April 14, 2010

In an effort to alleviate decreasing consumer confidence and skyrocketing food and energy costs, President Obama announced a broad tax relief package today. The plan, which is modeled after President Obama’s anti-foreclosure plan, allows federal judges to reduce the tax burdens of those who cannot afford the fat, bloated government they purchased.

“Just like the economic recovery plan I proposed when running for president,” noted President Obama, “this plan allows for an ex post facto repricing. If a taxpayer is having trouble paying for the enormous bloated bureaucracy they bought when they elected me and my fellow Democrats, they can declare bankruptcy and a federal judge will be empowered to adjust their tax burden.”

Critics of the plan note that it will create what one Senator calls “a reverse ponzi scheme.” At first, the lower middle class will begin to file bankruptcy, “which will increase the burden on those left paying taxes, causing them to file for lower taxes. Eventually, you won’t have anyone left to pay taxes except George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.”

President Obama dismissed these claims as unhopeful, saying “I find your lack of hope disturbing.” John Sweeney, the new Secretary of the Treasury, noted that the plan would be “as, if not more successful as the anti-foreclosure rule.” The Treasury department reported that exactly zero home foreclosures have occurred since last month, down from 25 the previous month.

“We have not seen the ‘dramatic’ increase in interest rates predicted by the so called ‘experts,’” noted Secretary Sweeney. The nationwide average interest rate on a 30 year mortgage remains steady at 24%.

There’s an interesting argument developing on the Left.  Having Hillary’s Attack Machine up against the Audacity of Hope Machine has been very enlightening for some Democrats. First, Hillary supporters are now seeing first hand what it’s like to be called racist, simply because you don’t vote for a candidate who is Black.  Of course, there may still be some people who won’t vote for a Black person only because they’re Black, but the syllogism falls apart when you say if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be racist. It’s also telling that Obama’s supporters cannot image why anyone would want to vote for anyone other Obama, even Hillary. There’s nothing scarier than the devout who accept a leader without questioning or comparing alternatives.

Obama’s supporters are also finding out what it’s like to suffer violent personal attacks in response to policy arguments. Welcome to our world, folks. The funny thing is that, somewhere, Ken Starr is wondering “What the hell? All I did was ask about their finances, too.”

The real interesting development, however, is the growing “fear mongering” complaints. Obama’s supporters are complaining about Hillary’s 3 a.m. ad, which questioned Obama’s ability to deal with a crisis. Of course, the unspoken threat is terrorism.  Obama’s supporters are also, ironically, complaining about Hillary scaring people with losing their jobs.  (Look for Hillary’s camp to make similar complaints about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.)

The interesting thing is that Democrats are finally realizing that the “Republican tactic” of reminding people that it’s a dangerous world out there is just as “unfair” when you play to people’s fears about their jobs as when you remind them of the ever present threat of terrorism. Personally, I have never thought that this argument is unfair at all. If you’re running for President of the United States, you should be able to allay people’s fear of the unknown. You should be able to defend your policies and convince the people who elect you that you are capable of keeping them safe.

The argument is slightly less valid, however, when you play to people’s fears of losing their job. The president has direct control over the military and the national security assets that keep us safe. No one is infallible, and attacks will happen. The question is, what will you do to keep us safe? The president has no direct effect on jobs, however. (Of course, some Democrats are still hoping for a worker’s paradise where the government is the only game in town.) The president can advocate tax cuts, can suggest legal reforms and some regulations, but the president doesn’t close the factory. Claiming that electing the old so-and-so will cost you your job is more inflammatory than claiming he or she won’t keep you safe.

Of course, accepting responsibility for your actions is not one of the Left’s strong suits.

Daily Danet has teamed up with Café Press to bring you (drum roll, please)….MERCHANDISING!

Please stop by the store at it’s new address:  store.dailydanet.com.  Take a look around, buy some early holiday presents, and piss off those liberal neighbors.  Let me know if there are any posts you’d like to see made into a t-shirt, mug, small child, flamethrower, etc.

This post won’t stay at the top of the blog for ever.  Fear not, the link to the store will always be at the top of the left column.  And I’ll be sure to let you know when more items are added to the store.  (I get suchadeal on advertising!)

 We hope you’ll look to us for all your Opinionated Clothing!™

Happy shopping!

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) announced a 77% decline in earnings do to the discontinuation of its inhaled-insulin product, Exubera.  In an effort to bolster the company’s stock, Pfizer’s research and development division has announced the start of product trials on several new drugs:

• Pink Slipitor: A new drug for use by Pfizer employees that makes layoffs unnecessary.  The drugs high mortality rate (98%) is seen as a drawback for employee morale, but, according to financial estimates, the savings in Pfizer’s pension and medical costs will outweigh those effects.
• Selloft: A new anti-depressant that targets the financial risk processing regions of the brain, prevent the sale of Pfizer stock.
• PFEagra(pronounced (FI-AG-RA): A new drug to combat “earnings dysfunction” or “ED” in pharmaceutical stocks.  The drug works by inflating analysts’ estimates of future performance, but comes with a warning regarding “stock elevations lasting longer than four hours.”

Gentlemen’s Quarterly has agreed not to publish an unflattering article about the Clinton campaign.  The article, scheduled to appear in the October edition of GQ, was to highlight the antagonistic and aggressive stance taken by the Clintons, as well as infighting among the staff. 

According to one source, the article was pulled after the Clinton’s threatened to deny the magazine access presumptive First Lady Killer™ Bill “I Banged ‘Er” Clinton.  Another source has claimed, however, that the Clinton’s made far more damaging threats.  “Apparently, Jay Carson, Bill’s PR guy, threatened to unleash Bill on GQ’s female interns.  That was a legal risk that [editor] Jim [Nelson] couldn’t take.”  The threat of sexual harrasment lawsuits are common in the men’s magazine world, but “sexual assault is something different. 

The magazine decided to pull the piece and will, apparently, “be doing a multi-page spread with Mrs. Clinton snuggling puppies instead.”  Bill is said to be “disappointed” that he would not get to meetthe “little honnies” who intern at GQ.  The former president and disbarred attorney remains at the Clinton homestead, drugged and caged until the 2008 election.

Editor Jim Nelson denied the recent allegations, and expressed the desire to focus on the relevant issues at hand.  “Whether or not the Clintons pressured us to pull the story is beside the point.  We have a duty as Democrat–the mainstream media, to fight against the Republicans who are constantly infringing on our civil liberties.”

Several high-ranking Republicans questioned Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D-Your State Here) budget calculations regarding her recently announced $110 billion healthcare “choices” plan.  Under the plan, employers could opt to provide insurance to employees as they currently do, or “choose” to opt out and pay an additional federal tax.

“First of all, that’s not much of a choice.  The average cost of healthcare premiums to employers is about $9,000 per year,” notes Republican Congressman Dunn D. Maath.   And those healthcare premiums have been “skyrocketing at nearly double-digit rates, year over year.  It would take an enormous federal tax (not that such a thing is beyond Hillary) or an incredibly inept businessman to choose to pay healthcare premiums over taxes.”  Congressman Maath notes that “this is probably Hillary’s secret little plan - start a ’small’ government program and provide enough perverse incentives so it’s forced to grow into an all-encompassing federal bureaucracy.  If anyone knows about morale hazards, it’s her and her husband.”

Freshman Independent Congressman Dunn Evan Mooremath agrees.  “The average total cost of insurance is $12,000 per year.  Hillary proposes a plan to insure all 300 million Americans for $366.67 per year each?  Her numbers are ridiculously wrong.  I can’t wait to see her educational plan - she needs to go back and learn some basic math.”

Economics are also clearly not her forte, notes Republican leader Arthur A. Neighleft.  “First of all, Hillary claims that by insuring more people the average cost will go down.  Her tiny little brain seems to miss the point that, for the most part, the people who are not insured are the ones who are high-risk!  You don’t increase profitability by taking on more losses.”

Second, notes Mr. Neighleft, she has failed to account for lost tax revenues as a result of the plan.  “What about all those insurance companies that her ‘accept all applicants’ policy will bankrupt?  Or all the doctors who decide to be garbage collectors ’cause the pay is better?  Not to mention all the individuals who won’t be paying taxes because she’s killed them with the shabby excuse for medical services she’ll be inflicting on the American people?”

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D-Your State Here) announced her plan for mandatory healthcare.  Mrs. Clinton, who has dismissed allegations that her plan is a form of socialism, defended the plan as necessary.  “This plan provides 3 healthcare options: you can keep what plan you have, you can opt into the congressional health plan or you can be arrested for failing to have health coverage.  It’s really that simple,” noted Mrs. Clinton.

The plan would mandate that employers who already provide insurance continue to do so, in addition to paying additional taxes to offset the cost of coverage for those who don’t have insurance.  “We will take insurance premiums from those according to their ability to pay and give insurance to those who cannot, according to their needs.” 

In addition, insurance companies will be required to provide insurance, regardless of risk.  “Insurance companies will now be told, by your kind and benevolent leaders, whom they must insure and what their profits will be.  We will create a demand economy for insurance and provide health coverage to those who really need it,” screeched Clinton at a fund raiser sponsored by the law firm of Hahmer & Cickle. 

Clinton also plans to unveil a mandatory prescription plan, the Mandatory Available Rx or “MARX” program.  “Those who oppose these programs, or denounce them as a form of socialism,” warned Mrs. Clinton, “are enemies of the state and shall be rooted out of their bourgeoisie homes and shot in the streets!”

Disney Corporation has denied the charges of violating Chinese labor laws.  “We categorically deny these charges,” notes a Disney spokesman.  Chinese officials have cited Disney for 237 violations in mainland China, where Disney makes many of its toys.  “These facilities and their operation are not being run in accordance with Chinese labor law,” notes one government official.

Among the violations cited by Chinese officials is that workers are subject to continually Disney music, including three renditions of “It’s a Small World.”  One worker has apparently contracted diabetes from the sugary tunes.  In addition, inefficient workers are warned once and then fired.  Under Chinese law, inefficient workers must be executed as a warning to others.

September 21, 2008

Following another summer of record delays, the Federal Aviation Administration has taken over scheduling from private airlines.  The idea, originally proposed last September by outgoing Administrator Marion Blakey, has been met with some skepticism, but proponents are hopeful that government intervention will get airline schedules back on track.  “This new proposal,” notes Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “will put American air-carriers in line with other government-run programs, like Amtrak.”

Air travel expert Dr. Reese Anoble-Mann has doubts about the idea.  “If the government takes over scheduling, it will be yet another area where airline inefficiency is bailed out by the government.  Today, competition among air-carriers is based on on-time travel, price and amenities.”  If you remove one of those points of competition, “you might as well make the airlines themselves a government program.”

——

August 14, 2009

After nearly one year of government-planned air travel, even the strongest proponents are beginning to have their doubts.  The measure, initially thought to be temporary, has grown in scope and looks more and more like a permanent government agency.  Delays, which were hoped would be eliminated by government intervention, have tripled.  Government officials are said to be meeting in Denver today, though many have had difficulty booking air travel.

——

September 21, 2010

The Linked Air Travel Efficiency Program, which schedules and routes the three remaining U.S. air-carriers, announced a new “On Time Travel” program.  Under the program, a flight is not technically late unless it arrives at its destination more than 5 hours after its scheduled arrival.  “Under this new plan,” notes FAA Administrator Al Wayes-Tardy, “we hope to reach a 90% on-time rate.”

Critics of the LATE Program note that many flights could arrive after an airport closes and still technically be on time.  Other changes that have been rolled out over the past year include the “15 minute coffee break” for all government employees, which now include air traffic controllers, airport security, pilots, stewardesses and all ground crews.  Gate ticket agents are expected to be added later this month. 

Mr. Wayes-Tardy noted that the policy has been “a stunning success” and dismissed criticism of the mandatory break-time.  Some observers have noted that the ill-fated flight 6734 from Dulles to Detroit would not have crashed had both pilots not taken their mandated breaks during take-off.  “We’re working on an updated auto-pilot to fix those sorts of things,” notes Mr. Wayes-Tardy.

Toy manufacturer Matel announced another toy recall today.  The toymaker, who recently recalled over 18 million toys made in China, has said the recall is a precaution against injury, but no injuries have yet been reported.

The recall effects the “Commuter Chang - Air China” realistic model airplane line.  Chinese officials have objected to the recall, noting that the toy works as designed.  “That’s exactly what we’re worried about,” said one Matel employee.