Obama’s Slippage Continues

President Obama has reached a level of near-parity among likely voters. Strong approvers in the Rasmussen survey outnumber strong disapprovers by only four points, 35 percent to 31. Overall, Obama registers a 55 percent approval rating (against 43 percent disapproval), his lowest total so far and a rather weak showing for a President this early in his term.

Which explains, at least in part, Obama’s appearance on the Jay Leno show last night. I think the administration believes that he needs to resume a campaign mode in order to rally support for his policies (which has never been high) and try to stop the erosion of his own personal standing. I doubt, though, that his West Coast swing helped much, as the news was dominated by AIG hysteria, which can only hurt the President.

Are We A Banana Republic?

I’m stupefied to find that some people are defending the constitutionality of Nancy Pelosi’s discriminatory, confiscatory and retroactive tax on people who receive bonus income from companies that got TARP money. I would have considered it a bright line rule that the government can’t identify a class of unpopular people and impose a special tax on them. What’s next? A 100% income tax on registered Republicans, retroactive to last year? If Pelosi’s bill passes muster, why not?

One theory, presumably, is that since the government is contributing TARP money it can put whatever strings it wants on that money. (Including, I guess, strings imposed after the fact that would deprive employees of agreed-upon consideration for work they’ve already performed.) But that theory has been rejected in a variety of contexts. The government cannot condition its spending on a relinquishment of constitutional rights. Here’s a thought experiment: how about putting a condition (retroactively, of course) on TARP money that says no employee of any bank that receives such money (or his spouse) can get an abortion? Would Nancy Pelosi think that’s constitutional?

Wells Fargo didn’t want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi’s proposed tax. Say you’re a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you’re married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it’s included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.

If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution–no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny. As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi’s proposed confiscatory tax–total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions–is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry–imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation–then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.

via: Powerline

Sticking With the Narrative, Dammit!

We generally write our own stuff and don’t just quote others, but sometimes you have to make an exception for Mark Steyn:

In turbulent times, it’s good to know some things never change. After a week in which President Obama thanked himself for inviting him to the White House, compared AIG executives to suicide bombers, and did the first Presidential retard joke on national TV, I was impressed to find that Slate is bravely keeping up its Bushism Of The Day feature.

Four more years!

Yes, a lot of Democrats are saying to themselves, This isn’t happening…it can’t be happening!

Memo to Republicans: Hang Tough!

The Democrats have been taking a beating on a number of fronts lately, but the most important relates to their pork bill. House Republicans opposed it unanimously, and the public noticed. In today’s Rasmussen survey, the Republicans have closed the gap on the generic Congressional preference poll to four points–down from seven points a week earlier.

Rasmussen attributes the GOP surge to “the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill proposed by House Democrats.” The pork bill needs to be hung around the necks of the Democrats, not attributed generally to “Congress.” The biggest danger now is that a group of Republican Senators could make a bad deal, agreeing to minor changes in the Dems’ bill while selling out their party by allowing the Dems to claim that the pork bill has bipartisan support. The Senate needs to hang tough, like the House, and either bring about fundamental reform in the government’s approach to economic conditions, or else vote No. Unanimously.

Found on Powerline

Obama, Petraeus on Collision Course?

That’s what Gareth Porter if the Inter Press Service says:

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

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.”

Take it for what it’s worth. Given how well things are going in Iraq, and how little interest Obama’s voters seem to have in holding him to campaign promises, I find it hard to believe that he can’t find an approach that will satisfy the generals while yet providing him with a fig leaf.

Still, of all of the foreign policy snafus that have plagued the early days of Obama’s administration, the possibility of a public conflict with General Petraeus is the most immediately threatening. Gen. Petraeus got the loudest applause of anyone who was introduced at the Super Bowl yesterday.

Found on Powerline