consequence du jour, where one of the folks in charge admits
that they don't know what the Hell they're doing, and are too craven to
fix a broken policy:
Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he had come to realize that Congress made a mistake in backing biofuels, not anticipating the impact on food costs. He said Congress needed to reconsider its policy, though he acknowledged that would be difficult.Here's more on that from a recent SF Chronicle article:
“If there was a secret vote, there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing,” he said.
In the pantheon of well-intentioned governmental policies gone awry, massive ethanol biofuel production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment."Other than that, though, it's fine!" (First link via Club for Growth.)
Every Obamanian at HuffPo is in full attack mode on Hillary.
As I type, the headline is Sam Stein's: Hillary Clinton On
Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em". Gasp!
Key quote is Hillary's
input on efforts to attract "working class white Southerners":
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."Stein reports this as big news, but it was in Sally Bedell Smith's book on the Clintons (For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years) late last year, as this Jake Tapper blogpost demonstrates.
As they say: pass the popcorn. I could watch Democrats argue about which candidate is more disdainful of working class people all day long.
[Update: The Minuteman makes the case that Stein is taking Hillary's comments out of context.]
I meant to put this in yesterday's tax-heavy post, but you'll certainly
want to read a new Dave
Barry article on the subject. His tax preparation method involves
this bag of receipts …
At tax time, I go through this bag, hoping to find receipts that say things like, ''BUSINESS SUPPLIES TO BE USED FOR BUSINESS -- $417.23.'' Instead, I find some ticket stubs for Shrek the Third and several hundred wadded-up snippets of paper on which the only legible printing says ''Thank You.'' Now, because I am mentioning Shrek the Third in this column, I can legally deduct the $10 cost of my ticket, plus a large popcorn, which I estimate cost $53, for a total of $63, or, rounding off, $250. But that still leaves me a little short of what I need, deductionwise.God help me, I'm thinking: If the IRS goes after Dave, maybe they'll use the guys that would otherwise have gone after me.