monster who comes out of the ocean when it begins to hear the plaintive cry of a fog horn, thinking that it is another sea monster calling out in loneliness. As a short story it’s a wonderful piece of writing, but it didn’t translate well on the stage.

Easily the most powerful stories were two segments from Bradbury’s famous novel, “Fahrenheit 451” (the cautionary tale of censorship… or, more accurately, self-censorship). Andersen gave a rousing performance as the words just poured out of his mouth like a flood of truth. Absolutely stunning.

Ray Bradbury (87) was in attendance, and the audience give him a much-deserved round of applause when he entered the theater. Seated in his wheelchair in the front row, one could tell by his reaction to the production that he was thrilled to hear his own words tumble forth from the stage.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet him a few times in the mid- to late-90s, and I’ve always loved his writing. Sam Weller’s biography "The Bradbury Chronicles" is a wonderful read and a unique peek into the life of this most prolific writer. And, of course, read lots and lots of Bradbury!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm Back... Kinda Sorta...

Took a break from blogging to concentrate on the ending stages of house buying.  Finally became official on May 15, with a mad rush to move by the the 19th.  The wife & I may be physically achy, but we and our three dogs are settling in nicely.

I must say this.  From our personal experience here in southern California - from our initial searches on our own last summer, through our official searches via an awesome real estate agent, the ridiculously poor conditions of most of the houses we saw, the long, frustrating, bureaucratic nonsense of the process, the hoops required to jump through from the banks on both sides of the table, the vast number of short sales, foreclosures, and REOs still choking the market, and the idiocy, incompetence, arrogance and laziness of the selling agents still in the business - this housing mess has a LOOOOOONG way to go before it gets back to normal (pre-1998, before this whole sordid mess started, normal).

I'll be back in the near future with regular posting.  For now, more ibuprofen, arnica, rest, and unpacking.

:-)

SANTORUM SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN...

More here.

Nearing The End?...

Fascinating that even this late in the primary season the Not-Romney vote total wins in the Midwest/Rustbelt states (WI yesterday, MI, IL, and OH previously). These losses, especially yesterday's in Wisconsin, hurt Santorum's chances. It may be almost over.

The good thing, though, is that states favorable to Santorum which have yet to vote are:

Pennsylvania (4/24 - but if he loses this one it's all over, and expect Romney to try for the knockout punch here because NY, DE, CT & RI also vote that same day).

North Carolina, Indiana & West Virginia (5/8)

Arkansas & Kentucky (5/22)

Texas (5/29)

South Dakota (6/5)

California, New Mexico & New Jersey also vote on 6/5.

Nebraska & Montana are after that, with Utah ending it all.

Look at this map which shows all the counties who've voted up to this point:

All that Green in the middle (the vast South, Midwest, and Rustbelt regions) is Santorum.

The Purple (mainly in Georgia, South Carolina and the Florida panhandle) is Gingrich.

Yellow is Ron Paul (predictable tiny areas of Maine & New Hampshire, northern Idaho and parts of Wyoming, Washington state, Las Vegas area of Nevada, the Iowa caucus, and anti-Romney votes in Virginia).

Only the Orange is Romney (note that Virginia was an election with only Romney and Ron Paul on the ballot, and Ron Paul got 40% of the vote... 40%!!!... for Ron Friggin' Paul).

I wouldn't mind at all that this go to the convention with the likes of Santorum, Perry, Jindal, etc. winning the nomination by getting the majority of the delegate votes. Remember, these delegates at the convention tend to be more conservative.

April 24 is the big day. If Rick loses PA, it's over. If he wins his home state, then he stays in the race and May can end up helping him to further slow down "Mr. Inevitable".

We all now thumb-twiddle for three weeks..............

GOP Primary Round-Up: Part 2 - Santorum

Last week I did Part 1 on Romney. Today is Part 2 on Santorum.

Back in early February, Capt. Ed of HotAir stated his choice for Rick Santorum. Tina Korbe at HotAir also strongly favored Santorum.

Santorum, throughout the campaign, has labeled Romney as the worst candidate to go after Obama & ObamaCare, and explained why.

Rick then went on to win Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. HotAir and RedState analyzed the results. Creative Minority Report also chimed in here and here.

Romney had to out-spend Santorum something like 6-to-1 in order to squeak out a 3% win in Michigan (his home town, and the state where his dad was a famous governor).

Santorum then took on Obama.

Then he took on Romney:

Santorum explained his Economic Freedom Agenda:

America's budget process is broken. Our economy and American families are struggling, and the country needs bold reforms and major restructuring, not tinkering at the margins. Obamanomics has left one in six Americans in poverty, and one in four children on food stamps. Millions seek jobs and others have given up.

Meanwhile, my opponent in the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney, had a last-minute conversion. Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.

It's a good start. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.

By contrast, in my first 100 days as president, I'll submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda. Here are 10 of its main initiatives:

• Unleash America's energy. I'll approve the Keystone Pipeline for jobs and energy security, and sign an order on day one unleashing America's domestic energy production, allowing states to choose where they want to explore for oil and natural gas and to set their own regulations for hydrofracking.

• Stop job-killing regulation. All Obama administration regulations that have an economic burden over $100 million will be repealed, including the Environmental Protection Agency rule on CO2 emissions that's already shut down six power plants. I'll review all regulations, making sure they use sound science and cost benefit analysis.

• A pro-growth, pro-family tax policy. I'll submit to Congress comprehensive tax policies to strengthen opportunity in our country, with only two income tax rates of 10% and 28%. To help families, I'll triple the personal deduction for children and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

• Restore America's competitiveness. The corporate tax rate should be halved, to a flat rate of 17.5%. Corporations should be allowed to expense all business equipment and investment. Taxes on corporate earnings repatriated from overseas should be eliminated to bring home manufacturing. I'll take the lead on tort reform to lower costs to consumers.

• Rein in spending. I'll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over five years, including cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I'll propose budgets that spend less money each year than prior years, and I'll reduce the nondefense-related federal work force by at least 10%, without replacing them with private contractors.

• Repeal and replace ObamaCare. I'll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states. I'll work with Congress to replace ObamaCare with competitive insurance choices to improve quality and limit the costs of health care, while protecting those with uninsurable health conditions. In contrast, Gov. Romney signed into law RomneyCare, which provided the model for ObamaCare. Its best-known feature is its overreaching individual health-care mandate. But it shares over a dozen other similarities with ObamaCare and has given Massachusetts the highest health-care premiums in the nation, and longer waits for health care.

• Balance the budget. I'll submit to Congress a budget that will balance within four years and call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution which limits federal spending to 18% of GDP.

• Negotiate and submit free trade agreements. Because many Americans work for companies which export, I'll initiate negotiations in the first 100 days and submit to Congress five free trade agreements during my first year in office to increase exports.

• Reform entitlements. I'll cut means-tested entitlement programs by 10% across the board, freeze them for four years, and block grant them to states—as I did as the author of welfare reform in 1996. I'll reform Medicare and Social Security so they are fiscally sustainable for seniors and young people.

• Revive housing. I'll submit plans to Congress to phase out within several years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal housing role, reform and make transparent the Federal Reserve, and allow families whose mortgages are "underwater" to deduct losses from the sale of their home in order to get a fresh start in difficult economic times.

I'll work with Congress and the American people to once again create an economic environment where hard work is rewarded, equal opportunity exists for all, and families providing for their children can once again be optimistic about their future.

Rick went on to win Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota on Super Tuesday. He lost a 1% squeaker in Ohio (where, again, he was out-spent 6-to-1). Newt won his home state of Georgia (with only 47% of the vote, the worst percentage for a home state primary win by a candidate in a long time).

Romney took his home state of Massachusetts, Idaho (with its heavy Mormon population), Alaska (by only 4%), and Virginia (where only Romney and Ron Paul were on the ballot, and Romney still only got 60% of the vote).

RedState did an analysis of Super Tuesday here.

Santorum then took on the so-called environmental issue of "the dangers of carbon dioxide."

THEN there was the whole kerfluffle about the media's misinterpretation of Santorum's comments about Romney. As stated in a link earlier in this post, Rick always stated throughout the campaign that Romney was the worst candidate to go up against Obama in regards to the issue of ObamaCare and RomneyCare. Of course, the media tried to take this out of context.

Read these links here, here, here and here. Rick even took a reporter to task for it:

Sarah Palin praised him for metaphorically punching back and calling it what it truly was... B.S.

Rick then put up an ad which includes people from Massachusetts.

Through all of this, Santorum did a sweep of Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi.

Romney pandered for a win in Puerto Rico, and then took Illinios.

Finally, Santorum came back strong with a big win in Louisiana.

Next up is Wisconsin this Tuesday. Polls show Santorum behind by 7%, but he has come back from that far behind quite a few times. It is a winner-take-all state, and could be a must-win for him (along with his home state of Pennsylvania, which votes three weeks later). Several caucuses occur in between these two dates (including one in Wyoming).

The reason why Wisconsin and PA is so important for momentum is because May brings to the forefront the following: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia on May 8; Arkansas and Kentucky on May 22; and Texas on May 29. All are pretty much Santorum strongholds.

Luna...

Our new puppy, Luna. An Aussie (Australian Shepherd). We got her last week. In this pic she's 10 weeks old, and looking up at my wife.

Ain't she a cutie? :-)

ObamaCare Round-Up...

$200 million of taxpayer dollars was spent by the Obama Administration for ObamaCare propaganda.

Starbuck's CEO not thrilled with ObamaCare.

Even doctors are not thrilled with ObamaCare.

A list of companies, corporations, unions, organizations, and event states (Maine has an exemption; Louisiana is the 9th state requesting to be exempt) that got exemptions from ObamaCare from the administration - as of early January this year. ("Government mandates for thee but not for me," huh?)

Judges and Courts across America (26 states, actually) ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They took the case. More info here. Next week begins oral arguments. Of interesting note is this info about Justice Kagan. More info here:

"...calling on Justice Elena Kagan to disqualify herself in the ObamaCare litigation because of her role, as Solicitor General, in preparing its constitutional defense. These calls have intensified with the release of recent emails. Justice Kagan’s supporters respond that she testified in her confirmation hearings that she had nothing to do with ObamaCare.

First, her phraseology was much more precise. She said she would only recuse herself from any case in which she “officially formally approved something,” or “served as counsel of record” or “played any substantial role.” But the statute requires disqualification if Kagan, as a federal employee (she was the former Solicitor General) “participated” as an “adviser” on a matter, even if she did not give any formal advice. She also must disqualify herself if her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In March of 2010, there are a series of emails to or from Kagan; the subject line of all of them is “Health care litigation meeting.” The DOJ refused to disclose these emails because they discuss legal arguments for the “expected [health care] litigation.” If Kagan hermetically sealed herself from discussions on shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation, why is she repeatedly sending and receiving emails shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation? The Government refuses to release these emails, on grounds of a litigation privilege, while claiming that it erected such a solid wall around Kagan that she never would send or receive such emails. This wall must have more holes than Swiss cheese. If we can read theses emails, we will learn if the legal theory developed in those meetings is the legal theory that Kagan adopts when she rules on the case.

A week after the president announced her nomination to the Supreme Court, a DOJ press officer emailed the Deputy Solicitor General and asked if Kagan had been involved in the preparations for health care litigation. Notwithstanding these earlier emails, he responded, a minute later: “No she never has been involved in any of it. I've run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” A few minutes later, he forwarded that email to Kagan.

One would think, if Kagan’s Deputy was correct, that Kagan would simply say, “of course,” or, perhaps nothing. But that is not what happened. Less than two minutes later, Kagan wrote: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy [the DOJ press officer], you should not say anything about this before talking to me.” What is there to “coordinate”? Why would Kagan suggest that they have to get their stories straight? And why “talk” instead of using emails (which leave a paper trail)?"

Whether or not she'll recuse herself (as well she should) will be known on Monday. I'm not holding my breath.

The recent CBO report on the projected cost of ObamaCare. It's twice as expensive as projected by the Obama Administration. Annnnnd 20 million extra people will lose their private healthcare coverage because of it.

RomneyCare (the precursor from you-know-who as governor of Massachusetts) spending is shown here. In November, Romney refused to walk away from his own failing healthcare initiative, which was the model for ObamaCare on a national level. He still won't do a mea culpa.

Romney's brown nosed supporter, Ann Coulter, gets taken to task here about it. Obama stated recently that RomneyCare isn't really that different than ObamaCare.

And check this out:

"... a 2009 op-ed Romney wrote for USA Today has recently surfaced in which he urged President Obama to adopt his program, including an individual mandate, for his federal healthcare makeover. The Obama administration has claimed it used Romneycare as its model for Obamacare."

His advisors/staff specifically helped the Obama Administration to draft ObamaCare from the RomneyCare model.

BTW, RomneyCare now funds free abortions.

Charles Krauthammer posts about next week's Supreme Court case:

Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?

If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy...

Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness.

10 am Monday it starts. The official court ruling will be made know probably in late June (after the GOP primary elections are finished).

UPDATE: BTW, I've heard the argument that the government can mandate auto insurance coverage, so why not health insurance, too. Ummm... first of all, it's the states that mandate auto coverage, not the federal government. Second, you are required to only have coverage for others and their property if you are at fault in an accident. You are not required to have coverage on yourself. And you are only required to have coverage on your own vehicle if you are still making car payments, and don't own the car outright (it's a required coverage not by the state but buy the financier of the vehicle to protect against any potential loss).

The same with home owner's insurance. You are only required to buy it if you still have a mortgage to pay (it's, again, a requirement of the bank to protect against a potential loss). If you own your home outright, you're free to not have HOI.

GOP Primary Round-Up: Part 1 - Romney

UPDATED:

Erick at RedState is pretty much resigned to the fact that Romney's will be the Republican nominee. The delegate math certainly is in his favor after Illinois (although Louisiana this Saturday is trending big for Santorum). It's possible that there could end up being a brokered convention. Stranger things have occurred (remember the 2000 main election fiasco???).

Below are a few links to Romney-related stuff. The next post will focus on ObamaCare (and RomneyCare). The third post will be Santorum-related info.

===========

Leon at RedState asked in early February, "What is wrong with Romney?"

"It's not about picking someone with your own beliefs and principles," says a Romney surrogate.

Romney says that Obama has "fought against religion".

Michael Medved "wants a different conservative base" (says Erick at RedState).

Gateway Pundit says Romney will have a hard time exciting people to vote for him versus Obama come November.

Romney complained that Santorum was trying to get Democrat voters to vote for him in the Michigan primary (which was open) to influence the race. Yet, Romney did the same thing. And the whole Reagan coalition in the 80s included what has always been termed "Reagan Democrats". BTW, Romney won that state, where he grew up and where his dad was a successful governor, by only 3%. And he won Ohio by only 1%. Both states he had to out-spend Santorum by 6-to-1.

The possible Ron Paul/Mitt Romney alliance. A study proved that in over 20 debates, Ron Paul attacked his rivals 39 times... except for Romney, whom he attacked a grand total of ZERO times.

Cadillacs & NASCAR.

Etch-a-Sketch candidate.

UPDATE:

Erick at RedState chimes in on Santorum's comment here:

"I think it was clear from the context of his remarks that Santorum was not expressing his own thinking, but expressing the thinking of general election voters. And I think he is absolutely right, which is also why I think Romney makes such a bad nominee...

"Right now Mitt Romney has higher negatives with independent voters than Hillary Clinton did in 2008. Add in the Etch-A-Sketch comment and he is ripe to be painted as the next iteration of the Massachusetts flip-flopper no one can trust.

"I think Santorum was spot on in describing how voters would see the race in November. Why would they want to give up a guy many of them like, but who don’t much care of his job performance, for a guy they don’t like whose own campaign admits is like an Etch-A-Sketch."

And Romney rules out Santorum as a running mate. Says he (Santorum) is "too liberal".

Gibson Guitar Update...

Click here for the other posts about the government raid of Gibson Guitars.

NRO has a really good article on the situation here.

Hot Air followed up late last month. Still no government charges a year after the raid.

Red State also reports.

Economic Roundup...

Earlier this year, S&P lowered the credit ratings for eight European countries, including two notches down for Italy, Spain and Portugal, one notch down for France & Austria. And Italy and France are on "negative outlook". And we all know the mess that Greece is in (Ireland, too).

S&P also lowered the rating for the European bailout fund.

Gas prices are spiking... again. Out here in my neck of the woods, one of the cheapest gas stations (an Arco close to my home) has 87 octane at $4.27/gallon. It's up approximately 72-82 cents since Christmas day.

And how is the MSM treating the reporting of the gas price issue today vs. eight years ago under Bush? Interesting:

The Business and Media Institute analyzed broadcast network news references to gas or fuel prices between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20, 2012 and from March 24 and April 24, 2008. BMI found that in the 2008 period there were more than 4 times as many gas prices stories, news briefs or news headlines on ABC, CBS and NBC as there were in 2012 (97 to 21).

Coverage during the time periods differed not only in quantity, but in tone as well. During Bush’s tenure, gas prices were a huge economic threat and cause of suffering. The networks also used the high gas prices to attack the administration. In 2012, the networks aired mostly matter-of-fact stories on the rising gas prices, and worried primarily that they would hinder the economic recovery, not that they are making people suffer.

Thew fake unemployment numbers are out. The non-seasonally adjusted Gallup poll suggests it's actually a bit higher. The real numbers show something else. Include those who no longer get unemployment benefits, and those who have stopped looking for work, and the rate is 9.8%. Add people who have only part-time jobs, and want full-time jobs, and the rate is 14.9%.

Then factor in those who are working full-time and who have had to take pay cuts, and those whose monthly outlays are higher than they used to be, and... well... you know.

Bernanke warns of slow job growth.

Real inflation is at 8%.

Durable goods orders fell in January.

Wholesale inventory numbers aren't good, either.

Housing Round-Up...

2011 was not a good year for the housing market.

Fewer Americans bought new homes in December. The decline made 2011 the worst year for new-home sales on records dating back nearly half a century.

The Commerce Department said Thursday new-home sales fell 2.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 307,000. The pace is less than half the 700,000 that economists say must be sold in a healthy economy.

About 302,000 new homes were sold last year. That's less than the 323,000 sold in 2010, making last year's sales the worst on records dating back to 1963. And it coincides with a report last week that said 2011 was the weakest year for single-family home construction on record.

The One then hands potential home buyers with this added cost:

The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher. It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan. For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month. The $35.7 billion collected in fees won’t go into the Social Security fund to replace the lost payroll tax. It goes to the general treasury where Congress can spend it however they please.

That mortgage settlement helps the citizens, right? Ummm, not so much. Read about it here.

And of course, Fannie Mae has its hands out for more money (to the tune of $4.6 billion) after losing $2.4 billion the last quarter of 2011.

Fannie Mae the biggest source of money for U.S. home loans, said on Wednesday it would seek $4.6 billion in additional federal aid after reporting a fourth-quarter loss.

Earlier on Wednesday, the government-controlled mortgage finance company posted a loss of $2.4 billion for the quarter ended December 31. That pushed Fannie Mae's loss for 2011 to $16.9 billion from $14.0 billion a year earlier, the company said.

Fannie Mae's pre-2009 book of soured loans and declining home prices continue to make it difficult for the company to turn a profit.

And mortgage rates are near record lows again, stagnating given the nature of the housing market.

It's Ash Wednesday...

"Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return."

Emotional Roller Coaster Ride...

One of the main reasons why I haven't been posting much lately is because my wife & I have been in the process of buying our first home.

These last few weeks have been very emotional. Four months of hard work to try and get a particular house via a short sale. Closing was supposed to have been Feb 10. Instead, we battled a resistant seller and a very unprofessional selling agent on the other side of the table. So, instead of receiving the keys, the property has been pulled off the market and will be foreclosed upon.

And everyone loses.

We, obviously, lose the house.

Our agent (who is great!) and her agency lose the commission after so much hard work.

The selling agent & agency lose their commission (though our hearts certainly do NOT bleed about that).

Our bank loses by not being able (though very willing) to offer a mortgage to honest hardworking people who pay their bills responsibly and on time.

The seller's bank loses because they take a bath on the property in having to do the foreclosure.

And the seller and his daughter lose by being stubborn and selfish, having been delinquent for going on seven months straight (and a history of delinquency the entire four years they've had the property), and now allowing themselves to be foreclosed upon, and going into bankruptcy.

All because they wouldn't let the appraisal and inspection to be done (after many attempts).

Frustrating, exhausting, saddening, numbing.

But we hold our heads up high knowing that we did everything we could.

So, now we start all over again. We're already looking at new properties.

Wish us luck. I'll keep you posted.

:-)

Vent

Repair Man Jack at RedState has a post about Rick Santorum. I posted a comment in his post. Below is what I wrote:

=================

I lived in PA from birth until I was 31. I know Rick Santorum well. My last vote as a Pennsylvanian was for Rick in ’94 for Senate. Too much has been made about his backing Arlen Specter over Toomey. Rick sacrificed his political career on principle because he knew how important the US Supreme Court is in turning around the liberal/progressive tide.

Arlen was the high ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He helped shepherd in Thomas (during that vicious battle) and also Scalia.

Without Specter on that committee there is NO WAY we would have eventually gotten Roberts and Alito. In the end, Specter is now gone, and Toomey is now a PA Senator.

Now, I have not been thrilled with the line-up of candidates (those who threw their hat in the ring, and this who didn’t). Of all the candidates that DID officially run, only two have impressed me with their credentials and track record: Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Newt is a distant third due to his Contract With America and his leading the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress after over 40 years.

Two people I will NEVER vote for with a supposed “R” next to their names: Ron Paul (an absolute crank) and Romney (too many adjectives to count that describe my disdain for him, his policies, his track record, his personality, etc.).

My state’s primary is in June. Things may very well be settled by then. I will vote for one of the three people I mentioned above, choosing at that time depending on what the lay of the primary landscape is at that time.

I have towed the line patiently and diligently for a looooong time. I voted for Bush Sr. in ’92 even though he went back on his word re: taxes. I swallowed Dole in ’96 when he placated the conservatives by picking Kemp as his running mate. I voted for Bush W. when he placated conservatives by picking Cheney as HIS running mate in 2000. And I held the line and re-elected Bush W. in ’04 even though he and the Republican congress started going off the reservation. I held my nose and voted for McCain when HE placated conservatives by picking Palin.

That’s it. I’m done. No more.

I vote my conscience. In the primary as well as in the main.

If Romney is the nominee, he could pick the re-incarnation of Reagan as his running mate.

I

DON’T

CARE

Third Party Candidate, Write-in candidate, or a non-vote for president. That will be my choice come November.

I was part of the masses that cried foul when others voted for Perot in ’92 and ’96. “Don’t throw away your vote,” I screamed. “We must vote for [insert candidate's name here] to stop [insert opposing candidates name here],” I yelled in 2000, 2004, 2008. But enough is enough. I will no longer follow the Republican Establishment anymore. I vote my conscience, and let the chips fall where they may.

I’m done.

There is no home for true (social, fiscal, national security, common sense, constitutional) conservatives anymore.

=================

UPDATE: Captain Ed of HotAir also chimes in on Santorum.