First Conservative Blog

Do They Know it’s a Recession?

At a time when many Americans need money now, a shocking new analysis by USA Today of federal salary information shows a dramatic increase in the number of federal employees who are making six-figure incomes. The numbers make it seem as if these workers are far from feeling the effects of the recession.

Employees previously making $ 100,000 or more saw an increase of between 14 and 19 percent in their salaries, before factoring in bonuses and overtime pay. That’s an awful lot of money for those that already are well off – and at a time when more people are hurting than ever.

And the Rich Get …Well, You Know the Rest

The number of civilian employees in the Defense Department earning $ 150,000 salaries increased from 1,868 at the end of 2007 to 10,100 in June of the current year. This news can be hard to swallow at a time when millions of Americans have lost their jobs and are struggling to make ends meets. A lot of people would love to be working, but can’t find even a basic job.

Conversely, federal hiring has been on a steady rise in recent months. In the last 18 months, the Transportation Department has bumped 1,689 people to over $ 170,000 – compared to only ONE person earning that before now.

Is this where it Ends?

Perhaps this would be easier to stomach if this were the extent of it. The truth is that the entire federal government is raising salaries, which is asinine considering we have a record deficit and debt. Six figure salaries are less common in these areas. Meanwhile in the rest of the country we desperately need money now.

How is this Justified?

According to Jessica Klement, the government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, these employees work in industries that require greater amounts of training or skills, and are working for less then their private sector counterparts. The USA Today reports that Klement said these workers, according to Klement, made 26 percent less than counterparts in the private sector.

Does their Story Hold Water?

USA Today also looked at federal employee salary stats from the Office of Personnel Management (except workers in Congress, Postal Service, the White House, the military, and at “intelligence” agencies – their track record justifies quotes). From the study they found that the average private sector salary was $ 41,331 and the average federal employee is making $ 71,206.

Shocking, but True

For the majority of Americans who really need money now, this is going to be some tough news to hear. The previous administration approved pay increases of 3 percent in January of 2008 and 3.9 percent in January of 2009 across the board for federal employees. The recommendation of President Obama is to take this down to 2 percent for the beginning of 2010, which may still sound high but is actually the lowest increase since 1975. These raises, among others and modified pay systems, have led to these egregious salary increases.

Conservative Blog Post for December 2, 2009

———————————-

Obama to the Rescue – of the Bush Legacy!

Always endeavoring to show the nation the grave error made in 2000 and 2004, President Barack Obama took it upon himself Tuesday evening to cast more aspersions upon the record of President George W. Bush.  In doing so, though, the current President only highlighted some of the key strengths of the previous President. In doing so, Obama drew some interesting and sharply defined contrasts between Himself and President George W. Bush.  Among these:

1. Bush wasn’t a great politician and despite his mangling of common English syntax and usage, Americans understood him.  After listening to Barack Obama, the only thing clear is that the current President doesn’t really care about winning victory on the battlefield; he only cares about extricating himself from all blame should another terrorist attack occur.  Obama is a fabulous politician and the best slick talker of our generation – meaning that under no circumstances should He be trusted at his word.  Bush was frequently so ineloquent that he always kept the message simple and to the point – in the case of battlefield decisions, the points were victory and freedom. Obama’s points were… well… delivered in teleprompter-aided flawlessness.  It takes review of the transcript to remember exactly what those points were.
2. Bush led the nation to victory in Iraq.  This is particularly aggravating to the Chosen One as the typical liberal philosophy holds that victory can only be won in peaceful ways.  Bush chose a war in Iraq to attract a sizeable number of the world’s terrorists to a battlefield where US forces could kill them.  As an added bonus, one whole lot of Iraqis decided they wanted to help.  In the end, George W. Bush got it right in the nation building game with a two-fold strategy -   a. kill the bad guys and b. show the good guys what life is like with a little glimmer of freedom.  Obama showed that he doesn’t understand either of these points or simply doesn’t care.  Without so much as mentioning the concept of personal freedom or victory, the President treated the speech as if he was announcing a business decision to change the formula for Ben and Jerry’s Coffee Heath Bar Crunch.   He left America wondering if the entire Afghan venture was just to deny the Taliban a stronghold or if there was a much more meaningful objective worth sacrificing our best and most courageous young people for – like American safety and world peace through victory.   A mangled Bush speech –for its clarity if not delivery- was never missed more.
3. The military under Bush’s leadership overran Afghanistan in 50 days.  It took Obama 80 days just to think about it.  The President’s decision was so simplistic that it certainly didn’t take 80 days to concoct.  Bush would have made a decision to send all the troops needed within a matter of hours.  This choice just isn’t that complicated.  Obama needed the 80 days to concoct the speech.
4. In attempting to deride failures of the previous administration, the mere fact that Obama brought up the subject of GW Bush reminded the nation that Bush – despite several failures and obstacles – delivered victory in Iraq and kept the country safe from another terrorist attack.  By bringing up the tactics of the Bush administration, Obama only reiterated that Bush was victorious and Obama, well, hasn’t lost yet, but is looking for a way to extricate himself without calling it failure.  And for the record, should another mass terror attack occur on American soil, voters will hold President Obama to account. 
5. Democrats loved to lampoon the “Mission Accomplished” banner displayed when George Bush declared an end to offensive operations.  The Mission Accomplished speech was delivered to an adoring throng of Navy service people who fully understood that Bush had their best interests at the forefront of all decisions and wouldn’t risk their lives without damned good reasons.  By failing to even define what ‘victory’ or even ‘success’ looked like to Him, President Obama again highlighted the main differences between Himself and His predecessor.  Obama failed to provide a good reason why these young people should risk their lives for the mission – aside from the fact that it is their job. He needed a banner behind him that read “Mission Something”

So it appears that the job of reconstructing the legacy of George W. Bush is well underway.  And the contractor for the job doesn’t understand that he is doing the work.

Obama Releases Afghanistan Strategy – A Full Naval Blockade   

After floundering for months seeking a way to win the Afghan war without fighting it, President Obama released his long-awaited plan just after close of the Sunday news cycle.  “In order to starve out radical Muslim criminals, I have ordered the naval forces of the United States to enforce a full military blockade of Afghanistan” said the President in an Oval Office Announcement just after noon Eastern Time on Sunday. 

The President noted that the country needs to be open to new ideas and strategies.    He continued, “I believe America needs a new strategy to win in Afghanistan and needs a strategy that will minimize risk to our men and women in uniform.  By enforcing a naval blockade, no criminal elements will be allowed to enter or leave Afghanistan by sea.  This strategy will choke off their supply lines and end the war with a minimum of bloodshed.  Besides, the Navy hasn’t done much of the fighting and it is only fair for them to take their turn.”

The news conference was also attended by Admiral Mike Mullen – current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel.  Admiral Mullen seemed subdued during the announcement.  When asked how he felt about the new strategy, he stated “well, the Commander in Chief has made his decision and our job is to carry it out.”  When asked about the wisdom of the new strategy, Mullen shrugged and said “we presented plan after plan to the President and he found fault with each one.  Finally Vice President Biden piped up that we should just surround Afghanistan with ships, to which the President responded, ‘Now we have some new ideas!’  And that is what the President has decided to do.”  Mullen, when asked what the first step would be to carry out the President’s order, replied that the first order of business was to host a meeting at the nearest bar to the White House.  “My staff is already there waiting to complete the details” he said.  Several reporters then asked to be included.  “Fine” said Mullen”we are all in this together now.”

Later during the President’s remarks, Obama was asked what was to become of US and allied troops on the ground fighting in Afghanistan if the US were to choke off all inbound and outbound commerce and traffic.  The President responded that our troops won’t need to fight because the poor impoverished Muslims will be weakened from lack of supply.   Therefore troop levels will be reduced immediately.   “It is only a matter of time before the enemy cracks under the pressure of a naval blockade” said Obama, adding “this strategy demonstrates the resolve and ingenuity of this administration to those that really don’t like us very much.”  “It certainly does,” remarked Fox News’ Brit Hume out loud.  “Thank You, Brit” answered the President, adding “I hope Fox News can be more supportive now that we have come up with a truly different plan to change the course of the war.”  Hume had no response.

The President concluded his remarks by thanking Vice President Biden and Rahm Emanuel for coming up with a truly unique solution to a difficult problem.  “Sometimes it is good to get a non military opinion when something unique and new is needed” he said.  President Obama also said that he was concerned for the troops we were sending into battle in Afghanistan.  “After speaking with the governors of our 57 states about National Guard strength, I concluded that our ground troops needed a break.  That is why we are turning the job over to the US Navy.” 

Early signs of support for the President’s plans were already emerging in the early evening from liberal support groups.  A spokesperson for the National Education Association – the teachers unions – applauded the idea saying that this is the type of decision and creativity our new generation of leadership is capable of producing using education gained in public schools.   

Media Matters, a George Soros-funded media watchdog group also applauded the plan, saying that had John McCain been elected, the war wouldn’t be over for many years.  “Under the Obama plan, this war will end very quickly.” 

Cosnervative Bloggers occasionally send in some interesting questions….  Here is one!

Who was the British guy on Jon Stewarts Political Humor Television show?

He had black hair and a strong british accent, maybe a bit southern Britain. I’m from America and I saw him talking to Jon Stewart in a very funny yet immature way… I remember him comparing the economy to a fire breathing dragon and he mentioned fireballs and Jon counter attacked with a anti fireball wall or something… Also, where can I find this video? It was very funny! N

That would be John Oliver.  He also has some cameo appearances in Demitri Martins new show!  Just search YouTube and I’ll bet you can come up with the video clip.

Conservative Blog post for November 4, 2009

————————–

Obama’s New Paradox – Create More Hope or Fear?

EJ Dionne writes this morning that President Obama needs to invest a little time in creating an atmosphere of ‘hope’ in the country.  Dionne captured this quote from New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg following Governor Jon Corzine’s loss on Tuesday: 

“There are two things happening,” the New Jersey Democrat noted. “One is fear. The other is punishment. Voters fear for themselves and their families, and they want to punish anyone who got them into this condition.” 

This brilliant observation underscores why the GOP – if it can maintain a clear conservative message in 2010 – will absolutely wallop liberal and even so called ‘moderate’ incumbents.  Voters should indeed punish those that make their lives difficult.  It may surprise Dionne that this is the entire reason for electing leaders.  Those that serve us well receive continued employment.  Those that don’t get to stand in the unemployment line with the rest of us.

The really interesting part of this though surrounds what President Obama did or did not do to create his party’s election disasters in Virginia and New Jersey.  Exit polls repeatedly note that the condition of the economy and government spending are top areas of concern.  The fear generated by driving the economy into stagnation by state and federal governments was clearly acknowledged by voters on Tuesday.  And as Lautenberg notes, voters want to punish those that got them into this condition.   At least voters are now paying attention.

President Obama has created a hugely problematic condition for his party.  In order to win election, He had to gin up animosity and ‘fear’ about the Bush administration and about conservative leadership.  Then he had to gin up more fear about the economy to get the Stimulus passed.  And Rahm Emmanuel’s famous quote about never allowing a good crisis to go to waste kept the fear machine in high gear.  It now seems that no one at the White House figured out that sooner or later, voters would want to see some results from mortgaging their grandchildren’s future.

So what does the President do now?  He has already spent a huge amount of our money on the Stimulus package which will only produce bloated state governments and rapidly increasing inflation in 2010.  Job recovery is already choked off because the pressure the Stimulus borrowing puts on interest rates only drives commercial finance costs upwards.  And without an assurance that reasonably priced capital will be available for growth and expansion, business will not have any reason to grow and hire workers. 

President Obama certainly added to the atmosphere of fear, but now that trail is well-worn and voters are sick and tired of hearing about how after one full year, the current economic problems are still the fault of George W. Bush.  Even CNN is bound to be skeptical of administration claims that this is simply the situation the White House ‘inherited.’ 

Democrats are at their core – emotionalists.  As fear is the most powerful of emotions, Democrats have continually endeavored to increase the level of fear in the population to the point where it reached an apex in Virgina and New Jersey.   Now that these elections are concluded, the focus of voter anger is squarely directed at the Obama administration.   One year is plenty of time to start making a positive difference in the economy and there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that the economy has only worsened, despite the 3rd quarter GDP numbers being propped up by Cash for Clunkers and a trillion dollar Stimulus bill.   And the 2010 inflation will only make matters worse. 

Inspiring ‘Hope’ would take the energy out of the drive for taking over health care and driving energy taxes through the roof.   Hope would imply that the economy is improving.  Even Wunderkind Tim Geithner understands that the economy will not improve next year and only offers vague promises of stagnant jobs growth.    Besides, if Obama comes out with a modern “Morning in America” speech, it will only provide fodder for the Tea Partiers and others who understand what life is really like in American neighborhoods.  And deep down, every Obama administrator understands that a liberal takeover of institutions like health care and energy production cannot be achieved in an atmosphere of optimism. 

So look for the fear and the absolutely irrational blaming of GW Bush to continue.  MSNBC will certainly help in the effort, but the interesting player will be CNN.  After turning in a solid last place performance on election night, the CNN wizards may finally be compelled to look at what their fawning adoration of this President has done to their ratings – as well as explore how this may impact their paychecks.  

CNN is now the confirmed laughing-stock of cable news – losing even to the lunatics at MSNBC.  Unless the network returns to some form of investigative and honest journalism, the organization is headed for a terrible financial disaster.  Looking critically at the Obama administration is about this network’s only ticket out of the sewage pool it has flung itself into.  Should CNN decide to abandon its role in Obama worship, they have a shot at survival.   This would make CNN an unreliable partner with the White House for ginning up the fear they need to justify continued government expansion.

Obama really has no choice.  There will be few messages of hope in 2010 and fear should continue to be the dominant theme for 2010.  Without it, Obama can’t take over health care or energy.  But Americans want results.  One year plenty of time to wait.  And come next November, the ‘Hope and Change’ voters bring will be sweeping the House clear and putting a stop to Obama’s reckless government expansion.

Conservative Blog video post for November 4.

These things become available from time to time, so we post ‘em up for your enjoyment!  And after getting a little life pumped back into Conservatism yesterday, we can take a second to regroup and enjoy!

“Social Security: The Musical” throws just about every pop culture reference into this clip about the impending doom of the Social Security deficit. They want to privatize the social security pot and that means old people like Groovin’ Granny will have to work until they die. Celebs like Jay Leno, the American Idol judges, Snoop Dogg, Donald Trump, the Clintons, and the 2008 presidential hopefuls weigh in on the problem.

Duration : 0:2:16

Read the rest of this entry »

Conservative Blog Post – November 4 supplemental..

Another interesting reader question:

Would Obama be comfortable in Canada’s Liberal Party?

Reply:

Probably… He would be more comfortable as a member of the Canadian Socialist Party.

Conservative Blog post – supplemental for November4.

We get these questions from time to time….  This one came in about what makes good political humor.

————————————-

Woody Allen’s once said that as a humorist “You’re either funny or you’re not”  Is this true?

Response:

Not much is funnier than Woody Allen – particularly when he opines about political or serious social issues.  His reputation as a comedian overrides anything he utters, so even when he tries to be serious, he winds up generating laughs.  

This especially occurs when ‘ol Woody tries to comment about Conservative beliefs about family and social values.   Given his own history of rather intimate relationships with step children, how can he be taken seriously?  In truth, Allen isn’t taken very seriously…

This doesn’t really answer the question, but Woody Allen’s views are seriously funny and worthy of Saturday Night Live. 

Conservative Blog post for October 27, 2009.

An Inconvenient – and Obvious – Truth

In what is turning into a bitter October for the left, truth rearing its ugly head for our liberal friends.  The NYT reported this morning that Fox News is the dominant cable news provider.  What a shock.   It also reported that CNN was dead last for the month of October.   And to make matters more embarrassing, even Anderson Cooper who once tried to make jokes about ‘teabagging’ common in the news cycle, saw his show place behind leftist lunatic Keith Olberman.  Losing the ratings game to Olberman should be sufficient cause to find another profession.

Some years ago when Rupert Murdoch – President of the Fox Network holding company – testified before Congress, he was asked why he didn’t have a liberal running an opinion show on Fox.  “If I could find one that could get the ratings, I’d hire him” replied the Chairman.   The Congressman couldn’t understand and didn’t follow up.

The formerly main stream media has seen its flagship finally hit bottom.  With CNN resting in the cellar, the question arises about what to do now.  First, as any business usually does, the analysis begins about what caused the collapse.  However, in typical liberal fashion, execs at CNN have responded that they were the victims of the news cycle and that things should turn around when the news becomes more interesting.    Establishing victimhood is a key element in retaining one’s job.

As far as being the victim of a poor news cycle, the NYT piece fails to follow up on why these same execs don’t think that an attempted government takeover of American health care or a Presidential assault on another news organization, or an upcoming assault on the Second Amendment wouldn’t qualify as interesting news.  The truth is….the public is weary of the endless Obama cheerleading on most networks.

Of course cheerleading for liberal policy ideas is the key element in CNN’s decent; a continuous recitation of liberal talking points combined with a liberal’s view of what is working in the economy strikes most viewers as severely disconnected from reality.  CNN trumpeted this morning that the recession is over!  For the 10% of Americans who are ‘officially’ out of work and for those additional 5% to 10% who have either given up looking or are putting their MBA to work at McDonalds, hearing that the recession is over because the GDP posted a minute gain – is just silly.  And to allow the administration to continually blame others for the current situation is absolutely unbelievable and childish.  After all, most parents don’t allow their children to escape responsibility for things they’ve done by blaming others.   Most news viewers don’t allow their provider to get away with it either.

In the end, the news ratings game is a direct function of credibility.  Reporting that the recession is over, that Americans would be better off under a government run health care system (where it has arguably failed just about everywhere else), and that the Stimulus has helped create or save jobs, only hurts the credibility of those reporting it.   A critical rather than a cheerleading journalistic organization is one the public trusts. 

Inability to learn from the mistakes of others is also a hallmark of failed organizations.  CBS blazed the credibility trail when it hired Katie Couric.  Believing that Couric would attract viewers because of her cute personality was a belief that proved to be an expensive failure after one week with Katie in the Cronkite chair.   CBS mistakenly believed that cuteness and performance quality was more important than credibility.  After the one-week grace period where viewers ventured to the CBS Evening News to check out the former cheerleader in her new role, viewers returned to their old habits and returned CBS to the dumper.  Couric’s cheerleader personality and performance quality were in fact fairly good; it just wasn’t what the public wanted.

Liberals and liberal organizations always wrestle with the issue of ‘what the public wants.’  When what the public wants and what the liberals want diverge, liberals focus on the need to ‘educate’ the public.’  For that they rely on CNN, MSNBC and others except Fox.  American leftists view themselves as morally and intellectually superior and have difficulty understanding when anyone disagrees with them.  Education usually takes place with emotional diatribes that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman deliver, but even a hard core American lefty has trouble watching either of these two for any length of time. 

One year after the Obama election and the liberal sweep through Washington DC, the public is having difficulty watching the same liberal spewing points for any length of time.  Most of the major media have adopted a cheerleading role for the Obama administration and for the Democrat Party and as a direct result, their ratings have tanked. 

Fox News has simply performed journalism and has – because of its willingness to challenge governmental authority and policy – completely overrun its cable competitors.  In fact, most Fox News evening programs attract more viewers than MSNBC, HLN and CNN combined.    Advertisers will be none too anxious to continue funding losers that really don’t attract that many viewers.  Additionally, advertisers will be less willing to associate their products and services with an organization that the public believes is biased and not completely trustworthy.

It is no wonder that the Obama administration has chosen to freeze out Fox from covering the news.  Unfortunately, given the administration’s handling of other issues, this only damages the credibility of the other networks.  As a result, Fox ratings have continued to soar. 

The inconvenient and obvious truth to media ratings is that liberalism is losing its grip on Washington because it is losing its grip on the American voter.  Reality always causes liberalism to collapse.   Now that voters are faced with huge income and energy tax increases on the middle classes to fund the federal debt, and as Obama has not turned out to be anything remotely close to being a ‘bridge builder’ in Washington, liberals have resorted to using the media to ‘educate’ voters.  Unfortunately, most voters have tuned into Fox and are missing the lesson.

For more.. click here for the NYT write up.

Conservative Blog post for Monday, October 26.

Weekend Ostrich Award – Health Care

For choosing to bury one’s head in the sand, Washington’s Jim McDermott wins this weekend’s Ostrich Award for finding some reason to opine that Obamacare is “gaining support.”

From the Sunday NYT   “the mentality in the country is different,” (as opposed to when Hillary launched her effort to take over American health care) said Mr. McDermott, a psychiatrist who has served in Congress for two decades. “In 1993, we were talking about the uninsured as ‘them.’ Now it turns out this is for us. When a bank like Washington Mutual in Seattle lays off 3,000 people, they lose health insurance. Millions of people with insurance are asking, ‘What if I lose my job?’ ”

Actually, because of the Congressman’s past support of the Stimulus, many workers are asking “how can I get a job?”   Most people that currently have health care are primarily worried about what their new health care would cost.   The ads run by Obamacare advocates claim that medical decisions will be made by “you and your doctor.”  What they don’t say is what treatments you will be allowed to receive and when you would be allowed to receive it.   You and your doctor may decide on having a hip replacement surgery, but the Obamacare boards may very well deny your application based on their cost/benefit analysis.  You and your doctor decided to get a hip replaced, but the government wouldn’t cover the cost.

Many of us remember the psych majors who couldn’t get a real job.  McDermott still hasn’t found one.

Reverse Ostrich Award – Jobs

This one is a ‘Reverse Ostrich Award’ owing to the story’s rather surprising source.   Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau from the SF Chronicle of all places is getting one right…. “Forget a jobless recovery,” she writes, “the economy may be entering a recovery with job losses.” 

Of course this sent the leftists who by definition flunked free enterprise economics scurrying.  

Top White House economist Christina Romer of UC Berkeley (where leftist Econ majors are held in the same esteem as God) told Congress on Thursday that employment growth could remain “painfully weak” through next year, and that the largest effect from the $787 billion stimulus enacted in February, mainly aid to states, is past. By mid-2010, she said, the stimulus will no longer contribute to growth.

Romer will be interested to learn that the stimulus is strangling growth right now because of the inevitable inflationary expectation that occurs when the federal government commits to borrow an incredible sum of money and has to resort to printing at least some of what it needs.  Additionally, business is holding back on long term investment because federal government competition in the world financial markets to fund the Stimulus spending is only driving interest rates up.  Engineers, architects and other professionals that rely on the availability of reasonably priced, long term capital availability are cutting staffs as current contracts expire.  They won’t be hiring back any time soon.

Lochhead points out one other issue that those in San Francisco endeavor to ignore.

“Economists are puzzled as to why job growth has slowed, citing everything from higher health care costs, to higher productivity, to Chinese currency manipulation.  The answer is, we don’t know,” said Tim Bartik, a liberal economist with the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Michigan who is proposing a tax credit for employers who hire new workers.  (Where have we heard this before?) At a cost of $21,000 per job created, he said, a tax credit is far cheaper than the average $112,000 cost of each job created by the stimulus, as calculated by the administration.” Most currently unemployed taxpayers could do very well investing this $112K in a new business of their own. 

This is interesting not only in the description of Bartik as a ‘liberal economist’ but in that he supposedly understands the concept of tax credits.  This blasphemy will not go unpunished in Nancy Pelosi’s district.

This is a ‘Must Read‘ because of the source and unusual content coming from the hub of radical leftist America. 

Obama Hangover

Democrats are facing the possibility of a couple fairly major election losses in the next two weeks.  Governors races in Virginia and normally reliably blue New Jersey have the White House political machine on edge. 

Democrats have reason to be seriously worried.  Losing both elections could be that elusive anchor to reality that the Obama administration struggles to avoid.  When voters pay attention to issues like health care and energy costs instead of political platitudes such as ‘hope and change,’ Democrats are sure losers.

“Democrats are finding that the electricity of 2008 is tough to recapture”  reports the LA Times.  Terming the phenomenon “Obama Hangover,” the Times goes on to manufacture another excuse for a possible Democrat loss – the voters are just overwhelmed and tired. 

Well… not everyone is overwhelmed and tired.  Conservatives are about as energized as at any time since 1984.  An Obama Hangover may spur reasonable and rational behavior in the voting booth for several years to come.