Democrats and the Art of Doing Nothing

Democrats have raised doing nothing to its highest form of art. If one steps back and simply looks - with a nonpartisan eye - at what they haven't done and the elegance with which they have not done it; it's amazing. And now Democrats proclaim that doing nothing has won them a US House seat in New York.

Poor Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI)! He thought the way to get ahead was to work on budgets that would realistically resolve our debt crisis with the least possible pain to the economy. Apparently it doesn't work that way, but he still gets the blame. 

Congressman Paul Ryan

We all know that entitlements have to be reformed. In fact, while Democrats were leisurely doing as little as possible, they did take the time to criticize Republicans for not taking on entitlements because the entitlement programs are such a large part of the budget. In fact the Democrats, when they could be bothered, ridiculed the earlier GOP budget reform plans as "not serious" because social security, medicare and medicaid were not the focus of those new budget plans.

Let us take a moment and recall the 2010 budget when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. That budget was a masterpiece of the current Democrat strategy. It was flawless; it angered almost no one and allowed Democrats to continue spending money like a Kennedy while not a one of them had to commit to a vote. That's right; there was no vote because there was no budget. Yes, yes, I know the law requires a budget, but when the media holds you harmless for doing nothing, why buck the trend?

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

It appears that that the 2012 US Presidential Election is destined to be about the economy. It's certainly the pressing need, and with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the war on terror will be much less of a concern for many voters. It also appears there will be no standard-bearer for the social conservatives with the ability to make front page news.

Image via Wikipedia

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

The most obvious social conservative candidate was the former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. When Huckabee announced that he would not run, following Mississippi Governor Hayley Barbour's similar announcement, it left a void in the Republican field of candidates.

Barbour had tremendous credentials and was a social conservative without question. Many saw Barbour's announcement that he would not run for the presidency in 2012 as a confirmation that his close friend, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, would run. That has now been disproved with Governor Daniels's announcement that he will not seek the Republican nomination. This leaves former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the only remaining candidate with a primarily social conservative message.

I discussed Senator Santorum's problems in the South Carolina debate in "Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate". Having said that, Santorum is the obvious beneficiary of the decisions of Huckabee, Barbour and Daniels to not seek the GOP Presidential nomination.

Boondoggle Ethanol Program Got You Down? Help End it.

Ethanol is Not About Energy Independence

Have you figured out that the federal ethanol program is not about becoming energy independent, but about putting Midwest corn farmers on the government dole? If not, keep reading. If so, are you ready to help end it? That's in here, too.

Image by Rastoney via Flickr

If you think ethanol lowers fuel prices, then I guess you don't know that each gallon of ethanol is subsidized 47.5 cents per gallon by our tax dollars. In fact, Brazil exports ethanol, but we put a 54 cents per gallon import tax on Brazilian ethanol and then limit its import to seven percent of US production. If it were about saving money, we'd simply import the much less expensive ethanol from Brazil.

If it were about energy independence, we wouldn't use corn, either. It takes about 65% more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the ethanol yields. Who says so? Among others, University of California-Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek in Science Daily back in 2005.

At this point, you may be confused simply because the truth and what you've been led to believe are very different. So, let me say it directly: We use more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the entire amount of energy yielded from the corn-made ethanol. More simple? It takes more energy than we get back, so the ethanol makes us MORE dependent on foreign oil and costs us more money.

"Ah," you say, "but it was supposed to be about energy independence, wasn't it? How could this be?"