Sibby Online

First Amendment attacked in Pierre

RadioActive Chief has a report on SB 172. Its a South Dakota bill to limit PAC money and therefore political speech.

But the Open Fields legislation looks like is moving on the right side of freedom.

Krugman wrong again

From Social Security Choice:

I'll have lots more in response to Paul Krugman's New York Times column today, in which is asserts that stock market returns cannot possibly be anywhere near as high in the future as they have been in the past (and thus, he argues, stocks must inevitably disappoint investors who hold them in Social Security personal accounts).

Krugman's argument is technical, and it will get a technical response. But first, let me point out that, on the face of it, there is very little reason why anyone should listen to Paul Krugman's forecasts about the future. He himself admitted to Tim Russert on CNBC that "Compare me … compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think you’ll see that my forecasting record is not great." He's right to have been so modest. When he was an economist with the White House Council of Economic Advisors, he warned in 1982 of an "inflation time-bomb" -- just when inflation was about to fall to near zero over the next twenty years. In today's column he speaks of the prices of "technology stocks at the height of the Internet bubble" -- yet at that very height, in February 2000, he wrote "I'm not sure that the current value of the Nasdaq is justified, but I'm not sure that it isn't." And his books in the early 1990s contained forecasts -- then still quite fashionable among liberal economists -- of how America was certain to continue to lose ground to the economic juggernaut of Japan.

And in the column today, Krugman betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Social Security itself. He write, "we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come." Krugman has forgotten -- or chosen to ignore -- that under current law Social Security benefits are indexed to wage growth. If the economy grows like Krugman is talking about, yes, payroll tax revenues will grow too -- but so will benefits, nearly perfectly proportionately. The sensitivity tables given by the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds don't show this -- because they arbitrarily cut off the calculation after 75 years. But the reality is that the early benefits of increased tax revenues are eventually offset by the higher cost of benefits. Gee -- think how good Krugman could make that look if he reduced the window of analysis to just 10 years.

Daschle’s remnant

Toms Daschle is running around with his east coast lefties, but his remnant, former Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand has this letter in today’s Argus Leader:

Sen. John Thune will be part of one of the most important debates looming in Washington, D.C. - what to do about Social Security. South Dakotans should pay close attention to Thune and what side he takes.

In the past, Thune voted to take money out of the Social Security trust fund to give permanent tax breaks to millionaires. Votes like that hurt South Dakota seniors and help Thune's millionaire buddies.

President George W. Bush is going to give Congress a plan to privatize Social Security, a move that would reduce benefits. Thune has always said he supports private accounts and investing Social Security in the stock market. People should speak loudly and tell Thune to save Social Security, not destroy the system that has served seniors well for many decades.

Anybody remember Tom Daschle whining about seniors dependent on Social Security have to decide between food and life-saving prescription drugs because they can’t afford both? No his campaign manager is saying Social Security "that has served seniors well for many decades".

He also lied about Thune in the second paragraph (old habits are hard to break). Here was Thune’s position on November 4, 1999 via the Congressional Record:

(Mr. THUNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, being a leader means making some tough choices. This year we have an historic opportunity to lock away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and put an end to the practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. It means we have to make a tough choice between Social Security and funding some other goals, like the President's desire to increase foreign aid spending by 30 percent.

The question is not whether we want to spend more on foreign aid or other government programs, the question is whether we want to spend more on these programs if it comes at the expense of Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have already made our choice. We have chosen to say no to more government spending and yes to stopping the raid on Social Security. The American people agree with us. They would rather protect Social Security and Medicare and cut spending across the board for all other programs than raid Social Security again.

There is only one question that has not been answered, Mr. Speaker, and that is: Where does the President stand and where do our friend's on the other side stand? Will they block this legislation and insist on more government spending or will they join us in a bipartisan effort to end the raid on Social Security once and for all. For the sake of our future, I hope they will choose the latter.

The Daschle Democrats said no to "stopping the raid on Social Security" and yes to buying their votes with taxpayers’ money.

Connect the dots

This web site has been getting hits all day from search engines looking for references to Jeff Gannon. Ryne McClaren found the kossacks involved in a conspiracy theory regarding Gannon. He also found a Tom Maguire post deconstructing the misguided lefties.

The email I posted smells a lot like a kossack, now that I think about it. I should have sent a little stronger response.

Update: They are still working it. Got hit with this search, and this search. Yet another.

Another Update: Looks like another conservative is under the far-left gun. 

Ouch...Dems lost their second election in three months

Rush Limbaugh went nuclear today. Excerpts:

I come to the Golden EIB Microphone today, ladies and gentlemen, with just an effervescing and bubbling joy and happiness and pride knowing full well that some in America are devastated today because the Democrats have lost their second election in three months. The Democratic Party lost its second election in three months yesterday in Iraq. There is no question that the sentiments of the leadership of the Democratic Party were with the terrorists and the insurgents who sought to undermine yesterday's election in Iraq. Once again, the American left, much of the mainstream media, the liberal wing of the Democrat Party, and all of the so-called elite intelligentsia has been shocked by the mind-set of free people. They continually are shocked by the mind-set of free people in the United States of America. They are shocked by the expression of the people of Iraq yesterday.

…

They're going to continue with their obstinate, "To hell with you! We're going to be as negative as we can. We're going to be who we are. We're going to finally find a way to bring you and Iraq down, Mr. President." I mean, they align themselves with whatever enemy Bush has. They hate Bush so much, if bin Laden hates Bush, bin Laden is a good guy. The insurgents hate Bush so much, they hate Bush, fine. We're going to side with the insurgents -- the terrorists, if you will, and, of course, here's Barbara Boxer, while people... By the way, do you know that suicide bomber that was blown up yesterday was a Down's Syndrome child? The insurgents sent out a Down's syndrome child as a suicide bomber. That's what the American left sides with. That's who the American left sided with and has been siding with throughout this entire campaign in Iraq, ever since the invasion started in 2002, 2003. So, make no mistake about it, here's Barbara Boxer out there wailing and whining and moaning about all of the hardships. "People in Ohio and Florida had to endure by standing in line to wait hours to vote!" The Iraqis braved death and they had a turnout that exceeded ours in November. Seventy-two percent, something like that, is the number. Ninety-five percent in certain places in Iraq. Will the legacy media run pictures of Iraqis dancing in the streets? Will they run pictures of people lining up to vote including women just as in great a number percentage-wise as happened in Afghanistan? Will they show us these pictures as often and as frequently as they showed us the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Don't count on it.

From Sibby's mailbag

I received this anonymous email today:

With columnists Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus having been exposed as having taken taxpayers money to promote the administration's agenda and Daschle Vs. Thune's John Lauck exposed as a blogger being paid by the Thune campaign, it seems appropriate to ask : have you at any time, taken money from the Bush administration in exchange for promotion of the administration's policies?

I await your response.

Here is my response:

No I have not received money from the Bush administration. Instead I am one of those evil wealthy who pay Federal Income taxes. I do not appreciate those funds being used by NPR and public education to forward the left’s agenda.

More on NYT’s Krugman

Introduction from a Donald Luskin NRO column (read the whole thing):

Look up the word "vile" in the dictionary and you will find an appropriate description of Paul Krugman’s New York Times column from last Friday

In the column, America’s most dangerous liberal pundit throws a gutter accusation of "bigotry" at President Bush — yes, the man who just appointed his female African American national security advisor as the successor to his African American secretary of State.

Why, in Krugman’s mind, is Bush a bigot? Because the president is seeking to reform Social Security with personal accounts — which, by the way, is the same reform being argued for by Harold Ford, the African American Democratic congressman from Tennessee. In Ford’s words, the existing system "provides a measure of security for retirees, but it cannot be passed on to provide financial security for their children and grandchildren. The key to retirement security and upward social mobility is wealth creation."

Luskin then provides this feedback:

An anonymous reader sends this email, responding to my posting, "Big Black Lies" --

Harold Ford isn't the first prominent African-American to notice that Social Security is a raw deal for minorities. Comedian Chris Rock riffed on Social Security all the way back in 1999, in his comedy special "Bigger & Blacker."

Here's a quote: "You start getting social security at age 65, meanwhile the average black man dies at 54! Black people should get Social Security at 29! Black people don't live that long - hypertension, high blood pressure, NYPD!"

Washington Post hypocrisy

From the Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary (via Social Security Choice):

"In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton waved his pen at the assembled Congress and declared that we must ‘save Social Security first.’.. But now, in an ill-conceived effort to derail President Bush’s privatization initiative, many prominent Democrats are suddenly dismissing the notion of a Social Security crisis or even a Social Security problem. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to the president’s flawed proposals, Democrats are devoting their energies to attacking both the president’s ideas and any notion of altering the Social Security construct" — Steven Rattner, investment banker and major Democratic donor, writing in the Washington Post.

NYT exposed by bloggers again

Looks like the NYT got their Democrat talking points a little late. After starting out with the truth about the Iraqi elections, they switched their tune. From Glenn Reynolds:

YESTERDAY, I noted the following paragraph in a New York Times story on the Iraqi elections:

But if the insurgents wanted to stop people in Baghdad from voting, they failed. If they wanted to cause chaos, they failed. The voters were completely defiant, and there was a feeling that the people of Baghdad, showing a new, positive attitude, had turned a corner.

Reader Chris Fountain also noticed that it was moving steadily downward in the story as the day went on. Today he emails:

Glenn: as predicted, the offending paragraph was missing from this
morning's hard copy. New lede: "Bombs Kill 35."

Sigh.

Indeed. And as Ann Althouse noted, the headline has changed on the web, too. Sigh. They just can't help themselves.

New DBA blogger

More are becoming South Dakota bloggers. I would like to welcome to the Dakota Blog Alliance John Walker from Colman South Dakota. He has started the web site RadioActive Chief.

Here is more on the rise of bloggers:

Some media observers now contend the "Blogosphere" is rapidly replacing CBS and the rest of the mainstream media. Even New York Times best-selling author Hugh Hewitt calls his latest book, "Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World."

Sheffield joined two other pioneers of the new reformation at the Heritage Foundation, Friday, to address the theme: "Rather is Retiring: Is the Blogosphere the New Media Establishment?"

Matthew Sheffield (RatherBiased), Paul Mirengoff (Powerline) and Kevin Aylward (Wizbangblog) all gathered with host Mark Tapscott, director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy, for a panel discussion on blogging and the media.

Aylward's key point was that the bloggers have indeed arrived - and with an impact that has already been telling to the main line media:

"One of the items I've been working on for my portion of the presentation is a look at blogs versus traditional media web sites. Using John Hawkins rankings of The Top 125 Political Sites on the net as a base, I added the Web sites of selected newspapers to the ratings to see how the top trafficked blogs stack up.

Blogs Outstripping Some Newspapers

"You'll note that several blogs rank higher than mid-size daily newspapers and some are pushing the sites of papers in the top 50 (by daily circulation). The data suggest that the question isn't "When will blogs arrive?" but rather "Blogs HAVE arrived, what now?"

Mirengoff answered that rhetorical question by suggesting: "In 2004, the earth moved…" [referring to the Rathergate phenomenon]

Mirengoff further suggested that the main stream media may be now finding it necessary to join and compete with "other voices" in the media, "loosing control of the agenda" that it had dictated over so many years.

The blogger also opined that although the main stream media still has the obvious advantages of a huge audience and armies of fact-checkers, it also suffers from the twin liabilities of "arrogance" and often "cluelessness."