Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

• Keith Olbermann Out At MSNBC, Final ‘Countdown’ Broadcast Is Tonight
  via press release:
  STATEMENT REGARDING KEITH OLBERMANN

  MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract. The last broadcast of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC’s success and we wish him well in his future endeavors.

  ++++++

  Somehow I don't think we have heard the end of this.

  (tags: keith_olbermann)
• ObamaCare: Everything starts with Repeal
  Suppose someone – say, the president of United States – proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.

  He'd be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare. During the debate over Republican attempts to repeal it, one of the Democrats' major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit – and therefore repeal raises it – by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that.

  ++++++++

  Read it all.

  The Flim Flam numbers of ObamaCare are well known. Now, the GOP must communicate the truth to the American people – although I think they have an inkling.

  (tags: Obamacare)

And, NBC has released the following statement via press release.

“MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract. The last broadcast of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC’s success and we wish him well in his future endeavors.”

Looks to me like Comcast, the new owners on NBC and MSNBC, might be trying to clean up the Left-leaning sewer which is known in the cable television business as MSNBC.

Oh and Keith – don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you leave 30 Rock, ok?

Now, this is interesting and I have not heard from any of Rudy’s 2008 campaign people about a Presidential race by the Mayor. But, maybe he is lying low, unlike the last time.

On Monday’s hour-long “Piers Morgan Tonight” interview, Rudy Giuliani tells Piers Morgan he’s more likely to run if Sarah Palin runs in 2012. “The more Republicans in which I can show a contrast…the better chance that I have,” he said, describing himself as a moderate.

But if he does run, Giuliani says he would concentrate on winning Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, sites of the first presidential nominating contests. In 2008 Giuliani focused his resources in Florida, a strategy that that led to the demise of his run after he finished third in the state’s primary.

However, the former U.S. Attorney said he doesn’t see a frontrunner in the Republican field, which makes for “a fluid situation.”

“There is no obvious frontrunner right now,” Giuliani said. “I guess everybody is happy with that, because nobody wants to be the frontrunner at this point because it always seems the frontrunner gets all the attention, all of the negative publicity.”

Well, the Mayor in a three way race with Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin would split the regional GOP alliances. There are many GOP delegates in the Far West and Northeast that would support Rudy over Romney (as the anti-Palin) and Palin.

One of the main criticisms of Sarah Palin is her lack of executive experience and Rudy certainly has that experience – as New York City Mayor and U.S. Attorney.

But, could Rudy win the GOP nomination?

Probably not unless Sarah Palin imploded. But a Rudy candidacy would certainly freeze out Mitt Romney. Two moderates Vs. Palin = a Palin nomination.

There is little doubt that Giuliani COULD beat Barack Obama with a center-right coalition that would challenge the President in more battleground states – like Colorado, Washington, Nevada and Virginia.

But, Rudy will not be running unless it is as a stalking horse and foil for Palin.

Rudy would make a terrific Vice Presidential nominee with Sarah or as U.S. Attorney General under ANY GOP Administration.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (L) joins former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) and his wife Judith Nathan as they attend the New York Yankees MLB American League baseball game against the Tampa Bay Rays at Yankee Stadium in New York, June 7, 2009

The latest national PPP poll is out for the GOP Presidential race.

• Mike Huckabee – 24%
• Sarah Palin – 14%
• Mitt Romney – 14%
• Newt Gingrich – 11%
• Tim Pawlenty – 7%
• Ron Paul – 7%
• Mitch Daniels – 4%
• John Thune – 1%

But, does this poll really mean anything? Is it relevant?

Probably not since it is obvious that Mike Huckabee will NOT run if Sarah Palin does. And, if Srah Palin runs, it is doubtful that anyone else except Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

But, this poll is a downer for Mitt Romney, especially if and when he faces off with Sarah Palin.

This month’s numbers are indicative of an ongoing problem for Romney: conservative voters just don’t like him nearly as much as they do the rest of the leading Republican contenders. Only 55% have a favorable opinion of him. Gingrich is 10 points better at 65% favorability, and Palin and Huckabee are each almost 20 points higher at 74% and 73% respectively. Our state by state polling has indicated that the Republican electorate in most places is going to be more conservative leaning than it was in 2008 so this is somewhere Romney’s really going to have to step it up if he’s going to be viable for the nomination.

California is always having a fiscal emergency because the Democrats who have controlled the California Legislature for decades spend and spend and spend. Bankruptcy for California is not the answer and I am amazed that it is being considered.

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

You know, I believe in political accountability and the states are sovereign entities as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. If California or Illinois have a massive insolvency problem, then the states MUST solve them.

I mean, didn’t they cause their own problems in the first place?

A few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times posted an online state budget balance calculator for readers to attempt to balance the California budget. It took me about 3 minutes. In California, Jerry Brown, the new and former California Governor and the Democrat dominated legislature can do likewise – if they have the political will.

A California state bankruptcy would stiff retired older workers and state/city/county bond holders immediately and have other long term effects without delivering the needed political will or reforms – to say NO to excessive government spending. Bankruptcy would simply delay the enactment of appropriate budgetary solutions – like cutting spending and prioritizing government spending.

BK would simply reset the clock for the POLS.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor, said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words state bankruptcy has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.

State bankruptcy is a bad idea.

If Jerry Brown cannot balance the state budget, have him call me – I’ll do it for him in about 3 minutes.

As far as an oversight panel for California, as a California voter I reject that idea. If voters don’t like what their POLS are doing, then WE THE PEOPLE will take care of the problem. If insolvency occurs, then the POLS have to go and we will elect others.

No federal bureaucrat or federal judge should be disenfranchising me or other California voters.

Just say NO to State Bankruptcy.

Update:

And, what is Hugh Hewitt pushing here?

Jerry Brown looks like he has begun the kabuki dance to the bankruptcy court by first ordering some cuts and then appealing to voters for a tax hike which will fail.  (Very few people believe that a tax hike will pass.  California is taxed out and any marginal burden will send high income residents and moire businesses fleeing.)

There is as yet no way for the states to file for reorganization, so Congress needs to hurry up.  I will ask Congressman John Campbell of the House Financial Services Committee about this today, but there is no other way to proceed except for a reset.  The Congress isn’t going to print money for the states to pay their union bills.  It is that simple.

Damn Hugh, let Jerry Brown do his job and make the necessary cuts. If the tax increases pass, then that is California’s problem.

I don’t see how a state default or reset, as you call it, will help anyone – except postpone necessary budgetary reforms.

California is always having a fiscal emergency because the Democrats who have controlled the California Legislature for decades spend and spend and spend. Bankruptcy for California is not the answer and I am amazed that it is being considered.

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

You know, I believe in political accountability and the states are soveriegn entities as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. If California or Illinois have a massive insolvency problem, then the states MUST solve them.

I mean, didn’t they cause their own problems in the first place?

A few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times posted an online state budget balance calculator for readers to attempt to balance the California budget. It took me about 3 minutes. In California, Jerry Brown, the new and former California Governor and the Democrat dominated legislature can do likewise – if they have the political will.

A California state bankruptcy would stiff retired older workers and state/city/county bond holders immediately and have other long term effects without delivering the needed political will or reforms – to say NO to excessive government spending. Bankruptcy would simply delay the enactment of appropriate budgetary solutions – like cutting spending and prioritizing government spending.

BK would simply reset the clock for the POLS.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

“All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.
For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.

State bankruptcy is a bad idea.

If Jerry Brown cannot balance the state budget, have him call me – I’ll do it for him in about 3 minutes.

As far as an oversight panel for California, as a California voter I reject that idea. If voters don’t like what their POLS are doing, then WE THE PEOPLE will take care of the problem. If insolvency occurs, then the POLS have to go and we will elect others.

No federal bureaucrat or federal judge should be disenfranchising me or other California voters.

Just say NO to State Bankruptcy