I've given in.

I'm now on twitter.

But I guarantee that you'll never see one update about where I am or what the hell I'm doing. Because it really isn't that interesting -- and I've got enough stalkers as is.

Add me if ya like.

http://twitter.com/djtablesauce

Shut up, idiots.

And I'm talking to Republicans.

So many columnists, TV talking heads and the like have been suckered into throwing gasoline on the Rush/Steele brouhaha.

Before we get too far into this, I don't think all that many have really even seen the interview in question. If not, here's your chance:



Now what everyone, including Rush, have gotten all up in arms about is the "incendiary and ugly" statement. Nevermind that it was so totally and completely flippant -- it was almost as if Steele was simply trying to shut up the interviewer so he could focus on his main talking point.

Was it a stupid thing to say? Sure. But is it a statement so inflammatory that it should get Republicans calling for his resignation? Absolutely not.

The GOP needs to let it go so they can quit getting suckered into Obama's plan to keep us infighting.

And it IS a plan. Gibbs has been pushing reporters at his briefings to confront Republicans about Rush.

See?

I think maybe the best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. Do they want to see the President's economic agenda fail?

Rush clearly didn't help things when he slammed Steele in response. Rush, please move on. I know you like being in the eye of the hurricane, but you get enough press from the WH focusing on you. You don't need to create an even bigger stir by nailing Steele.

Continued back and forth on this issue is like blood in the water to Democrats. The more Republicans bicker, the less the message is focused on the budget and its 9,000 earmarks.

Unfortunately, the only way this ceases to be an issue is when Rush decides to let it stop being one.

So keep an ear out this afternoon for the EIB network.

Triple whammy.

This evening while scoping out one of my fave blogs -- Ace of Spades -- I came across three major OSHIT stories. Stories that left me even more frustrated by the man America vaulted into the highest office in the land. Stories that should make even the most fervent Obamamaniac wince.

First up!



Remember Obama's pledge to Congress to cut $2 trillion from the budget over ten years? Yeah? Good. Cuz it's all bullshit.

From Ace:

here's how he comes up with $1.6 trillion of his $2 trillion in "cuts:" He takes the 2008, peak-of-the-surge cost of the Iraq War as our permanent Iraq War spending baseline. He extends that out ten years -- including goosing it down the line for inflation.

Then he notes that he's ending a war which was actually pretty much ended by our troops (and the Iraqis, too) by defeating Al Qaeda and ending the insurgency.

Then he says, "Hey, man, look -- every year I'm going to be saving money on those Iraq War costs! Count it as a 'cut'!"

Um, yeah.

[...]

As Commentary notes, even by Washington standards, this is "unusually disingenuous."

God, that pisses me off.

Kick in the pants #2?



In Obama's address to Congress he reiterated his support for a carbon cap and trade system. Some don't exactly follow what that entails, and for those I ask you to take two minutes to view this youtube video.



To sum it up -- remember that whole 'no new taxes for those making under 250k' pledge? Yeah? Good. Cuz this policy will make that pledge moot.

From Ace:

Obama's cap and trade scheme will impose a $700-$1400 additional tax on all families as energy producers (and users) pass-through their own higher costs to the public.

Obama plans to devote more taxpayer money to defray these costs for those making $75,000 per year or less.

And those making between $75,000 and $250,000 per year? Noted tax evader Tim Geithner didn't directly answer when questioned about it, only saying that if we wished to combat global warming, we needed to change the "incentive structure" of energy production.

And from the President himself:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."

Senator Barack Obama
Speaking on his energy policies
San Francisco Chronicle
January 17, 2008

Please remember this massive policy development over the next couple years as you watch your energy bill skyrocket.

And now, for the final dropkick to your sense of decency...#3



Once again, from Ace:

President Obama just hired Alaskan State Senator Kim Elton to serve as Director of Alaskan Affairs at the Interior Department.

Now, if you had never heard of Alaskan State Senator Kim Elton before, you would be in pretty good company. Nothing in Elton's biography is particularly compelling. In fact, were one to characterize Elton as a minor party hack of little to no distinction, one would probably not be far off.

However, Sen. Elton is known for one thing and one thing only. He led the Democratic assault on Governor Sarah Palin for the "Troopergate" scandal that wasn't.

You remember "Troopergate". Governor Palin spent the summer of the election campaign fighting unfounded charges that she had exceeded her authority by firing a renegade, tazer-happy State Trooper. Ultimately she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

And now one of the chief architects of the highly public and unsubstantiated smear job has been awarded a plum job in the Obama administration.

Are you effing kidding me?

If these three stories don't finally give all those Obamamaniacs some tinge of cynicism about their savior, nothing will.

Now, I know some of my Dem friends out there have some sense of reality about them. They simply voted for Obama because they oppose Republican principles. And that's fine. We can agree to disagree. But for these friends of mine, I hope these stories at least give you a cause for concern. I know you never expected President Obama to transform modern politics, but I know you hoped he would at least provide you a leader you could respect.

To these friends -- I made you a little something. Enjoy.

It's time to lend a hand.

According to the Washington Post and Jim Geraghty at NRO, "Obama has not yet named anyone for the eleven supporting roles (one deputy, two undersecretaries, and eight assistant secretaries) at Treasury."

Not one.

Secretary Timothy F. Geithner still does not have a deputy or Senate-confirmed undersecretaries or assistant secretaries to help him. And it's not because the Senate has been going at its traditional, snail-like pace confirming people. (That will be, as sure as night follows day, a problem down the road.) The fact is, the White House has sent no nominations to the Senate for any of those positions.

And the problem, as Volcker also noted, is a severe case of Daschle-itis — with a strong dose of Geithner-itis — that has sparked an intense spate of re-vetting of potential nominees. We've heard the process compared to some rather unpleasant medical procedures. According to one estimate, as many as a third of potential nominees were found to have had some tax questions to answer.

Try to grasp this situation.

His team has had 118 days to select Administration leadership.

Now, I can understand if these appointees were held up in the Senate. From my time working to get nominees through when I was at the Dept of Education, I understand what a pain it can be.

But to not even have names submitted? That takes a special kinda stupid.

Perhaps the tax issue provides an opportunity for the GOP. Clearly, Obama's nominees have had issues with doing their taxes correctly. Maybe now is the time for Republicans to address how complicated the tax code really is, and how a simplification is in order.

This would enable Republicans to highlight Administration leadership deficiencies while still addressing an issue that has been a concern for years.

Help the Obama Administration, Sen. Voinovich and Rep. Boehner! Simplify the tax code!

h/t: Jim Geraghty @ Campaignspot

Insomnia...

...and crappy photoshop software yields bumper stickers.

And yep, you can even own one.

Or 50.

:snicker:

Falling Apart.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has had a tough past few days. His budget has been getting lambasted and the Dispatch seems to be hitting him daily on his screw-ups.

Well, things aren't getting any better.

Auditor Mary Taylor on Monday, March 2, said she can’t audit the state’s books for the last fiscal year because Gov. Ted Strickland’s administration so far hasn’t turned over the necessary financial records.

Taylor, Ohio’s only Republican statewide executive officeholder, said the delay appears “unprecedented” and calls into question Democrat Strickland’s commitment to being transparent and accountable to the voters.

“How will the governor know where to go fiscally if he doesn’t know where he’s been?” Taylor asked at a press conference at her office.

The financial records she needs detail how much money the state took in, how the money was spent and how much was on hand on June 30, 2008, the end of the last fiscal year.

Ouch.

Even better?

Strickland spokeswoman Amanda Wurst could not be reached.

Yep. They were caught so unaware of this that they didn't even have a prepared statement ready for the media. The incompetence in the Governor's office is staggering.

Pwned.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[breathe....breathe]


AAAAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[shiver]

A question of semantics...

Rush Limbaugh put some Republicans into quite a pickle when he said he wanted Obama to fail several weeks ago. Even today Republicans are stuck in a semantic debate over whether they agree with Rush or not.

Democrats are playing this as a question of patriotism. They are playing a semantic trick on the media by figuratively replacing "President" with "country" when discussing the debate. 'If we really care for our country, do we not want to see the American President to succeed, no matter who it is?'

The honest answer depends a lot on the definition of "succeed". Obviously, Republicans want this country to suffer as little as possible from Obama's policies. In fact, we'd love to see the economy skyrocket under his watch. But we fear that his policies will cause long-term damage to the United States. And history has taught us how likely Keynesism is to fail in the long-term.

Either way, the "do you want Obama to fail" question is an easy one for the left to demagogue.

But didn't many Democrats desperately want Bush to fail? Of course not! After all, we would have heard the media documenting their lack of patriotism and desire to see the country fail.

Yeah, right.


That survey question comes from a Fox News poll back in 2006.
Do I blame these Dems? Not necessarily. If their answer was based primarily on wanting the President to fail at getting his domestic agenda through -- then, no. They have every right to want his agenda to fail based on their own beliefs about how the country should be run. But if the answer is focused on wanting the President's mission to succeed in Iraq/Afghanistan? Then yes, I do. No American should want to see our military fail, no matter who is leading them into battle as Commander-in-Chief.

But either way, this isn't a new question Americans have faced when considering their President.

But when has that ever stopped the left?

Sinking fast.

Following the Tweet Grid has once again pissed me off.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Tweet Grid is a search function for twitter. Once again, I inputted Gov. Jindal's name last night and found the following.


Yep. So many on the left have fallen hook, line and sinker for noted left-wing moron Zachary Roth's article stating Jindal "lied" in his rebuttal to the President's address this past week.

First off, let's make sure we're all clear -- Jindal did not lie about helping Sheriff Lee during Katrina. Want proof?

Partial transcript -- Sheriff Lee: "Hurricane Katrina, the day after, Bobby was in my office, said, 'What do you need?' And it wasn't phone calls, he was in my office... I know how involved he was... He was hands-on. I got him everywhere he had to go in my helicopter, and he was there all the time. When the thing was over, he'd got equipment for us. And I said, 'Bobby, where did this new equipment come from? I wanna thank somebody.' And he said, 'I took care of it, don't worry about it.'"

Ok, now that we have that straightened out we can address the motivations of the suckers in the Tweet Grid I posted above.

Now it's possible these schmucks are just victims of bad reporting. Roth's story has spread like wildfire across the blogosphere and twitterdom(I'm new to the twitter thing, so gimme a break on the lingo). They simply fell for it without looking elsewhere for confirmation. But I don't think that even matters to these people. They don't have Palin or Bush to push around anymore, so they found a new target and truth will not get in their way when it comes to smearing their adversaries.

The activist left has become even more dangerous with the advent of modern internet communication. It breeds lies and encourages vulgar behavior with the relative anonymity of a computer between you and the world.

Are those on the right innocent of the same? Of course not. But this isn't a game of false equivalence. Just because some are just as guilty doesn't make everything ok for both sides.

The left has a lot of work to do if they want to quit mocking the new brand of discourse that Obama claimed to usher in with his inauguration.

The downward spiral continues....

According to today's Columbus Dispatch:

Ohio's unemployment line grew by a staggering 79,000 workers last month and the jobless rate jumped to 8.8 percent, the state said yesterday.

The rate, which was up 1.4 percentage points from the revised number for the previous month, was the largest one-month increase since 1980.

Also yesterday, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that the country's economic output dropped by 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter last year, a major shift from the 3.8 percent drop that had been expected. The dramatic fall in the gross domestic product showed that the economy is deteriorating faster than had been thought.

Holy shit.

An unemployment rate 16% higher than the national rate? Largest one-month unemployment increase in almost three decades?

And Ted Strickland still thinks education is the number one issue facing Ohio?

Listen, Gov. When we're approaching 1 out of 10 Ohioans without jobs and a state economy recessing faster than my forehead, I think you can safely say the economy is issue number 1. Hell, I'll even give it issue 1,2 and 3.

And it all can be explained with one simple jpeg. (click it to enlarge)


Yep. Ohio has the 47th worst tax climate for businesses in the country. Not only does this kill jobs by bleeding businesses statewide, but when a state is in recession, business owners need to see some REAL hope and change^TM. That means easing the tax burden on businesses. They need to see change coming and taxes cut. When they see neither, they bolt the state or just close up shop.

Governor Strickland has failed to give Ohio business owners what they need to survive.

Instead he's gone all the way to Washington D.C. to beg for stimulus dollars that will throw a bandaid on Ohio's budget woes. This is downright irresponsible and completely self-serving. Clearly, his only motivation is to keep things under the radar until election day.

We need a change. Help make it happen.

Why are young conservatives always "unlikely"?

Thanks4YourTaxes is back with 3BP to give the MSM hell:

I was sent this Washington Post story as I work at a non-profit think tank that I am apparently too embarrassed to mention. Wait a minute, no I’m not. I proudly tell anyone and everyone, even all the democratic staffers I see on a daily basis, that I work for the Heritage Foundation. “I work for the premier conservative think tank that puts out papers based on principle and real understanding of public policy inside and outside of Washington, DC.” I have a feeling the writers DID have a few quotes like this, but left them on their notepad.

Instead, the reporters quote interns at a bar. This is akin to Carrie Bradshaw quoting single girls at a bachelorette party on the subject of men. Not only are the interns a bit loose lipped(thank the dollar beers), but they apparently don’t know much on the subject. Since when does asking college kids to spout off any CNN or Fox News soundbyte (depending on their affiliation) they remember count as journalism? If this was a blog or piece on the Wonkette, I would laugh and feel bad for the poor interns, whose friends might happen upon their inane comments while deviating away from facebook for a few seconds. Rather, this is a respected newspaper reporting on a real political issue in the ARTS section and assigning a highly biased and telescopic viewpoint on a large and diverse group of young underdogs who are not riding any media/celebrity exuberance bandwagons.

Siggins says he struggles with some of his party's more culturally orthodox ideals. "Because I am in this generation and was raised in a pro-gay-marriage era, I am only a little bit against gay marriage, but only a little, like 53 percent to 47," he says. "I have about a dozen gay friends, 30 or 20, and they would all back me up. In college, I used to have lunch with them. . . . We went ice skating once."

The writers say young conservatives are alienated by the rest of our generation who “voted overwhelmingly for Obama” according to “network exit polls.” Besides exit poll accuracy, the 66% to 33% numbers speaks more interestingly about the conservative movement rather than our generation I believe. America’s youth has been “rallied” in 200 and 2004, most famously by MTV’s Rock the Vote, but with Gore and Kerry on the ballots, the young vote did not impress. Were the democratic youth a ‘lost generation?’ Last year conservatives had a moderate old guy that was quoted as not using email on the ballot. Not a great rallying point. This journalistic issue was not addressed in the article. No surprise.

Instead, the article reads as a National Geographic piece from 1920 would on indigenous natives in the rainforest, labeling any deviance from the norm of our species as weird and mystical. One example is an intern quoted “might be out of a job after his internship ends in May.” Really? Not all interns have jobs already lined up 3 months out? Does his internship even count as a job right now? He is in college!

Maybe the Post should hire some of the quoted young conservatives to better report on this issue. I know this is hopeless as the three young “conservative writers – such as Julian Sanchez, Megan McArdle and Will Wilkinson,” probably would not be hired at the Post, as they obviously have not even done any background checks on other writers they report on. FYI Post Editors: These three writers are NOT conservative! They don’t even label themselves republicans. This is such a dumb mistake I don’t even think it warrants a retraction; just a slap in the forehead.

Also, if a reporter actually did some research on any of the points in this article, they would find there are a lot of conservative jobs for non-profits, fundraising and even on the Hill. The writers obviously don’t know that non-profits that lean a cartain political direction get MORE donations when their party is in the minority. Look at the rise of moveon.org during the early years of the Bush administration as an example. As far as trouble finding any job, the reporters fail to mention, what is it called again? The RECESSION. They quote a White House staffer leaving DC “because, among other reasons, he couldn’t find a job.” What reasons? My sister moved to South Carolina after the election, leaving the republican fundraising sector, because she wanted to and had decided to move on from politics. Is that an ‘other reason?’

There is opportunity here not just for those chasing “prestigious careers in politics” as the authors attest all young conservatives are, but for young people who believe in conservative principles like “personal responsibility and… the strength of the individual.” Yes, that is a quote from Obama’s speech Tuesday night, but those are OUR principles, OUR strength and OUR future. Maybe we are an “Obama generation.”

But only during his speeches.

The Audacity of Ignorance

This is a guest post by reader Petr Weifen:

If the last decade has proven anything, it's that Americans can be pretty cavalier about debt. Yet while American consumers seem to have gotten the message and are trying to reduce their personal debtload, President Obama has introduced a federal budget that’s unconscionable in its reckless attitude towards amassing new debt.

A little history might be useful. In 1980, the US Federal debt stood at $930 billion or 33% of that year's GDP. At the end of 2008, the Federal debt was slightly below $10 trillion (that’s $10,000,000,000,000) and represented 70% of the 2008 GDP. Most reasonable people would conclude that it's time to put down the debt-pipe and exhibit some fiscal discipline. Not President Obama…..he's running to the house fire with a gasoline hose.

The 2010 budget published yesterday by the Office of Management & Budget is the most fantastic document produced since Theodor Geisel's death. Under the Obama budget, the nations' debt will jump an astounding $4 trillion by 2010 to 96% (!!) of the projected GDP. And that’s just the warmup. Like a subprime borrower who just refi'd the house, we're going on a crazed and inspired national spending spree. By 2016, we cross the magical 100% debt/GDP level (boldly joining the five other global economic powers who have crossed the 100% debt threshold -- Jamaica, Japan, Italy, Lebanon & Zimbabwe). Finally, by the last year of the OMB projection (2018), we'll have racked up $23.1 trillion in debt or 101% of the 2018 projected GDP. Go USA!!!

What are the consequences of this debt burden? First, the risk of inflation looms very large. Like any person or company that has borrowed heavily, the next incremental dollar of debt is likely to cost more. As the US has taken on more leverage (debt), the risk of default increases which results in investors demanding higher returns (in this case, interest rates) to compensate them for the increased risk. This will lead to higher interest rates for both individuals and companies as the borrowing rate for the US government sets the baseline for all types of personal and corporate debt.

The second impact of the US debt level is more subtle. Economists generally agree that increases in government expenditures increases aggregate demand in the economy. In a fully employed economy, in addition to raising prices, the increase in demand also leads to a rise in interest rates. And this invariably leads to lower spending by the private sector as business have less available cash for capital goods such as plant, equipment, and structures. Thus, the high level of government spending (and its consequences) reduces the amount of capital investment that businesses make. And as lower capital investments are made today, the private capital inherited by future generations is likewise smaller, implying that the level of output (GDP) enjoyed by them will be lower. This lower level of output is thus the ultimate burden of the debt and it is a burden that is largely shifted forwarded to future generations.

President Obama campaigned on the promise of "change". He's right about one thing -- this budget, if enacted, will irrevocably change the futures for our children and grandchildren. We called our predecessors the "Greatest Generation". I shudder to think of the names that our kids will coin for us when they realize the burden we're leaving for them.

Trust.

Yep. Trust is hard to come by in DC.

With all the numbers thrown around by analysts and pundits, it's hard to keep track of who is spinning what. One federal office had their profile recently raised a few points when they announced that the economy would be better off if Obama's stimulus package wasn't passed at all.

The Congressional Budget Office.

Here's a little background:

• They are mandated by Congress to provide objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget.
• CBO was founded on July 12, 1974, with the enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (P.L. 93-344). The agency began operating on February 24, 1975.
• The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly appoint the CBO Director, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees. The term of office is four years, with no limit on the number of terms a Director may serve. Either House of Congress, however, may remove the Director by resolution. At the expiration of a term of office, the person serving as Director may continue in the position until his or her successor is appointed.
• CBO currently employs about 235 people. The agency is composed primarily of economists and public policy analysts. About three-quarters of its professional staff hold advanced degrees, mostly in economics or public policy.

At the end of the day, you're going to be hardpressed to find any organization more non-partisan and capable than the CBO. Want budget info without an agenda? Go here.

Such arrogance.

From HuffPo:

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Listen, you schmuck. Petraeus isn't some political campaign rival of yours. Don't treat him as such by leaking quotes like these to the media.

You want to disagree and do it your way, Mr. President? Fine. That's your right as Commander-in-Chief. But when you make this more about exuding political cojones rather than making the right decision, it lessens confidence in you. For the umpteenth time, this isn't a political campaign anymore. These are real-life decisions. Act like it.

This says it all.

I'm your huckleberry.

As expected, John Kasich has drawn first blood in the 2012 Ohio Governor's race. Many wondered when the campaign would begin. They can mark down February 25th as that day.

In today's Columbus Dispatch, Kasich made his most direct attack yet:

At a time when Ohio's economy is in a death spiral and the state continues to shed jobs, it is irrespons-ible for our state's leadership to increase spending based on a one-time bailout from the federal government. Ohio's families are tightening their belts and making tough spending decisions. But Gov. Ted Strickland consistently has refused to make tough decisions, and his two-year budget plan puts the state's long-term economic future at risk.

Over the past two years, he has made a series of bad choices that have contributed to the state's economic woes. In laying out his previous two-year plan back in 2007, Strickland played games with the budget, allowing spending in fiscal year 2009 to exceed revenues by almost $1 billion. The negative effects of this were compounded in 2008, when tax revenue fell dramatically because of the souring economy.

[...]

Last month, the governor unveiled his outline for addressing Ohio's problems. Unfortunately, rather than a sound fiscal plan for Ohio to live within its means, Ohioans received a misguided plan that increased spending and pinned the economic future on a handout from the federal government, for which Strickland for months had been lobbying his friends in Washington. The problem is that this is merely a bandage. It allows the governor to kick the can down the road rather than make tough choices now that will put the state on a sure footing. A governor with his hand out for more money is not the type of leaders that instills confidence or will bring jobs to Ohio.

He nails it. Strickland simply hasn't shown the courage to bring Ohio back from the brink. Our Republic, our very economy, wasn't designed to rely on a far off Capital to make everything better everytime things go bad. It's up to Ohioans to fix Ohio. And only one man understands that -- John Kasich.

Strickland's strategy is to hold on for dear life and hope voters don't connect Ohio's failures to him. That strategy has worked....'til now. His rival has called him out from hiding. Will Strickland bite? Probably not. Not until the Ohio media does a better job of recognizing his Neville Chamberlain style of leadership. Kasich's willingness to call down the fire is just the first step. But many more salvos will be needed. The media needs to hear the criticism to report on it.

What can you do? Sign up at Rechargeohio.com. Write letters to the editor expressing your frustration with Strickland. Spread the word.

Strickland called down the thunder. Well now he's got it.



UPDATE: Wow. Ask and you shall receive. This morning's Columbus Dispatch takes up the Kasich banner and runs with it.

Gov. Ted Strickland and the General Assembly have a fiduciary obligation to draw up a spending plan that looks beyond the next budget cycle.

Strickland's $54.7 billion blueprint for fiscal 2010-11 falls well short of that, meaning that the subsequent budget might require a steep tax increase or spending cuts far deeper than the ones the state is now experiencing.

Using $7 billion in one-time money for long-term obligations is irresponsible. If Strickland's plan presumes a future tax increase or some new revenue source such as gambling, he should say so now, not after the 2010 election when he is expected to run for a second term.

[...]

As presented, Strickland's budget is been more of a political document than a fiscal one.

Would I have liked them to mention Kasich? Sure. But it's very good news to see the media finally knocking off pieces of the Strickland armor.

Folks, this is exactly how it's supposed to work. Once the opposition speaks up, the media reports. But don't expect to see an all-out Kasich assault anytime soon. This is just the first shot in a long war, and we don't want to use up all the ammunition early.

Just a thought...

...but do all the people complaining about Jindal criticizing stimulus spending on Volcano monitoring understand what the supposed point of the stimulus was?

28 days later.

Yep. Four weeks. That's all it took for the Strickland Administration to start backing off the no new taxes pledge taken at the State of the State last month. [yes, we'll ignore all the Governor's 'fee' increases just for this post]

Per the Dayton Daily News:

Is the Strickland administration backing off a bit on the governor’s vow not to raise taxes in tough times?

On Wednesday, Feb. 25, Rep. Tyrone Yates, D-Cincinnati, asked budget director Pari Sabety if it “wouldn’t make good sense” for the state to take a look at hiking taxes on “other tobacco products” - chewing tobacco, snuff, cigars and smoking tobacco - to pay for a tobacco cessation program to helps hold down Medicaid costs.

[...]

Asked about Strickland’s “no tax hike” vow, she said “that’s correct.”

Does the vow apply to the tobacco tax, she was asked.

“You know, you’ve got to look at what’s out there,” she said.

Good. Because working-class Ohioans really need more money out of their pockets. That is EXACTLY what would help them right about now.

Moron.

I guess, just like Obama, Strickland's promises come with an expiration date.

Ka-POWIE!!!

The Bobby Jindal I know and love showed up this morning on The Today Show.

Clearly, last night was an imposter.

Enjoy.