RightWave

So, scuttlebutt is that the next Obama-led “economic stimulus package” to come out of Congress may well include another increase in the minimum wage.

Really?

As if the first one wasn’t bad enough.  Let’s think this one through, shall we?

So, the economy’s in a downturn.  Employers are already making labor cuts to save costs and keep businesses afloat (and costs down for the consumers).

The government’s response?  Make labor more expensive.

Well, duh.  Cuz, you know, that makes sense.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but if you follow the path of results down from this plan, you end up with more government payouts being funded by fewer actual taxpayers (likely paying much higher percentages of their incomes to the government).  That’s not sustainable!  Is the goal to have every industry crawling to the government for a bailout?

Anyone else thing this is sounding awfully Randian in how it’s playing out?  I’m certainly no die-hard objectivist, but come on.  I know the lefty’s are bleeding hearts, but surely they haven’t lost all capacity to process logical outcomes?

Oh, well, maybe so.

All I can say, folks, is gird up.  Get ready for the fight.  Even though things look bleak, it’s important that our side not give up – that we keep fighting and making our case to the American people and make it in a way that’s personal and folks can relate to.  If we slink away and resign ourselves to the fact that everything’s going to hell in a handbasket, well, it will.  And no one will be there to pick up the pieces on the other side.

To quote the great Winston Churchill:

“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Or, if you prefer:

Ace of Spades has a thought explaining why (inexplicably?) Senator McCain and – painfully last night – Sarah Palin isn’t going after Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Dems over the Fannie/Freddie fiasco and their role in the whole market meltdown at the moment.

John McCain is waiting until the bill passes.

And then he will unleash the dogs of war.

And he will say, “I stayed away from making these partisan attacks, even though you lied ridiculously about me and your own attempts at ‘reform.’ I held back, because partisan attacks — even truthful ones — would harm our country and reduce the chances of getting a vital bill passed.

More here.

My blood boiled last night when she blamed “predatory lending” and “Wall Street Greed” with nary a mention of how government inteverntion in the market can be blamed for much of the trouble we’re experiencing today.

I’ll try to get down some more debate thoughts later, but all in all (other than the above) I thought Governor Palin did well.  She was likeable, knowledgeable (though perhaps, still, not specific enough for the Olbermann-types), tough and not the unsure Palin we saw in the Couric interviews. Was it enough, though?  I don’t know.

Senator Biden was annoying as usual, what with the sighing and references to himself in the third person (around his kitchen table, at the Home Depot, etc.) and bad botox/skin peel.  He was clearly in control of the facts (even the ones he made up) and people I think will think he was knowledgeable.

You can check out my Twitter feed for more.

As per usual, Tom Sowell has an interesting take on the bailout fiasco of yesterday.  Check it out.

Though, it’s not like we needed yet another reminder of the follies of Barney Frank & Co:

Among the congressional “leaders” invited to the White House to devise a bailout “solution” are the very people who have for years created the risks that have come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the “soundness” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said “I do not see” any “possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury.”

Moreover, he said the federal government has “probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing.”

More…

Be sure to check out NickyCheese’s flashback to 1999 on the Freddie/Fannie crisis.  Shocker – from the Old Gray Lady herself.

My favorite part:

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

Admittedly, I am unsure about this whole bailout mess – though I’ve appreciated the commentary of many other bloggers and “thinkers” out there.

In particular, check out Peter’s take at Progressively Right.  Also E!! links to a letter by Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist with another interesting thought.

Of course, do these thoughts total a plan?  I think there are good components.  Perhaps there’s not one “solution” that both helps and stays (close to) true to free-market beliefs.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

If you come across other interesting ideas/thoughts I’d love to hear about them.

UPDATE: Forgot to include the Club for Growth’s take.  They make an interesting point.

UPDATE II: E!! points out that I missed her recount of Newt’s plan.  Seems feasible and reasonable.  Check it out.

I’ve got to tell you – I’m tremendously confused as to why the “equal pay for women” issue is hot in this campaign.  There’s a new Obama ad running in Virginia that hit’s McCain on opposing equal pay.  That coupled with the prime time spot given to Lilly Ledbetter, bless her heart (see previous post), and a handful of other occurrences makes this a central attack line for the Dems this year.

Yeah, I get that he’s making a strong play for the woman’s vote given the PUMA situation.  But, really?  This is the best you can do.  Didn’t Phyllis Schlafly kick the heck out of that debate like 30-40 years ago?  Frankly, I find it a little disgusting and disingenuous (I guess it’s just politics, right?).  Sure the NOW crazies and hard left feminists have been fighting the fight on this issue, but I haven’t heard it much otherwise in mainstream debate.

Not to mention – I’m pretty darn sure it’s ALREADY illegal to pay women and men (or whites and hispanics, or Catholics and Jews, et al) differently for doing the same job.  Do we need more laws?

I guess I’m just out of touch with my inner woman.

My lovely wife went on a TIRADE in the car the other day when she heard the ad.  Hippie feminist crap makes her do that. It’s one of the reasons I love her so.  But, I suspect she’s not the only one.  It’s one in a long line of lefty ideas that tries to make women victims and tries to create a separate class for women.  (ERA anyone?)

Any women readers out there have a different viewpoint?  Is this a real issue politically (we know it’s a falsehood in real life – see Carrie Lukas’ recent commentary)?  Or a desperate attempt by the Obama campaign to attract PUMAs?  Are they THAT scared of Sarah Palin?

UPDATE: My, again, LOVELY wife, reminds me of this wonderful West Wing scene where <heart flutters> Ainsley Hayes rips into Sam Seaborn about the ERA.  One of my favorite WW scenes of all time.

Mark over at Do The Right Thing has a link to a great article by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes on the Left’s plan to take over “red” states.  Of course, Colorado has long been their model, and they’ve been executing well (and expensively).  Colorado is dangerously teetering on becoming a mostly Democrat state (by count of elected officials) and turning back the tide on what was once the most “progressive” state in the union in terms of implementing good, free-market public policy reform.

From school choice to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights to higher education vouchers to creating a tax code that ensured prosperity for its citizens, Colorado was once the beacon of conservatives (remember the National Review cover story about Bill Owens?)  And now, it’s not looking so good…

Fortunately, we have some smart folks on our side as well.  Eric O’Keefe has a superb piece published by the State Policy Network that’s worth a read about what we can do to fight back.  Our free enterprise side got a head start on the think tank front.  There’s no question we’re winning the battle of ideas.  But, we’re consistently getting beaten on the ground game.

Frankly, that’s why Americans for Prosperity is so important.  But, we need to keep up the fight and work to match the Left on every capability possible if we want to win – politically and, ultimately, with our public policy goals.  There is much work to do, friends.

UPDATE: Eric is (as usual) several steps ahead in talking about Fred Barnes’ article.  Read his take.

Y’all know I love the comic strip Mallard Fillmore.  Make sure to check out today’s issue for a good chuckle!

This shocking headline and opening courtesy of the venerable Associated Press:

McCain, Obama offer different visions on taxes
Make more than $250,000 a year? Watch out. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes. Social Security taxes, too.

Run a corporation? Lucky you. John McCain wants to cut your business taxes.

Those positions illustrate pieces of two vastly different approaches to the economy, an issue at the forefront of voters’ minds given that the country is teetering on the brink of – if not already in – a recession as gas prices soar and layoffs rise amid a credit crisis and a housing slump.

Obama, the Democrat, seemingly has a traditional liberal outlook of taxing the rich more while having the government help people of more modest means through tax breaks. McCain, the Republican, advocates a classic conservative vision of cutting taxes – many geared toward businesses – to promote competition within a free-market system.

I mean, wow.  Really.  Republicans and Democrats disagree on taxes?   I’m shocked.  Although, I guess, to be fair, this was in question in this election cycle. 

However, this is illustrative of one important point.  Senator McCain should keep this as the story.  He should stop talking about global warming or whatever other “straight talk” he’d like to provide us for the day.  He should keep talking about tax cuts and spending restraint.  He should talk about the expansive growth of government and how to stop it.  At least, I suppose, if he’d like conservatives to get at all excited about him this year.  Guess we’ll see…

When John McCain came on the screen on Saturday Night Live this weekend, I got nervous (be honest, didn’t you?). 

But, I was pleasantly surprised that he was (finally) off his global warming soapbox, at least for a little bit.  SNL would have been a natural place for him to peddle his bill of goods and play to the liberal-skewed staff and audience.  But, alas, Senator McCain talked about…EARMARKS!  Hurrah!  Hurrah!

Now, I realize this doesn’t mean that he won’t push forward on his cap and trade scheme (did someone say “$1.3 billion tax increase?”  Oh.)  But, at least he’s back to his core competency – stopping the runaway growth of government.  I’m happy to have him talk about that all the time and stop talking about all his other nonsense.

 Anyway, in case you missed it, here’s clip:

UPDATE – Kathryn Jean Lopez over at the Corner has a different clip posted from the SNL appearance.  And, her post reminds me of something my mother said to me the other day.  “Would Ronald Reagan have done something like this?” …meaning is this really becoming of a Presidential candidate?  Probably not, but who knows?  President Reagan was an actor after all, and pretty darn funny.  But, he had class.  Does anyone anymore?