the people of Evansville sent her chocolates on her birthday (which she shared with reporters), some doughnuts (which she served at an Oil & Gas meeting), and a hockey stick autographed by the Evansville Youth Hockey Association.
Does that sound nefarious to you? Bear in mind that folks in Evansville also offered to host a fundraiser for SarahPAC, and the Governor turned them down. Didn't matter—she got hit with an ethics complaint for the little things she did accept. The complaint was roundly dismissed, but that doesn't make the legal bills go away.
So, let's see. The Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which among other things runs AmeriCorps, starts investigating the mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, and his nonprofit foundation, St. HOPE Academy; the foundation had applied for AmeriCorps money for a project called the Hood Corps. When Gerald Walpin audited the program,
The IG audit found that the program misused virtually all its funds and did little of what was outlined in its grant proposal.
Specifically, the audit found that Johnson and other officials of Neighborhood Corps used AmeriCorps volunteers to recruit students for a charter school run by its parent program, improperly paid at two school employees with AmeriCorps funds for duties they did not perform, improperly used volunteers to perform personal errands for Johnson (including washing his car and driving him to personal appearances) and used the AmeriCorps volunteers to engage in political activities in connection with a board of education election.
Rooting out abuse of government funds—clearly he's doing his job well; that deserves a raise, or at least a pat on the back, right? Nope—because you see, Johnson isn't just a former NBA star or a mayor, he's a friend and supporter of Barack Obama. As a result, Walpin didn't get a commendation, he got a pink slip.
Of course, that's not the only case IG Walpin has investigated; he also found significant problems in an AmeriCorps project at the City University of New York. Despite his findings, however, the CNCS decided it didn't feel like doing anything about it.
Funding for the largest AmeriCorps program—the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York—is in abeyance pending resolution of widespread problems identified in a recent audit. Although Walpin recommended that funding be curtailed and that previous funds (perhaps as much as $75 million) be repaid to the corporation, the corporation has said it will take no action on that matter.
Walpin concluded that nothing was being gained by the grants to CUNY and that the money was simply being used to subsidize an existing and funded program.
That's not to say, of course, that the administration isn't doing anything about this—they did, after all, remove the embarrassing IG who insisted on making an issue out of it. What's more, to ensure that nothing so disturbing happens again, Michelle Obama is kindly donating the services of her chief of staff Jackie Norris, who was appointed as a senior advisor to the CNCS. In the absence of a CEO (the last appointee for that slot having withdrawn her name last month), Norris will have particularly great influence; and word is that Michelle Obama is taking the lead in the selection of a new CEO for CNCS as well. After all, we have to make sure that whoever runs this corporation is willing to toe the administration's line.
Which isn't how it's supposed to be, especially when it comes to IGs; these folks are supposed to be insulated from executive pressure, as Byron York notes:
Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.
The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the “fullest confidence” in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.
There are two big questions about the president's actions. One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?
According to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel's office on Wednesday evening. Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, “The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on. The president would like to have someone else in that position.” Walpin declined to resign.
Grassley fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, “I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” Grassley wrote. “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”
Ed Morrissey offers an interesting comment on this:
Congress gave IGs this level of protection precisely to avoid this kind of action by the White House. Obama doesn’t want IGs investigating his cronies and political allies, and the evidence for this is rather clear from the way the White House handled it. Instead of going to Congress, which the lawyers in the White House should have known was the correct procedure, they attempted to intimidate Walpin out of his job first. Apparently they didn’t have a good enough case for the proper procedure.
What we're seeing here is a clear case of Chicago-style cronyism and machine politics on the national stage. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; I certainly saw it coming, and I was far from the only one. After all, this is how Barack Obama learned to do politics; this is the system that formed him. How else is he going to govern? How else would he behave? This is a man who has repeatedly said that his formative experience as a young man was as a community organizer—with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which includes among its activities political intimidation and massive voter-registration fraudfor political and financial profit. ACORN doesn't practice transparency and accountability—why would we expect Barack Obama to do so? Why would we expect him to govern with a high level of integrity when the people and environments that shaped him as a politician don't reward integrity?
The bald truth is that we elected as president a Chicago machine politician and community organizer for a corrupt organization that considers fraud an appropriate tool for advancing its political agenda and filling its coffers, and we now have an administration run by people who are used to operating in those ways and on those principles; we should not expect any of them to be other than what they have been. Rather, we should expect national politics to look a lot like Chicago writ large—and so far, that's what we're seeing.
We're seeing an administration that admits that the $800 billion it demanded be spent as “stimulus" is already being misappropriated, misused, and even flat-out stolen—Joe Biden went so far as to say, “Some people are being scammed already”—and can't seem to be bothered to do anything about it. After all, the money is going to liberals, isn't it? And we're seeing an administration whose preferred response to the voter-registration fraud investigations going on against ACORN in numerous states is not to launch a federal investigation, but rather to give them billions of dollars. That's why Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has introduced the Taxpayer Protection and Anti-Fraud Act,
which would restrict access to taxpayer dollars available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for groups that have been indicted for violations of state or federal laws.
“No one has a right to federal funds,” she said. “We have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Congress to establish criteria by which groups can gain access to federal dollars. I believe we should be able to raise the bar above indictment and not be restricted solely to convictions. This in no way denies someone their due process rights in court.”
Under her new bill a determination would be made on a “case by case” basis to determine whether or not a particular organization should be eligible for federal support, despite indictments.
The White House, predictably, is opposed; but it seems clear to me that the government needs to be careful about giving out money, and that if there's enough reason to issue an indictment against an organization, the government should at least be required to take notice of that indictment and evaluate it carefully before giving that organization so much as one red cent. (If you agree, sign the petition.) To the current administration, giving money to groups like ACORN is just business as usual; to my way of thinking, that's precisely the sort of usual business we need to do away with. The Chicago machine is bad enough in Chicago; there's nothing we can do now to keep it out of D. C., so we need to do everything we can to keep it from putting down roots and taking over. We're all Chicagoans now; let's do our best to make sure we don't stay that way.
So, Republicans, you’re looking for people who can serve as faces of a party on the upswing. What qualities would we want to see in such people?
Maybe these:
They’ve served in public office and have actually governed effectively.
Rather than just talking about fiscal responsibility, they’ve made it happen under their watch.
When possible, they’ve made sure the private sector would take the lead in crucial initiatives.
They’ve taken on corrupt, entrenched interests to make government more responsive to the people it serves, even when those interests were fellow Republicans.
They pull no punches in criticizing Democrats, but they do so with a positive outlook and a pleasant demeanor.
They’re not intimidated by the inevitable crap they will catch from the media, celebrities and whomever else.
They have an enthusiastic following upon which to build.
Finally, if you’ve got all of the above, it can’t hurt if you also look fantastic.
As he notes, there’s one person who fits all eight of those criteria: Sarah Palin.
Calabrese understands that it’s stupid to judge the Governor by the mockery she gets from those trying to take her down. He poses the GOP the key questions:
If you read substance-challenged media like Politico, you think it’s all about unnamed GOP operatives grumbling about the way her scheduler works, or GOP senators (who refuse to put their names on the record) finding her annoying.
Have you ever listened to Palin talk about policy? Have you examined her record in Alaska? Do you know the political courage she has demonstrated achieving crucial goals there?It’s especially important to listen to Palin’s discussion of policy matters now, as compared with during the presidential campaign, because then she was hamstrung by the need to tout the McCain campaign’s discombobulated message. Now that she is free to craft her own message, and can base it on her own record, she is exponentially more compelling.
Those of us who’ve followed her career without prejudging her know that Gov. Palin is strong across a wide range of policy issues; we know she’s an effective, innovative governor who consistently puts principle first, even at the cost of fierce opposition from many in her own party (to say nothing of the folks who are supposed to be the opposition). Still, it’s refreshing to see that Calabrese gets it:
The way she governs Alaska represents a principled, serious approach that is missing in the conduct of far too many Republican officeholders. What’s more, the way she talks about the excesses of the Obama Administration shows that she not only sees the problems we are creating for ourselves, but understands the alternatives we should be championing. . . .
Palin knows her stuff, backs it up with action and expresses herself with the perfect mix of substance and agreeable style.
Calabrese’s column is explicitly not intended to champion Gov. Palin for the GOP presidential nomination; instead, he’s trying to do something much more basic and, I think, more important. His thesis is that the Republican Party needs to embrace, and support, and promote—and lean on—every significant Republican whose track record shows intelligent, successful application of conservative principles to the real issues that face America, not in Washington, but in actual executive roles around this country.
As he says, there’s no need to take sides, because conservatives are really all on the same side, and the more people we have like Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels, the better; but it does mean recognizing that on substance, Gov. Palin belongs at the head of that list (and that those who don't see that have been “focused on nonsense instead of what really matters”). Calabrese’s advice here is absolutely spot-on, and something the GOP mandarins badly need to take to heart; though he doesn't quote Ben Franklin here, what he’s saying reminds me of the old sage’s words, which are squarely on point for today’s Republican Party:
“We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Calabrese's column is absolutely vintage. Read the whole thing, and pass it on; and if you can, join the webathon and donate.
There's a very good chance of it—check out Michael J. Totten's excellent roundup for the details. I know a few folks over there, and I can testify to the truth of what he and others are saying: among people 40 and under (which is to say, those who've spent at least their whole adult life under the Khomeinist regime) there is no trust of the government whatsoever, only pent-up rage and frustration. Indeed, so great is the disenchantment with their Islamist rulers that there's a widely-held sentiment that "Islam is not the solution, it is the problem." It really is entirely possible that in stealing this election for Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei and the mullahs have taken that one step too far that will blow the entire country open, and themselves clean out of power (and quite possibly out of other things as well, like breathing).
Which is why our government's reaction—essentially, "The election was stolen, but we'll work with the Ahmadinejad government anyway"—was so mind-numbingly stupid. You'll notice I said "our government," not "the Obama administration," and there's good reason for that; I think Barack Obama's instincts on Iran are atrocious, and I'm sure he's not helping matters, but I have no real faith that anyone else would be doing any better. . . . Well, John McCain might be if he had the chance, because he's stubborn enough that he might actually be able to make foreign policy independent of the bureaucrats in the State Department, but I'm not at all sure of that; and the folks at State have a deeply-entrenched mindset that says "work with the government that's in place, no matter what." I'm not sure if it's a reaction against US involvement in the Ngo assassination and the Allende coup or what, but our government is ridiculously good at ignoring potentially pro-US opposition movements in favor of continuing to deal with anti-US tyrants. (And don't give me Iraq—it took us three presidents, a decade and a half, two invasions, a major terrorist attack and a minor-league cold war to decide we really couldn't live with Saddam Hussein after all.) I truly hope we wise up this time; there's an oppressed nation out there that could really use our help, and a government we'd be far better off without.
It's no secret, of course, that I'm a supporter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Even if I weren't, though—even if I were one of the Beltway types pulling for Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush, let's say—I would be angry at the way in which Gov. Palin's opponents in Alaska have chosen to use an onslaught of ludicrous, frivolous "ethics complaints" to try to bring her down by bankrupting her with legal fees. (It's not just me calling these complaints frivolous; the head of the committee responsible for addressing them, a Murkowski appointee who owes the governor nothing, has dismissed them all with that judgment, and has been musing in recent weeks about ways to make complainants pay for their complaints.) So far, not one of these complaints has passed even the first smell test, yet her enemies will stop at nothing to try to grind her down and bury her with legal debt defending herself for such actions as wearing a warm coat when she showed up for the start of the Iron Dog snowmobile race.
Unlike so many of our professional politicians, Gov. Palin is not a rich member of our nation's elite class, and she doesn't have a trust fund or a private fortune to use to pay her lawyer; she's a blue-collar woman with a blue-collar husband. As such, she started a legal defense fund to cover her legal bills, but her ankle-biting opponents have driven her bills up over a half-million dollars, so she has a long way to go. As such, my colleagues over at Conservatives4Palin have launched a webathon, running through June 22, to help retire as much of her legal debt as possible.
I understand that these are tough economic times, and in general, I tend to be one who's skeptical of donating money to politicians or parties, so I understand that point of view; but if you're in a position to help, I encourage you to do so—whether you're a supporter of Gov. Palin or not.
That might seem to be a strange thing to say, but hear me out. I firmly believe that one of the reasons why the political elite has tried so hard to marginalize and destroy this woman—elitists on the Right as well as on the Left—is that she's not one of them; she's not from the elite class, she didn't rise through any of our political machines, and so she's not beholden to them and they have no leverage on her. Our monoclonal political class likes its grip on power; sure, they have their ideological differences that reflect the differences in beliefs that exist in the rest of the country, but their deepest loyalty is to their class, their deepest commitment to business as usual. They are not truly representative in any meaningful sense.
If we want to change that, we need to elect people—liberals as well as conservatives—from outside that class, people who truly are a part of we, the people rather than "we, the Beltway." Gov. Palin isn't just a conservative politician, she's a complete outsider to the Beltway, someone who came from a normal (if somewhat uncommon) American family, upbringing, and life. As such, she's a test case for this: can any politician who is truly of the people, by the people, for the people long endure?
I don't expect many liberals to support her, much less vote for her, because like anyone else, in general, liberals should vote for people who share their political principles, and she doesn't; but I do think that liberals should be pulling for her to succeed, to thrive, to win re-election in 2010 and the GOP nomination in 2012, even if they then want her to lose in November. Why? Because if she succeeds, if she triumphs, she will show other potential citizen candidates that it can be done, and it can be endured, and it's worth doing; if she succeeds, she will be followed, she will be emulated, and we will see others—in both parties—walking the trail she blazed. If Republican and Democratic voters are going to reclaim our parties for the principles in which they're supposed to believe, it's going to require candidates who are beholden to us rather than to the structures of those parties—and if that's going to happen in our generation, it has to begin here, with Sarah Palin. We cannot let her be snuffed out if we want to see anyone else who isn't machine-approved (and machine-stamped) run for anything much above dogcatcher.
As such, I'll say it again: liberals who would like to see the Democratic Party break free of the corruptocrats who run it have just as much vested in Gov. Palin as conservatives who would like to see the GOP break free of the domination of its own trough-swilling pigs, and just as much reason to help her overcome this challenge. If you can, please give, so that this abuse of Alaska's ethics laws will cease, and Gov. Palin can be on about the business for which she was elected.
Two good interviews for Gov. Palin today, with Matt Lauer this morning and Wolf Blitzer this evening; they did want to talk about David Letterman's vile behavior as well (Blitzer only briefly, Lauer at greater length), but beyond that she got substantial time to talk about the progress on the Alaskan natural-gas pipeline, the state of American politics, and the political future. Both Lauer and Blitzer did their jobs very well, I think, conducting interviews that were respectful without merely being puffballs, and Gov. Palin did well in answering their questions and making her points. (My thanks to my colleagues at Conservatives4Palin for the linked videos of these two interviews, since both are up on YouTube in two parts; each will launch the second automatically when the first is finished.)
It appears that CBS and David Letterman have been feeling some heat for the latter's vile comments about Willow Palin, since he felt the need to offer a mealy-mouthed half-baked pseudo-"apology" that amounted to "Oops, I meant to make vile comments about Bristol Palin." Sorry, not buying it, and not buying that that makes it all OK even if I believed him. I think R. A. Mansour summed up my thoughts well in her updates on this post:
We are fighting this because if we let this slide then we are saying that the Palins are fair game for everything. If their 14-year-old daughter is not off limits, then nothing is. If this heartless jerk can get away with this, then what next? Can we expect jokes about little Piper? When is enough enough?
I would be disgusted by this if it were anyone’s daughter.
Are you upset by this? Then make your voices heard. . . .
Call CBS at 212-975-3247. Melt their phones.
Call every women’s organization you can think of. Call every sexual assault victims organization you can think of. Call every child protection advocacy group you can think of. Call every teen pregnancy organization you can think. Get a comment from all of them. Ask them if they have anything to say about David Letterman’s jokes about the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. Ask them if they think it was alright that David Letterman declared that his joke was really about Gov. Palin’s 18-year-old daughter. Does it make it alright that he was mocking an 18-year-old mother? And if they have no comment, ask them why. Ask them what makes the Palins any different from any other family.
Don’t stand for this. Do you want ordinary citizen politicians? Well, the Palins are ordinary people. They got into politics for the right reasons. They wanted to serve. And this is how they are treated. If you want more people to get into politics for the right reasons, then you had better defend this family—otherwise what other family would put themselves out there when this is how they know they will be treated?
Is it worth pushing these companies? Gray says yes, that if we're persistent, we will see results:
CBS is in real trouble right now. Katie Couric just clocked the lowest ratings for a news broadcast on American television in HISTORY. Ad revenues are down everywhere, and once a month when Dr. Utopia gets on the TV and commandeers primetime for one of his ego trip national addresses, the networks lose tens of millions of dollars.
CBS cannot afford to lose M&M Mars or any two other large advertisers. If you direct all of your firepower at three big players like this, all selling products to families, and you heed my advice above, SOMETHING will happen before a month is out. You just have to put a little Al Sharpton in your life, be persistent, and write, write, write.
I would also add that it's worth calling out CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves on this one. By way of comparison, here's his statement on Don Imus after Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos":
From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent. While we have already made our disappointment and outrage clear, I would like to take the opportunity to offer my personal apologies to the Rutgers team, its impressive Coach, and the entire Athletic Department and Administration of Rutgers University. CBS has nothing but the highest regard for that establishment and its students, and we are sorry that offense was given in such a brutal and insensitive manner.
I would also like to extend an apology to everyone beyond Rutgers. Those who have spoken with us the last few days represent people of goodwill from all segments of our society—all races, economic groups, men and women alike. In our meetings with concerned groups, there has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision, as have the many emails, phone calls and personal discussions we have had with our colleagues across the CBS Corporation and our many other constituencies.
And here's what Moonves has had to say about Letterman's significantly more vile attack on the Palin family:
*sound of crickets chirping*
Apparently, the head of CBS doesn't care when "offense [is] given in such a brutal and insensitive manner" to conservative women, or worry about "the effect language like this has on our young people" when the purpose of that language is to hurt a Republican. This sort of hypocrisy is simply not tolerable; call him on it. Contact his office, but also do everything you can to make it clear that Moonves is a hypocrite and a chauvinist fraud.
On this one, we know where the real feminists are standing: liberal or not, they're standing with the Palins; they understand that "sexism isn’t selective, and misogyny isn’t something that only applies to certain women." May all of us rise up and say "Enough!"—whether you care about the Palins or not, for your own sake, and the sake of your daughters. For the sake of my daughters. Enough is enough.
NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren't professed conservatives.
I'll second that, and give them credit for putting principle over party, and for being smart enough to do so in a way that really advances that principle. What NOW has done here is the sort of move that could really make a positive difference in political conversation in this country, as I think the response at Hot Air from Allahpundit and Ed Morrissey shows, and they deserve applause for that.
and some people just aren't willing to let the truth get in the way of taking down a political opponent. It appears that Conor Clarke of The Atlantic fits in at least one of those categories; less than a week after one memorably inept attempt at a hatchet job on Sarah Palin, he's taken another wild, factually-impaired swing. I'm not sure what he's trying to prove, but if it's that he's a complete tool, he's managed that much, anyway.
In case you didn't see it, we have here a case of a 62-year-old white guy, on national television, making crude, cruel sexual commentsabout a 14-year-old girl and calling them jokes. How is this possible? Well, only because said 14-year-old girl is the daughter of Sarah Palin, and therefore the OSM doesn't consider her to be fully human, let alone a "real woman."
I appreciate the statements on this from her parents (posted on Facebook, but not, apparently, on the SarahPAC website):
"Any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too."
—Todd Palin
"Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl are not only disgusting, but they remind us Hollywood has a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands—that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.'"
—Governor Sarah Palin
This should not be a liberal/conservative issue (as Tommy Christopher has said well)—the divide here should be between people who think it's appropriate to make crude sexual comments about women, particularly in public and particularly underage girls, and those who recognize that such things are sick and wrong and do not constitute appropriate public discourse. Don Imus got fired for less; in a just world, David Letterman would receive the same fate. Please contact the higher-ups at CBS and Letterman's advertisers (Joseph Russo has posted the list) and tell them Letterman's behavior is unacceptable and intolerable.
First off, on that and other subjects, here’s the video of Sarah Palin’s interview with Sean Hannity (thanks to Joseph Russo):
Here's a video comparing and contrasting the media’s economic reporting during the Bush administration with their approach now that their man is in the White House:
By the middle of 2003, a mild recession had ended and the economy turned around big-time, with the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs and whopping GDP growth of 7.5% in the third quarter. Yet month after month, the national media downplayed the good economic news with the dreaded “but,” as in “Positive economic indicator X was released today, but the economy is still in the toilet . . .” (Oh, by the way . . . George W. Bush was President back then.)
Of course, with President Obama now in the White House, the media’s economic coverage is the mirror opposite. As the unemployment rate skyrockets and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every month, the bad economic news is spun by Obama’s friends in the media: “Negative economic indicator Y was released today, but it’s not nearly bad as we’d expected, and besides, unemployment can be fun!”
But hey, at least the Pelosi/Obama super-duper extra-special economic stimulus package has softened the blow, right? At least job losses aren’t as bad as projected, right? . . . Well, actually, it hasn’t worked out that way:
All in all, I’d say that’s not exactly the recovery we were promised. I know Newsweek called Barack Obama our first Vulcan president, but offhand, I’d say the media coverage of his economic policy is more likely the result of a few Jedi mind tricks. As Randall Hoven says, I think it’s about time to call this “the Obama recession.” (HT: Shane Vander Hart) Most people aren’t to that point yet, but The Nation is now predicting that if and when the official unemployment rate goes above 10%, they will be.
When the federal government actually acknowledges that the country has a double-digit unemployment rate, when a figure that is above 10 percent becomes that official number—something that the trend lines suggest could happen this summer—the country reaches an emotional and political tipping point. . . .
Politically, it is the point at which people start looking for someone to blame. . . .
If the country is socked with a double-digit unemployment rate, and if the actions of the administration that is in charge are seen as feeding the increase in joblessness, that's the political point of no return.
Of course, we’d be at that point (and beyond it) already if it weren’t for the way the government calculates things, since as John Nichols points out in that article, the real number is a lot worse than the official one:
America already has double-digit unemployment.
In fact, the real unemployment rate, as opposed to the official rate, is well over 15 percent.
That's because the official unemployment rate—which as of Friday stood at 9.4 percent, following another leap in jobless claims for May—is not, as economist John Williams has noted, “figured in the way that that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression.”
What happens when we include people who have stopped looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs to be found, along with part-time workers who would like to be working full-time?
Then, we start looking not at the unsettling 10 percent figure but the far more frightening 20 percent number.
Normally, the Left likes to trot that out during Republican administrations and leave it in the barn during Democratic presidencies.
Morrissey agrees with Nichols’ conclusion even as he rejects his prescriptions:
Even if we wildly disagree on economics, we agree that Obama will own this unemployment cycle, and soon. The 10% mark is a psychological barrier that Obama simply cannot avoid. Even without it, blaming Bush has a shelf life whose expiration date is rapidly approaching. Bush didn’t spend trillions of dollars in 2009 and promise that it would create “or save” jobs. Voters will get tired of hearing how many jobs Obama thinks he’s “saved” while unemployment continues to rise.
Obama has been in charge for almost five months and got every single bit of economic policy he wanted from Congress. If the economy remains mired and debt keeps skyrocketing, people will start to ask what they got for all of their great-grandchildren’s money.
This will only be exacerbated if the president gets his way, since he’s pushing a change to our nation’s tax structure that will drive more jobs overseas. Don’t believe me? Maybe you’ll believe Steve Ballmer, who ought to know:
Last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?
In surveying the issue—President Obama’s proposal to end the deferral of multinational taxation—Kevin Hassett (a former advisor to the McCain campaign) asks,
Why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”
I have to admit I am at a loss. Maybe it is good politics to bash American corporations, and Obama isn’t really serious about making this change happen. But if the change is enacted, and domestic corporate taxes aren’t reduced to offset the big tax hike, the result will be a flight from the U.S. that rivals in scale the greatest avian arctic migrations.
Incidentally, that scholarship includes “the same James Hines who recently wrote a sweeping review of international tax policy with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers,” so the president’s economic team has to be well aware of what the unintended consequences of his proposal would be.
I’ve said this before, I think, that the great flaw in leftist economic theory is that it assumes that people’s economic behavior doesn’t change when tax laws change—and that’s just not true. Make something more expensive, people will buy less of it; make doing business in your jurisdiction more expensive, people will go where it’s cheaper. The Left understands this when it comes to things like tobacco and gasoline, which is why they’re all for higher taxes on both and were unbothered by last summer’s $4-a-gallon gas, but when it comes to taxes, they just don’t seem to be able to see it.
This is particularly problematic since the richer a person is, or a company is, the more they can do to avoid paying taxes if taxes are high enough to make it worth the effort. The more you raise taxes, the more the elite dodge them, and the more the burden falls on the middle class and below; the result is a tax structure which is functionally much more regressive and unfair, regardless of how it appears on the surface. Throw in the fact that under such circumstances, the folks who have the money are much less likely to use it to create jobs in this country, meaning less growth and less money in the economy, and most people get hit coming and going. We’re already seeing that under this administration; from where I sit, I think the economy’s likely to recover somewhat anyway, but the recovery will be weaker and slower and less complete because of this administration’s actions and policies.
And if, as I’m still very much afraid, al’Qaeda pulls off another major attack in the middle of all this, all bets are off.
I've been meaning to post this for a while, from my fellow C4P contributor Seth Adam Smith. "The whole of history hinges upon the shoulders of small and simple souls."
The most interesting thing I’ve ever seen written on abortion by a liberal was a column by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times of about five years ago. The original is no longer up on the Sun-Times website (which seems to be a real problem with that paper), and the copy that had been up on findarticles.com is no longer there either, so I can’t send you back to read the whole piece; but here’s what I saved at the time:
During one of the policy discussions that occupy my day, a flash struck me that seemed like, if not quite insight, then perhaps something other than just another tired lob from the same familiar ramparts.
Here goes: Is it possible that in their relentless drive to make abortion once again illegal, the religious right actually encourages more abortions to take place?
It makes sense, in a law-of-unintended consequences fashion. Pro-choice women’s groups correctly see themselves as locked in a life-or-death battle to preserve the legality of abortion, and so tend to close ranks and take an absolutist, it’s-our-right-and-no-one-can-take-it-away approach to the practice. Any questioning of abortion’s morality or desirability is seen as giving ammunition to those who would ban it. Thus, the idea that abortion is an ethically dubious procedure that nobody wants to go through is a luxury they can’t afford.
However, imagine for a moment that the religious right were not intent on its futile quest to reverse the law. Imagine that, rather than trying to work through the government, they instead focused on the undesirability of the procedure—as something women should choose not to do. Then the two groups might find common ground, since both agree that no woman is happy to feel the need to go through an abortion.
Steinberg went on to note, “I’m not expecting either side to embrace this idea,” and I think he was right not to be sanguine on the point, for a variety of reasons; but I also think he’d put his finger squarely on one of the things that makes the abortion debate so nasty: the number of people who can’t see the trees for the forest—and yes, you heard me correctly. There are a lot of folks on the Left who are so focused on the issue of abortion as a whole that they miss, dismiss or ignore all the details, including the actual people involved. It’s usually conservatives who get hit with this criticism, but anymore—due as much to battle fatigue and cynicism as anything—such voices on the Right are not representative. That attitude isn’t gone from the Right by any means, as the recent murder of George Tiller showed, but it’s much rarer than it once was. There are still a great many the Left, though, for whom any issue, any question of fact, any circumstance which bears in any way on abortion rights is to be viewed only with regard to whether it tends to advance or restrict abortion as a whole, and supported or opposed, proclaimed or rejected on that basis and that basis only.
The problem is, while that can be a good way to win an argument, it’s really not a healthy one, and it’s definitely not a good way to govern a country; those of us who are pro-life will always be tempted to respond in kind, but we need to look for more productive ways to argue our position. We need to take a step back from the political argument du jour, reorient ourselves, and go back to our most basic theological principles to make our case. In so doing, while we’re not likely to change the minds of any of our hard-core opponents, we’ll have a chance to find or create common ground with more moderate folks on the pro-abortion side, and thus perhaps to help them understand the real reasons why we believe as we do; out of that, we may be able to win some of them over, and find ways to at least moderate the abortion regime in this country.
With that in mind, it seems to me there are a few theological principles that need to be considered with regard to the issue of abortion. First and foremost, there is the truth that God is the one true King over all creation. This tells us two things of particular importance. One is that he is specifically Lord over us, and we’re under his rule; this makes us responsible to seek his will as honestly as we can, and to obey it with all faithfulness. In the last analysis, his will must come before our own desires, however strong those desires may be. The other is that he is Lord in everything that happens; there is nothing which surprises him, nothing which happens outside his control, and nothing which he does not intend to use for his greater glory and for the greater good of all who worship and follow him.
Second, the view that puts individualism and individual freedom of choice as the highest political good is alien to Scripture. We are called by God as part of his people, as part of the community of faith, and we are all dependent on each other; we as individuals aren’t the center of God’s plan, the community is. In the midst of our selfish, fallen world, he’s at work building a people, creating a community, to carry his message of redemption and reconciliation to all who need to hear it, and we’ve been given the gift of being a part of that plan. The key to this is recognizing that we need each other, and that we have responsibilities to each other, and as such that we are called to live lives of service to each other and to the world, not simply to pursue our own wills.
Third, we need to remember the importance of justice as a theme and emphasis of Scripture; one of the two great complaints the prophets raised against Israel and Judah was the injustice of their societies, that those who had wealth and power oppressed and abused those who didn’t. Those who cannot defend themselves, those who have no options, those who cannot support themselves, those who have no hope—these are the people whom God calls us to serve, first and foremost, and if we don’t, we will have to answer for our failure.
Fourth, we must always be humble in our politics. That goes first of all to our expectations, that we need to remember that we are limited, and play within ourselves, so to speak; if we overreach, we can end up doing more harm than good. It also goes to our view of ourselves, that we need always bear in mind that we are sinful, and therefore fallible. Even at our best, our motives and actions are still tainted by our sinful nature; even at our brightest, we are still prone to error. We need to bear that in mind and not get too impressed with either the brilliance of our ideas or the goodness of our hearts; we need to remember that we too are sinners, and that our salvation is only by God’s grace, not by any of our own effort.
Given these four points, what are we to make of the abortion issue? In considering that question, I think we need to begin not at the usual point, but with the sovereignty of God. In Psalm 139, we see that the psalmist understands his life as a gift from God, who made him in the womb and gave him all the days of his life; but the broader emphasis of that section of this psalm is that God didn’t make him and then wander off to do other things. This is critically important for us to affirm, that not only did the Lord create us, he continues to be with us and to watch over us. The Lord is far away, yes, ruling over all creation from his throne in heaven, but he is also very near, surrounding us and keeping his hand on us. There is no way, imagine what impossibilities you will, that we can go where God wouldn’t be with us, or hide where God wouldn’t see us; there is no part of our lives, no matter how seemingly insignificant, about which he doesn’t care.
This is a great truth about God, but it’s one which I’ve never heard mentioned one way or the other as the church discusses abortion. That’s a loss, because it seems to me it’s quite relevant to this issue, for two reasons. One is that, if we affirm that God is the giver of all life and that his concern extends even to those not born, as the psalmist does here—a point supported by God’s words to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5—that God is Lord at every point and in every circumstance, and that he watches closely over us to care for us, that leads to the affirmation that God is at work in every pregnancy, even in those where the circumstances are difficult, painful, or disastrous; which, it seems to me, means that God values that new life whether or not anyone else does.
Equally, however, it means that God values the life and well-being of the woman who is pregnant; which leads to the second point, that the message of the sovereignty of God is a reason for hope for those who are pregnant under troubled or traumatic circumstances, because it means that the God who allowed those circumstances is a God who has the will and the power to redeem them, to give victory even in their midst, and to turn them to blessing. That needs to be the message of the church to all who are struggling, to all who are suffering, to all who can’t see hope in any direction, including women who are contemplating abortion: no matter how hard things look, God loves you, he is with you, and there is a way forward.
Of course, to say such a thing, the church needs to remember that we are always called to be a part of that way forward. This is part of what it means that we are called as the community of faith, that we have been commanded to bear each other’s burdens, to help each other carry what is too heavy for us to carry alone. This is also, I think, part of doing justice. Standing up for the unborn is one aspect of doing justice for the powerless; but so is standing up with and for those who are pregnant. Even in the best of circumstances, pregnancy is a burden, and in more than just the physical sense; and as Sarah Palin admitted in her Evansville speech, in bad circumstances, it can be enough to make even those most staunchly pro-life quail a little.
As such, for women who are in that situation, it is the church’s responsibility to step up and help in whatever way we can. Whether it be emotional support for those who are overwhelmed, financial support to keep young women from being trapped below the poverty line, academic support for those still in school, the gift of time, whatever, the church needs to offer whatever assistance it can to women who choose not to have abortions.
The fundamental reality here is that the church is called, if you will, to be pro-love. This doesn’t mean being uncritically accepting of every behavior we run across, but it does mean making it very, very clear that “come as you are” doesn’t just mean clothing, and it means putting our time and money where our mouth is. Jesus was uncompromising toward sin, but he welcomed and loved everyone who came to him honestly, even as he called them, just as he calls us, to leave their sin behind and follow him. He loved beyond reason, even asking forgiveness for his torturers as they were busy killing him, accepting his death willingly in order to redeem his chosen ones.
This is the love with which we have been loved; this is the love we are to show others. It’s a love which values others not for what they’ve done, or what they can do, or for how much they’re like us, or for what we can get out of them, but simply because they are; and consequently, it’s a love which “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things,” and which never hesitates to give of itself. Yes, I believe the church is called to show this love to unborn children; beyond doubt, we’re also called to show this love to the women carrying them. It’s the great tragedy of the abortion debate that too many people seem to love only one or the other.
To be truly pro-life is not simply to try to stop women from having abortions and to imagine the job done, nor is it to countenance manipulation in any way, shape, or form to achieve that purpose; rather, it is to provide the necessary support to make abortion the less-attractive option. Though abortion has become a political football, it shouldn’t be approached primarily as a political issue, as that sort of approach tends to run over the people involved; though changes in the legal structure and climate are important, the day-to-day work of the pro-life movement is at the grassroots level, converting minds and hearts and blessing lives by offering grace. Though there are certainly times when it’s necessary to call people to repentance, we must do so in love; there is no room for stigmatizing women who have had abortions, for that way lies nothing but unnecessary and pointless hurt. This is one of those places where humility is particularly important, remembering that none of us are really in any position to presume on our own holiness and righteousness, either.
To anyone pro-choice who might happen to read this, I would say: I know that right now, there are some loud voices trying to make Scott Roeder the face of the pro-life movement—please, don’t let them. Don’t judge those of us who disagree with you by our wingnuts. I’ve seen too many people on the pro-choice side of the aisle declare that pro-lifers hate women, but as a rule, it isn’t so. I realize that the rhetoric has too often been overheated and unbalanced; I realize that too often that has reflected an unbalanced concern on the part of many people. But I would ask you to accept our sincerity, and to work with us to offer better choices, truly better, to women for whom abortion might otherwise seem the only way out. Rather than allowing our disagreement over abortion to continue to drive us to attack each other, let’s turn it into a spur for improving the lives of women in this country, and especially for the poor, the abused, and the dispossessed; let’s learn to work on this together, as a way of showing the love and the grace of God to each other and to those in need. Rather than focusing on trying to win battles, let’s put our energy into bearing each other’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
The adolescent atheism of the self-impressed On why Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens don't measure up to Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx or Jean-Paul Sartre—or for that matter, C. S. Lewis or Tim Keller.
When I heard the news about the murder of George Tiller, one of the first writers to whom I looked for reaction was the Anchoress, Elizabeth Scalia, but at that point, she hadn’t gotten around to writing about it. On Thursday, though, she posted a superb piece as the daily article on the First Things website entitled “Tiller, Long, Bonhoeffer, and Assassination”; it’s an excellent piece of theological and moral reflection, and well worth your time to read. I particularly appreciate this piece of wisdom:
Why should we care about some dumb hick named William Long, who was only a soldier and not a hero abortionist? And why should his assassin's name or religion matter? Because William Long was as entitled to the life he had, as was George Tiller. And Long's death, at the hands of a man who used his religion to justify his actions, is the ultimate reminder of why Christians cannot emulate Bonhoeffer, for all his brilliance, or Tiller's murderer: When we start thinking that we know the heart and mind of God so well that we may decide who lives and who dies, we slip into a mode of Antichrist.
The Pauline paradox “when I am weak, then I am strong” carries a flipside: “When I am strong, then I am weak.” Relativism is dangerous because we can too easily slip into the belief that we so well comprehend God's will that we can confuse our own will for God's, and thereby do terrible damage to one another. God's rain falls on “the just and the unjust,” and it is one of the challenges of the life of faith that we must leave to God the rendering of his Justice.
The duty of a Christian—and it is a difficult duty—is to remain in the present moment that we might be alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (“continuing instant” in gratitude and prayer) while also taking the long view of things. This requires trust that however things look of a moment or a day, God is present and working: Nothing is static, everything is in a constant state of flux, all of it churning forward so that “in the fullness of time” Christ may restore all things to himself. What is left? Well, prayer, which is the most subversive of powers; it is a self-renewing weapon that cannot be wrested from us, and it cannot be over-employed.
Also of importance on this subject is Michelle Malkin’s reflection on the differing reactions to those two attacks from the media and the White House, “Climate of hate, world of double standards”:
Why the silence? Politically and religiously-motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase “lone shooter” is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild—think convicted Jeep Jihadi Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter—but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence. . . .
The truth is that the “climate of hate” doesn’t have just one hemisphere. But you won’t hear the Council on American Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks—including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman. . . .
Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the “climate of hate” to do their jobs with both eyes open?
On Thursday, I posted a link to Robert Spencer’s demolition of the president’s Cairo speech, but he’s not the only one doing serious analysis and coming away worried; Toby Harnden of the Telegraph is another. Harnden highlights “Barack Obama's 10 mistakes in Cairo” and concludes,
There's been lots of breathless commentary today about the “historic” moment and the power of Obama's oratory. In time, however, the speech will probably be remembered, at best, for its high-flown aspirations rather than the achievements it laid the foundations for. Or, at worst, for the naive and flawed approach it foretold.
Also well worth reading is the online symposium on the Cairo speech that National Review pulled together; the contributors raise a number of serious issues, but also offer some strong positive comments. I was particularly struck by the contribution from Mansoor Ijaz, identified as “a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry [who] jointly authored a ceasefire plan between Muslim militants and Indian security forces in Kashmir in 2000”; Ijaz begins by praising aspects of the speech as “brilliant” and “just right,” but then says this:
Where he failed in Cairo was to delineate the overarching fact that Islam’s troubles lie within. It is not that America is not at war with Islam. It is that Islam is at war within itself—to identify what this religion and system of beliefs is in the modern age. Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian sidekick Ayman Al Zawahiri want to take us all back to the Stone Age because they have nothing better to offer their followers than hate-filled preaching. Why didn’t Obama say that?
Islam’s worst enemies are within it. . . .
In fact, the most glaring truth is that Islam’s mobsters fear the West has it right: that we have perfected a system of life that Islam’s holy scriptures urged Muslims to learn and practice, but over the centuries increasingly did not. And having failed in their mission to lead their masses, they seek any excuse to demonize the West and to try and bring us down. They know they are losing the ideological struggle for hearts and minds, for life in all its different dimensions, and so they prepare themselves, and us, for Armageddon by starting fires everywhere in a display of Islamic unity intended to galvanize the masses they cannot feed, clothe, educate, or house.
And finally, for a different perspective on the state of the nation and on the international situation than we’re getting from DC, check out what Sarah Palin had to say on Saturday in her speech in Auburn, NY.
I especially appreciate this line, given our current president’s apparent belief that the best way to conduct foreign policy is to apologize for America to all the people who’ve hurt us for being the kind of people they want to hurt:
We never need to fear that though we’re not a perfect nation, that we must apologize for being proud of ourselves.
While we were living in British Columbia, the governing party—a socialist labor party called the New Democratic Party, or NDP—held a leadership race; the provincial premier, a deeply unpopular little mountebank called Glen Clark, got himself indicted for corruption, so they had to replace him. It was a circus, as BC politics tended to be, and produced some truly funny moments. One of my favorites came from the Agricultural Minister, Corky Evans, who had something of a country-bumpkin image which he liked to play up for comic effect. In announcing his candidacy for party leadership, he told the story of the time he had decided to build a house for his family; being impatient, he didn’t want to take the time to put in a foundation, so he just built the house right on the ground. It seems to have come as a surprise to him when the house began to sink. As he told the crowd, this left him with two choices; he could either tear down the house, or lift it up and put a foundation under it. Either way, it was going to be a very messy business.
Now, Corky Evans used this to describe the state of his party, but it applies just as well to the church. There is and always has been the tendency to try to build the church with, and on, and out of, human efforts. Some churches are built with music; some are built on one person’s charisma; some are built out of programs. Some are built by spending lots of money on advertising and entertaining Sunday services. Then there’s our denomination, the PC(USA), which has concluded that its polity—its structure of governance—is the only thing keeping it together, and is now trying to keep dissident congregations from leaving by threatening to take their property if they do.
The problem is, to build a church in such a way is to do what Corky Evans did: it’s to build a house without a foundation. If you try to build a church on the most popular music, or the most entertaining preaching, or the most exciting service, or the best structure, or what have you, you may appear to succeed for a time; you may produce a large organization, with lots of members and money and a high profile in the community. What you will not have, in any meaningful sense, is a church, and so it will not endure. Sooner or later, it will begin to sink, leaving you with only two options: either tear the whole thing down, or try to lift it up and put a foundation under it, because without the proper foundation the building cannot stand. And as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, there is only one foundation on which the church can be built, and that is Jesus Christ; which means it must be built with the truth of who Christ is and what he taught if it is to last.
Today is the 65th anniversary of D-Day; yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the death of Ronald Reagan. Joseph Russo put up a wonderful post on President Reagan, which I encourage you to read; as for remembering D-Day, I don't think anyone's ever done a better job of that than the Gipper himself.
Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."
Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their valor and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.
Not to put too fine a point on it, GM is doomed (probably, anyway) because the Obama-Pelosi administration has put them in a position in which the kind of bold leadership that could produce a turnaround is impossible. Though Barack Obama might declare that he is "not running GM,"
The President is so busy not running GM that he had time the night before to call and reassure Detroit Mayor Dave Bing about the new GM's future location. GM is being courted to move its headquarters to nearby Warren, Michigan. And Mr. Bing told the Detroit News that he had received a call Sunday evening from the President "informing me of his support for GM to stay in the city of Detroit with its headquarters at the Renaissance [Center]." . . .
We don't know whether GM should stay in Detroit. But we do know that the location of a company's headquarters is one of those decisions typically not made by people who are busy not running the company.
This is exacerbated by the fact that, whether President Obama is interested in running GM or not, there are 535 members of Congress who are most certainly interested in micro-managing GM—since, after all, GM plants, dealerships, distribution centers, etc. now qualify as some of the pork they can bring home to, or at least keep in, their districts.
The latest self-appointed car czar is Massachusetts's own Barney Frank, who intervened this week to save a GM distribution center in Norton, Mass. The warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closure by the end of the year under GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and secured a new lease on life for the facility.
Mr. Frank's spokesman, Harry Gural, says the Congressman discussed, among other things, "the facility's value to GM." We'd have thought that would be something that GM might have considered when it decided to close the Norton center, but then a call from one of the most powerful Members of Congress can certainly cause a ward of the state to reconsider what qualifies as "value." A CEO who refuses the offer can soon find himself testifying under oath before Congress, or answering questions from the Government Accountability Office about his expense account. To that point, Mr. Henderson spent Wednesday with Chrysler President Jim Press being castigated by the Senate Commerce Committee for their plans to close 3,400 car dealerships. Every Senator wants dealerships closed in someone else's state.
As Mr. Gural put it, Mr. Frank was "just doing what any other Congressman would do" in looking out for the interests of his constituents. And that's the problem with industrial policy and government control of American business. In Washington, every Member of Congress now thinks he's a czar who can call ol' Fritz and tell him how to make cars.
Given Congress' track record, and given the way leadership by committee normally works out, I don't think it's too much to predict that GM isn't going to survive this.
