"WaPo's @JRubinBlogger kicks DeMint on way out"

The mixed metaphor notwithstanding (kicking you when you are down + letting the door hit you in the ass on the way out), Byron York's tweet was misleading.  It makes it sound as if DeMint lost his seat or was fired.  In fact, he's moving on to a better paying job at the Heritage Foundation.  Regardless of what you think of DeMint or or the Heritage Foundation, Rubin's blog post was intelligent and spelled out the ways that DeMint has failed to serve conservatives (in Rubin's opinion).  I can imagine some dissent from Rubin's position, but such should be accompanied by facts, arguments, something.  Instead, Mark Levin simply told her to go to hell.

 

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, resorted to punctuation.  Instead of showing how Rubin is not a true conservative, she used scare quotes to make sure that we know that Malkin does not consider her far right enough.  Too bad, this could have been an interesting conversation.

Words are your friends.

Some conservatives have their eyes on how congress spends its time (and your money).  It is not uncommon for congress to spend unnecessary time on ridiculous legislation when they should be considering more important matters.  Yesterday, congress voted (almost unanimously) to remove the word lunatic from all legislation.  Here's how Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin reacted:

Granted, there are more pressing issues right now (though they too could be solved rather quickly and easily--as they no doubt will be when congress does it's homework the night before the fiscal cliff deadline).  Nevertheless, I can easily imagine instances where the word lunatic would be inappropriate in legislation.  To be clear, when I say inappropriate I do not mean offensive.  Rather, I mean entirely inaccurate.  Words have meaning, and when we make legislation regarding medical conditions using terminology which is not recognized by the medical community problems will arise.  As for reports that the word idiot has been allowed to remain in the wording of legislation, this is a term everyone understands.

Obama says US economy "poised to take off".

POTUS has been making claims that the US economy is poised to take off.  Meantime, Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com and others on Twitter are calling the statement laughable.

While the economy may not take off, it seems it is indeed poised to do so if the deficit is any indication.  The deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate since WWII.

I am not attributing this fact to Obama or the WH.  Nevertheless, this seems like a good position from which to take off.  I have no doubt that Congress and POTUS can find a way to screw this up, but calling the statement laughable is a little disingenuous.

(Incidentally, consumer confidence and business spending are both up).

Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's News!

In the past days many bloggers, pundits, journos and commentators have been discussing the Marco Rubio interview in GQ.  In my own blog I pointed to some of the more interesting comments on Rubio's evasion of the question in Paul Krugman's blog over at the New York Times.  More recently, several news organizations and blogs have struck back, defending Rubio and/or attacking media coverage of the story by pointing out that then Senator Obama made almost identical statements at a conference in 2008.

Slate.com's approach to the allegedly unbalanced way the media has treated the story was to note that "willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value".  Michelle Malkin's approach is characteristic, relying heavily on tone and question-begging epithets:

In general, people love to point out hypocrisy; and one could claim that that is what is going on here.  Nevertheless, while pointing out hypocrisy may be somehow satisfying, it is logically irrelevant, and certainly has no bearing on what makes the news.  If I were to critique Rubio's position while maintaining the same position myself, I would be a hypocrite.  However, that would not invalidate my critique, nor would it make my position newsworthy, because I do not have the same standing as Senator Rubio.  Of course the president is newsworthy in this sense.  Nevertheless, "the president said it too" is not newsworthy either.  Why?  Because the issue is not who believes in creationism and who believes in evolution in Washington.  The issue is that certain politicians, and especially politicians on the right, use their religious belief to make policy.  In that sense, their beliefs are relevant and newsworthy.  And, in that same sense, what the president believes regarding creation is about as newsworthy as whether he prefers Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

A followup on Layoff Bomb-gate.

Here is a quick followup to my previous post regarding what is being called the Layoff Bomb (a phrase coined, as far as I can tell, by Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com).  To be sure and to repeat, I am interested in the argument, not in defending ACA nor scolding businesses that may have legitimate reasons to downsize.  The problem here is the narrative.  Malkin's claim was that Obama would be (and now is) responsible for these jobs lost.  As I suggested in my previous post, it is awfully difficult to argue that ACA (Obamacare) was responsible for the losses, since it has yet to be implemented.  In addition, it is designed to have little negative affect on small businesses (as in, they will not be forced to participate).  As it turns out, and as Media Matters is reporting, many of the larger businesses have cited reasons for the layoffs that are entirely unrelated to ACA.  Have a gander.

Obamacare and the Layoff Bomb.

I will say this before I begin: I am not defending the Affordable Care Act in this blog post.  In general, I am not interested in defending one position or another in this blog.  I'm simply interested in distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.  If you are following the politicos on Twitter, you may have noticed the trending story about the 'Layoff Bomb'.  On October 31, Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com predicted that President Obama's reelection would lead to businesses large and small making massive layoffs.  It would appear that she was right (Boeing, Pepsi, ING among many others, including small businesses have announced such immanent layoffs).  Further, there is no doubt that many of these come as a reaction to the reelection, and especially to the perceived consequences of Obamacare.  It is a massive phenomenon with many contributing factors, affecting many employers and employees.  So, for now I will limit my comments to small businesses.  I would like to point out that there is a difference between claiming that businesses are laying off employees as a result of Obamacare and claiming that Obamacare is forcing small businesses to lay off employees--the first is a matter of perception, the second of economic causation.  The first is most certainly true, but the second is a ridiculous claim (for now).  First, Obamacare has yet to take effect.  But more importantly, Obamacare will have different consequences for small businesses than it will for large businesses.  If you define a small business as less than 50 employees, then Obamacare will have no deleterious affect on any small business, since businesses with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the employer responsibilities requirement.  Businesses with fewer than 50 employees make up between 93% and 96% of American businesses.  Thus, the businesses affected will be fewer than 7% (at most).  In addition, small businesses with fewer than 25 employees who opt into the system will receive subsidies to offset the costs of ensuring their employees--up to 35%, up to 50% after 2014.  In the end, certain businesses which are already providing insurance to their employees will actually save money.  All of this is stated in the bill itself, which you can read here.  Thus, Malkin was absolutely right, small businesses (and large ones) do seem to be making layoffs due to the reelection, and specifically our of fear that their businesses could be negatively affected.  In addition, and in general, there will be a tax increase for certain businesses--about a .9% increase for about 3% to 6%.  And I am generally wary of encouraging tax increases that do not affect me (it is always easy to say the other guy should pay for it).  But to claim that Obamacare is destroying small business is tantamount to claiming that Caspar the friendly ghost ate my homework--Caspar does not exist (yet) and even if he were to exist, he is a ghost and doesn't have a digestive system.