Former Tennessee senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson will launch his nationwide radio talk show on March 2, opening with 125 stations, according to the Westwood One syndicate.
The show will air from noon-2 p.m. Monday through Friday opposite Rush Limbaugh, though some stations may delay the broadcast to later in the day. The only Tennessee station signed up thus far is WWTN 99.7 FM in Nashville.
Thompson gave up his role as the district attorney on television’s Law & Order in order to run for president.
This is a great move for Teh Fred, provided that the Broadcast Freedom Act passes. Kate at SDA notes that you can listen here. You can probably find more streaming stations here once he gets started in earnest.
According to John Boehner’s blog, Obama wants to pass a piece of legislation called the “Employee Free Choice Act”. EFCA would deny employees the choice to not surrender a significant portion of their wages to left-wing unions, for use in left-wing political activism, (e.g. – redefining traditional marriage in California).
The post by Kevin on Boehner’s blog explains:
Yesterday, President Obama promised union bosses that “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” referring to the mis-named official title of the bill popularly known as “card check.” Unions came within a few votes of passing “card check” last Congress – and after giving $450 million to the Democratic Party this past election cycle, union bosses are cashing in on their investment by demanding the swift passage of the anti-worker “card check” bill.
Kevin also links to this must-see 6-minute video, produced by the pro-business Chamber of Commerce:
EFCA would cost American jobs because some companies would simply shut down work sites that use expensive unionized labor, rather than pay the additional costs for the same amount of production. They would just ship their plants and jobs overseas. A short policy paper from American Enterprise Institute is cited by Kevin makes the point:
Card check should be seen for what it is: an attempt to rebuild the private-sector union movement by making it dramatically easier for unions to organize American workers. Adding card check to the already heavy burden of U.S. labor and employment law that companies face today will cost the U.S. economy additional jobs.
Allison Kasic of the Independent Women’s Forum released this short research paper on EFCA last week. I think it is ironic that the party that loudly advocates for “making every vote count” and the right to “privacy” would pass a law that hurts voting rights and privacy rights. Allison explains:
Since Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935, most workplaces have organized through secret ballot elections monitored by the National Labor Relations Board. Once organizers have collected signatures from at least 30 percent of workers expressing the desire to unionize, the union submits the information to the company and requests recognition. Companies can choose to recognize the union based solely on this card check, but more regularly request an election.
The privacy of the secret ballot system protects workers from strong-arm tactics by either the unions or the company in question before and after a vote. All of that would change under the EFCA. Elections would no longer be necessary. Instead, a union would be recognized once a majority of workers publicly signed a card supporting unionization. In fact, once a majority of cards have been signed, holding an election would be illegal.
The Heritage Foundation has a slew of papers on EFCA here, including this recent short research paper by James Sherk, which has a lot more detail on EFCA.
This Reuters article explains how Obama is going to attack energy producing oil and natural gas companies in order to save the planet from global warming. Here is the exact quotation from Reuters:
U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday.
In the same article, Senator John Cornyn explains the consequences of this policy:
Senator John Cornyn of Texas criticized the tax increases, saying they would hurt independent energy companies that provide a large share of U.S. oil and gas supplies.
“My view is that higher taxes on small and independent producers here in America will make us more dependent on imported oil and gas while we transition to cleaner energy alternatives, a goal we all share,” said Cornyn. “And it will also hurt job retention and job creation in the energy sector, which provides an awful lot of jobs in this country.”
Let me also note that consumers are going to pay the price for raising taxes, because energy producing companies are just going to raise their prices to pay for the tax increase. And if Obama either fixes prices or nationalizes the energy industries, (like he’s nationalized health care), then you can expect energy supply shortages.
When you raise taxes on the producers of a commodity, you get less of that commodity. When supply decreases and demand stays the same, you get a shortage. The price of that scarce commodity rises. If you respond to the rising prices by fixing the prices lower, you get line-ups outside of gas stations. This is what we saw in 1973 with price controls on gas.
Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute explainswhy price controls on oil and gas didn’t work in 1973:
Let’s begin with a review of what happened the last time Congress tried to protect consumers from “Big Oil.” When Richard Nixon enacted his strict retail price-control regime in 1971, service stations ran out of gas and motorists were forced to wait in staggeringly long lines to get what fuel remained. Burned by the fiasco, Congress adopted the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA), which essentially removed price controls from the pump and instead applied them upstream into the wholesale domestic oil market.
Indeed the gasoline lines and physical shortages disappeared, but the cap on profits from domestic oil production discouraged investment in new domestic supply, increased reliance on imported oil, and increased the upward pressure on world crude prices. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) tightened the wholesale oil price controls established in the EPAA and exacerbated the economic dislocations associated with it.
Read the whole article. As Santayana urged, we need to learn from history and from the mistakes of other socialist countries, so that we do not repeat their mistakes.
Now on to the secular religion of global warming. Gateway Pundit completely destroys the idea that the earth is even warming:
Warning! Now is a good time to stop reading, as I am about to become mean and snarky.
<snarky>So what we have here is a faith-based initiative introduced by Obama in order to appease his favored secular special interests groups, who substitute recycling for the rigorous demands of traditional, reality-based religion and morality. Do we really need a religious nut in the White House catering to this crowd of anti-science fanatics? Should these dogmatic eco-fascist fundamentalists be influencing the policy of the most powerful nation on earth with their anti-reality delusions? Should we really be acting on the religious doctrines of non-scientists like Al Gore and his Big-Environmentalism-backed propaganda films, which are even now shown to our children in public schools as fact, fact, fact? What happened to the separation of church and state?</snarky>
For my Christian readers, Jay Richards of the Acton Institute did a great lecture on basic economics for Christians and another great lecture on what Christians should think about global warming.
Bush was able to do this despite the recession he inherited, 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As you can see from this chart, after the Bush tax cuts were implemented the budget deficit was reduced 3 of the last 4 years.
The deficit was reduced in 2005, 2006 and 2007 even with war and implementation of the successful Bush surge of troops in Iraq.
It wasn’t until the mortgage crisis struck the economy, a crisis Bush warned the democratic Congress about 17 times in 2008 alone, that the deficit climbed to $459 billion.
Have you seen this chart? (Source: CBO chart via RedState)
Gateway Pundit also mentions that Bush warned about crisis 17 times in 2008 and was blocked from regulating the GSEs by the Democrats. I proved here that the Democrats are to blame for this mess. In the post, I cited 1999 and 2003 articles from the left-wing New York Times and Los Angeles Times. There are also videos of Republicans trying to stop the crisis and Democrats blocking them.
Hot Air has the video of Jindal kicking butt on Larry King Live. It’s more fun to watch when the left is angry and crazy.
Here’s Hot Air’s blurb about the video:
Bobby Jindal faced off against an unusually hostile Larry King last night over the Steele-Limbaugh contretemps. King kept trying to stuff words into Jindal’s mouth, and Jindal politely but firmly kept spitting them back at King. King insists that Republicans want the country to fail when it’s clear that not even Rush says that.
CNN has the full transcript! Here’s the best part:
KING: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
JINDAL: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about. And I think it is absolutely true that you can help people keep their jobs, help people afford their health care, help people afford their homes without abandoning the same conservative principles. For example, Republicans offered ideas like aggressive tax credits to make homes more affordable so people can refinance, can stay in their homes. You’d see more demand for homes. They’ve offered ideas about — instead of nationalizing banks, why not modify the mark to market rules? …
KING: Do you want him to fail?
JINDAL: I want the — I don’t want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don’t want policies to be adopted that I think –
KING: But what if the… policies actually work? What if they work?
JINDAL: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don’t think it’s going work to borrow half a — to spend in excess of our revenues. If you believed everything that the president — if you believed all of his projections, if you believe the economy starts growing again, you believe that we’re not going be spending all that money fighting overseas…if you believe that all of these temporary programs are truly temporary, he’s still projecting deficits of half a trillion dollars per year, under the best case scenario. Larry, that’s just not sustainable. We cannot continue to do this as a country. China cannot become — continue to be our largest foreign holders of debt. This addiction to debt is what’s caused so many of our problems. The government is not going to be the answer to every problem. I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs — look at every new bailout. You know, you talked today, you know, about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it’s the fourth — it’s hard to keep track — the AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there’s another trillion dollar trillion plan. … I’ve yet to hear a coherent exit plan.
KING: So you hope — you hope it doesn’t hurt?
JINDAL: No. I hope that failed policies don’t get adopted. I want my country to succeed. I want the economy to grow. I want — certainly I want the economy to grow again so people can afford their homes. But I don’t want the Congress to adopt policies that would make the problem worse, not better. … I think it’s our — I think it’s our obligation as Americans when we don’t agree with a policy to speak up against it and to certainly offer different solutions.