Still depressed

Still depressed but less so. We have a deal on the Bush tax cuts -- maybe. Nancy and Harry don't like the deal that Barry struck with Republicans. They want to "fix" it. It might not then be a deal. If Democrats ruin it then Republicans will work out their own deal with Barry in January. Don't Democrats know that? Sure they do. They're just politicking now. It gets really tiresome.

Depression

The more I read the news the more depressed I feel. Everybody who pays attention has known for many years that the Bush tax cuts would expire at the end of 2010. Democrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress and the presidency for two years. We're now in the lame duck, the last month before tax hikes kick in but Nancy, Harry and Barry still dither. How can our leaders behave so irresponsibly?

Millions of tax-paying individuals and businesses need time to plan their affairs. Individuals must decide whether to accelerate income or deductions, whether to convert an IRA to a Roth, whether to sell stock or real property in 2010 or 2011 -- or whether to sell at all or buy instead.

Good businesses (don't we all want those, for the taxes they pay and the people they hire?) plan so as to maximize profits or minimize losses, insure they have enough capital to survive and prosper, determine how many people (with what kinds of skills) they need for the coming year or years, decide what new facilities they will need to accomplish their goals -- or what facilities they should dispose of because they don't meet current or future needs. Good businesses do this regularly, and continuously. But income taxes are a huge factor in business planning. The federal government is a roughly one-third partner in nearly all successful businesses -- but doesn't supply any of the capital. State governments are 5 to 10 percent partners, and they don't supply any capital either. Business can't plan without knowing tax rates.

Besides the tax problem, we have the risk of the government shutting down. Without a continuing resolution, the government shuts down tomorrow. At this point, a 15-day continuing resolution sits on the president's desk for signature. Assuming he signs it, we're good until December 19th. Then what? A new CR for another 15 days?

The CR is only necessary because we don't have a budget for the federal fiscal year that began October 1, 2010. Why? Congress was busy on other things. What was so important that agreeing to a budget had to be postponed? You tell me.

That's why I'm depressed. The people running the government seem to be out to lunch. They put politics before governing. Getting re-elected is their primary focus. It's disgusting. It's time to throw the bums out. Well, voters did some of that in the mid-term. We'll see if that helps.

LAT editorializes on California

California's Republicans were wiped out in the 2010 mid-term. All is lost for them unless they become more moderate, more like Democrats, according to the LAT in an editorial today.

But then they wouldn't be Republicans and Californians wouldn't have a two-party system. Democrats would control everything, kind of like how it is now.

The LAT says all that Republicans are good for is to say no, because that's all they ever do. Thank goodness someone does.

LAT: GOP lacks candidate

Writer James Oliphant argues in a piece on the LATs front page today that Republicans could beat Obama in 2012 if they had a candidate, but they don't. He goes on to badmouth all the potential candidates.

The Democrats had only one candidate for the 2008 race, Hilary Clinton. She supposedly was a sure thing but Obama came out of nowhere. The same thing could happen to Republicans. If it doesn't, several candidates could turn out to be good choices. Among them: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and others. Be careful about what you read in the LAT.

Lexington

Lexington, on November 20th, argues that Obama's policies, which Lexington accepts that voters rejected in the mid-term election, were not extreme. Obama's policies, Lexington explains, were too conservative, and that explains why the left is angry at him. Obama is more conservative than Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Lexington argues.

The garbage goes on and on. It makes sense to The Economist.

Lexington on Bush's book

Early in Lexington's review of Decision Points, George W. Bush's new book, he or she writes that the book "will not change the minds" of Bush's detractors. Being one, Lexington, goes on to prove that's true. In the end, Lexington claims that Bush "did not cover himself with glory," which is what you would expect from a Bush detractor.

LAT editorials

The inmates took over the institution at the LAT when today's editorials were written.

The first of three argues that Israel should cave to Palestinian demands to stop building settlements as a condition to starting peace negotiations. Wrong. Negotiations begin when the two sides sit down across the table from each other, not before. Let the parties negotiate.

The second editorial defends Pelosi's decision to run for minority leader, saying she did all the heavy lifting while Obama failed to sell Obamacare, etc. Right but wrong. Pelosi did the heavy lifting but she lifted the wrong stuff, stuff voters didn't want. She refused to listen, the same as Obama and the LAT didn't or don't listen. It ought to cost her her job.

Finally, the LAT takes Oklahoma voters to task for passing a state ballot measure that bans state judges from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases before them. Wrong. Oklahomans can do what they want without help from the LAT. Besides, why should the Oklahoma initiative present a problem for judges?