Take Buffalo company Honeywell, which has been granted a fortune to manufacture de facto golf cart batteries.  Americans are propping up an industry against their will thanks to the deal.  But some merely care that the development means a handful of locals will prosper:

The good news involves Honeywell on Peabody St. near downtown. The specialty materials provider has received a 27-million dollar grant from the Energy Department to develop a critical component of lithium ion batteries. Honeywell will become the first U-S manufacturer to do so. 

Jay Kelly, Honeywell’s Buffalo Site Leader, says “we will be adding six new jobs to help us run our sample plant and there will also be approximately 15 engineering and construction jobs related to the building of the sample plant. Honeywell will build a sample plant to produce and test the new battery.

Of course, it’s only “good news” if we disregard both how expensive the project is and who’s paying for it.  By comparison, corporate goon tycoons acting privately are amateurs at concentrating wealth among the privileged few.  Wall Street jerks should take notes.

But who cares about costs when the deal brings jobs to Buffalo?  Specifically, there are a whole 21 of them coming.  Yes, the price works out to over one million dollars in taxpayer financing for each created position.  But, at current federal rates, they might actually be under budget.  And who cares?  It’s someone else’s money!

Further, why worry that the 15 engineering and construction jobs are temporary project positions?  We could probably find shovels for them to permanently man after construction is completed.  It’s the way of the stimulus.

Honeywell itself certainly doesn’t feel bad.  Why would they?  After all, the company’s Powerball numbers just got picked.  From the tone of their press release celebrating the score, they think the ability to speak geek justifies being spoiled:

Honeywell (NYSE: HON) announced today that it has signed a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy for a $27.3 million grant to produce a critical component of lithium-ion batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles.

The grant is intended to help Honeywell become the first domestic supplier of high-purity lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), a conductive salt that is one of four critical components in rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion batteries are becoming more popular for use in a variety of applications because they are lighter and smaller than other batteries, hold their charge well, and can handle the numerous charge and discharge cycles required by modern electronics and vehicles.

While I’m not anti-high-purity lithium hexafluorophosphate per se, I am anti-waste-your-money-without-your-consent; you see the difference.  If the power sources in question are such great investments, why aren’t private conglomerates lining up to make money by investing in these oh so conductive salts?

It’s telling nobody’s buying this product on its own.  Or at least it should be.  The technology doesn’t exist to run our devices on garbage-powered flux capacitors or the like.  That’s why the project isn’t self-funded by willing consumers who get a desirable good out of the transaction.  Instead, governmental misfits fund the hybrid moments.

Honeywell’s work is being subsidized by the equivalent of a wealthy aunt.  We can only bleed her purse dry for so long, as the lack of retail foot traffic will eventually bite our bankrupt keisters.

America is frustratingly aping the Spains of the world, namely by assuming that the only thing keeping us from living as Mother Gaia intended is a massive cash infusion that greedy capitalists are unwilling to provide.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work to publicly subsidize something that, well, doesn’t work.  Doing so explains why the Spanish economy is muy malo.

But the only option when you can’t see land is to tread water.  Businesses are merely doing what they can to get in good with Washington partway through the Obamaera, whether such actions take the form of Goldman Sachs donating feverishly to the incumbent or Wal-Mart rolling back and supporting Democraticare. 

As with many other companies facing a Greecified economic environment, Honeywell is just trying to make a good deal for itself.  Of course, the fact they got a good deal is a bad sign for everyone else.

As a result, the public is left funding the unbearable folly of gas station coffee-weak batteries.  More and more will eventually be heavily soaked as financiers: after successful people have been punished to capacity, the present administration will alter the definition of “rich” to any fat cat who earns a weekly paycheck.

But at least unemployment is down ever since the present bout of federal skullduggery began, even though it’s not.  The president is failing to create jobs by treating Avatar as a documentary.  Next, the smart wager is that he’ll try a perpetual census.  Lowering the jobless rate by hiring people to constantly count all the other people is only slightly more inane than sponsoring green battery creation.

As for the handful of eco-warriors who actually fall for buying a vehicle equipped with a feeble battery sporting a Made in Buffalo sticker, the rest of us ask that you please stay in the right lane as you putter along at 48 miles per hour on the Thruway.  Consider it a courtesy to those who helped pay for your hippiemobile, namely every taxpayer passing you.

That said, I didn’t survey the crowd to see if there were clandestine bigots present who are also in Carl Paladino’s address book, although it would of course be silly to freak out about an entire movement because one of their preferred candidates negligently passed along crudely and/or disgustingly unfunny e-mails.  Foes can enjoy sifting through the gubernatorial hopeful’s sent mail, although they’ve apparently found no occasions where he wished for a political rival’s death.  That would be beyond over the line.

But ignoring the traditional media’s portrayal has become second nature for this group.  On that note, it’s amusing that the protest took place within sight of The Buffalo News building.  While I’m uncertain if any unassigned staffers walked over, failure to do so just means they missed the awesomeness that was hearing Victoria Jackson’s songs about her take on Obamacare and whether she thinks Obama is a communist. The answers are 1) she doesn’t care for it, and 2) yes.  Her rhetorical intemperance was overcome by her still-evident adorableness.

The other speakers served lots of delicious red meat.  It’s always fun to boo Harry Reid, Democraticare, and local shame Louise Slaughter.  But everyone did so without shrieking, resorting to cuss words, smashing property, maintaining the president is a Nazi, or any other unseemly behavior.  Nobody in the well-behaved gathering slurred ethnicities or planned an armed insurrection, either, as every single person forgot to exploit stereotypes for some baffling reason.

Instead, everyone seemed to just want options.  The number of attendees served as a reminder of how infuriating it is that there wasn’t at least a choice for Buffalo’s mayoral race, which is especially galling considering how City Hall fritters away cash like the type of lottery winner who’s also been on Cheaters.

Of course, Buffalo’s leaders are just aping the state’s profligate manner.  As that melodramatic kid in the all-time favorite Partnership for a Drug-Free America ad would explain, “You, all right?  I learned it by watching you!”

Thankfully, people such as speaker Leonard Roberto, who announced during brief remarks his intention to run against Brian Higgins, are out to provide voters with indispensable options.  We can all enjoy the prospect of being able to choose more than the same person as either a candidate of the Democratic or Working Families party.

On a related note, the reason for the protest was embodied by its location.  The area around the Commercial Slip has largely sat desolate for decades; there’s finally some progress after endless governmental spending and planning, although it’s almost seemingly come despite bureaucratic efforts.

Alternately, reducing the tax burden and opening the area to pioneering entrepreneurs would have brought commerce and a high volume of foot traffic to the site by now.  As it stands, the retail activity is largely limited to selling rattlesnake flags at protests which, compelling or not, will only take place intermittently.  I did what I could to contribute economically.

As for the rest of the city, the virtually limitless potential is sadly contrasted by the prevalent stagnancy.  By chance, decades of federal, state, county, and city scheming have provoked economic rot.  The left can sputter all they want over the stupid e-mails Paladino forwarded.  It’s actually helpful in exposing how they can’t differentiate between a dubious sense of humor and actual racism.

Paladino’s foes can pretend his carelessness or questionable take on comedy serves a genuine distraction.  In a way, it does: it’s an attempt by big-government fanatics to try to change the subject away from how their failed policies have created economic devastation. 

Those who came know where the real problems begin.  The press and the president’s dwindling band of supporters can pretend they’re dealing with scared, angry bigots.  But the scene adjacent to the Skyway demonstrated how demonstrators should behave.

Everyone was demanding, adamantly but respectfully, one thing: let us do it.  The people can’t be any worse at spending the money they earn than most politicians are at it.

Curiously, the public keeps the establishment open even if most of us don’t shop there aside from those rare occasions when one needs to acquire a butter lamb.  To be clear, the city owns the Market, which is how the lights have been kept on long after economic reality dictates it should have gone dark.

Running a shopping enterprise is just another position directly or indirectly on Buffalo’s payroll.  The municipality can’t figure out why the rot won’t stop despite all the money it spends.  Hmm.  Sadly, the city has been unwittingly provoking its own decline for years by making what’s private public.  In the end, propping up certain enterprises only hurts the same places’ fortunes, along with everyone else’s.

Essentially, Buffalo’s government is financially promoting tradition.  With the precedent of conserving sentimentality through public funding in mind, City Hall may as well pay to resurrect AM&A’s, Freddie’s Doughnuts, and The Sample.

Reviving memories and traditions of a bygone era is already literally keeping the city from moving into the future, so why not completely immerse ourselves in the past?  As seen on the East Side, the government doesn’t care whether such businesses could succeed on their own.

While they’re at it, they should also petition the King and Queen of Ontario to re-build Crystal Beach Amusement Park.  After all, so many of us have wonderful recollections of desperately scarfing down funnel cakes before reaching the end of the line for the Comet or Laff in the Dark; the fact that the park doesn’t presently exist shouldn’t prevent Western New Yorkers from being granted the right to again experience the unwise rite of passage.  Concerned Canadians shouldn’t worry: Buffalo will cover the price tag, naturally.

But propping up the past isn’t cheap.  Of course, no one in power will question why areas like the blocks surrounding the Market are so decrepit.  The multi-level mini-stimulus taking place in Buffalo, whereby various governments provide loans to retailers or bribe others to move in or not move away, does nothing but vacuum private capital out of an economy that desperately needs it.

It’s not the companies’ fault for taking what’s available: the area’s administrators are the ones who are handing out bags full of currency.  Reduce the tax burden by ending such payments, and companies might just move here or stay voluntarily.

Instead, there’s little income left under the present system to nourish both the commercial and residential sectors.  That leads to, oh, struggling vendor assemblages in rundown neighborhoods.

The reason the city has to subsidize places like the Broadway Market is precisely because the city subsidizes places like the Broadway Market.  It’s no different than what’s going on nationally, as taking our money to artificially nourish companies of all types isn’t helping for some baffling reason.

It might seem distressing, but the proper course is to let the Broadway Market expire naturally if the customers aren’t there most of the year.  That said, ending the practice of letting the city play real-life Monopoly might be the decision that actually invigorates and saves such businesses.

Let people spend where they want instead of impounding and redistributing income, and it will ultimately provoke a revival of the area’s prospects.  The Market might even be able to support itself.  Alternately, we’ve seen what it costs the city to keep the place open.

That’s apparently why the lead story in Thursday’s edition, helpfully titled “Health Bill Backers Face Threats,” connected a handful of cementheads with the overwhelming, principled opposition to a broad seizure of private industry:

Unrest over sweeping federal health care legislation has turned to vandalism and threats, with bricks hurled through Democrats’ windows, a propane line cut at the home of a congressman’s brother and menacing phone messages left for lawmakers who supported the bill.

The FBI is investigating the reports, which include shattered windows at Democratic offices in Arizona and Kansas as well as the Niagara Falls district office of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport.

At least 10 members of Congress have reported some sort of threat, although no arrests have been made.

So, that’s about 15 idiots who have been nasty assuming every report pans out as true, then?  Yeah, it’s best to do a story on them instead of the one or two hundred million people who hold legitimate objections to the scheme.  On top of that, don’t forget to blame the damage and verbal abuse upon the elected officials sharing the rational alternative view.  After all, they somehow provoked the crimes by voting “Nay:”

 ”It’s more disturbing to me that Republican leadership has not condemned these attacks and instead appears to be fanning the flames with coded rhetoric,” said Slaughter, a key supporter of the bill.

Has Nancy Pelosi’s regional minion also condemned intimidation aimed at female and Jewish Republican representatives, Tea Party activists, limited-government advocates, and a House member who was harassed during the time he was standing against Obamacare?  Of course the vandalism and ominous calls are disgusting.  But almost as bad is Slaughter’s assumption that members of the “Republican leadership” are responsible for smashed windows because they stood against federal meddling in the health system.

They have no obligation to dissociate themselves from something they didn’t do or endorse.  Wait, maybe they are responsible: as Deeming Louise points out, this is a case of those infamous conservative “code words” in action.

Liberals are uncannily skilled at spotting hidden diabolical phrases even though nobody else recognizes them, as vile reactionaries subconsciously reveal their true nature through remarks that are construed as hateful by those that happen to be looking for hatefulness.

Those on the right should be more blatant like Ms. Slaughter in their rhetoric.  Specifically, conservatives should use disgustingly manipulative stories about old sisters’ fake teeth to sell health care before trying to shred the Constitution with a brazen proposal to not hold a vote on a bill.  Those on the right should be as honest about themselves.

Or they could just invent ugly incidents like professional Democrats.  The story also includes accounts of some vile, fictional behavior from anti-health bill picketers:

Protests swirled around the Capitol during the health care debate last weekend. Demonstrators hurled racial slurs at several black lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., the civil rights pioneer.

Another protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who also is black.

Those incidents would be awful, if only they had happened.  The problem is that it has emerged that they didn’t:

A protester has his hands cupped around his mouth to yell something and it looks like some spittle hits Cleaver, who later accused the guy, and I quote, of having “allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Voila — a racial incident worthy of national headlines capped by a congressional press release noting that the spitter/spittler had been arrested. Except that he wasn’t: He was briefly detained and then let go. This was supposedly also around the time that tea partiers were shouting racial slurs at Cleaver, John Lewis, and other black congressmen. Listen closely and you … won’t hear any.

But lack of proof didn’t stop The News from disgustingly reprinting the accusations as if it had been established that they absolutely happened.  Uncorroborated stories disproved by recordings didn’t dissuade the rag’s editors from running Lewis’s debunked claim, or obligingly noting that he was a “civil rights pioneer” while they were at it.  Why worry about facts when you know the protesters are at least guilty in their hearts?

Of course, this is the same newspaper that thinks a racist, hyper-leftist intellectual lightweight who can’t write deserves a column.  Rod Watson’s weekly laugh riot, which ran in the same edition, included a disclaimer about why his contribution was so hard to understand:

WARNING: The following column may contain satire, hyperbole and other literary devices. Do not swallow whole. Keep away from small children—and adults who think like them.

If you have to explain the joke, you didn’t tell it properly.  But the rest of the piece is hilarious, although perhaps unintentionally so.  As a painful example, consider his claim about how the government will reduce the deficit while giving 30 million people insurance:

Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorers already explained it: By using the purchasing power of the exchanges, expanding the risk pool, taxing high-cost plans and the like.

But it won’t save nearly as much as it could have if critics hadn’t made single-payer a nonstarter and killed the public option.

Of course, anyone following the health debate should know that, nonpartisan status aside, the CBO only works with bills as they are written;  the agency performs calculations based upon the fairy tales they’re handed.  But buffoonish ignorance hasn’t stopped Watson before.

The rest is more of the same: he spent this edition lamely suggesting that people who disagree with his advocacy of a radical single-payer health system belong to something called the “idiotocracy.”  Either sighing or yawning would be an appropriate reaction.  Watson’s claim that his foes are mentally limited stands as the equivalent of expert swindler Charlie Rangel acting as if he’s qualified to issue tax advice.  Unfortunately, the latter also really happened.

I’ll mercifully spare you further examples of Watson’s prose, although you can click if you must; if you’ve read one of his poorly-reasoned, spiteful, mendacious tracts before, you’ve endured enough and gotten the point of this week’s try.

But he fits perfectly at the city’s paper.  Portraying Democraticare supporters as victims for expressing their beliefs in an A1 story is a sad attempt to make them look courageous.  Throw in a few isolated incidents, ridiculous suggestions that Republican politicians are somehow responsible for the violence, and refuted allegations against protesters, and it amounts to a transparent attack against the other side.  They didn’t even bother to use code words.

The News could have provided an evenhanded look at both sides of the incredibly polarizing legislation.  But they’d prefer to put Republicans on the defensive with reporting framed by a biased perspective supplemented by pathetic a harangue from an amateurish bore of a columnist.

This won’t be the last time the staff lumps together a statistically infinitesimal percentage of hoodlums with a huge swath of the conservative-leaning public.  Engaging in stereotypes is okay as long as they apply to people who disagree with the paper’s editorial positions.  They’ll presumably continue to ignore any threats made by liberals.  I’d add more about stifling dissent, but I have to go riot so I can prevent Ann Coulter from speaking on my campus.

In particular, their January 31 take on the subject, helpfully titled “Earned Income Tax Credit can be a bonanza,” points out everything fantastic about the program, namely, well, everything about it.  Remarkably, it also seems as if there are no drawbacks to blessing particular citizens with financial gifts:

“The EITC is one of the largest and most effective anti-poverty programs in the government,” David R. Williams, the IRS’ director of electronic tax administration and refundable credits, said on a media call last week. “It can make a significant difference in the lives of lower-income taxpayers, basically because it’s a credit that’s there for people who work but don’t make a lot of money.”

In other words, your government has decided that people who don’t earn much deserve more.  As a result, they’re essentially donating other people’s money to charity.  Oh, and they don’t bother to put the gift in anyone’s name, either.

The story points out that recipients get a credit even though they haven’t technically earned one.  For the beneficiary, that’s even better than finding a bursting sack adorned with a dollar sign on the sidewalk:

The EITC is a refundable credit for working individuals and families who do not earn high incomes. Like other tax credits, it is applied against taxes first, but can result in a refund.

And it helps the economy, at least in a theoretical, stimulus-didn’t-actually-cause-more-unemployment sort of way:

That allows qualifying taxpayers to keep more of what they earn, so they can save money or spend it locally in their communities. In turn, that not only helps lift recipients, but provides an economic development benefit. It has no effect on certain welfare benefits, and usually won’t affect eligibility for other government programs.

Wow: David Axelrod could have written that paragraph.  Hell, it sounds uncannily similar to the usual empty leftist schlock our president reads off his magical scrolling-word screen.  Reporter Jonathan D. Epstein should apply for White House work if the newspaper business ever gets boring.

On a related note, the article devotes exactly, whoops, zero space to dissent.  Markedly, the correspondent devotes ample paragraphs to an appreciative recipient of the policy’s cash.  He shamelessly notes that the subject plans to use the money to start a college fund for his daughter.  Even you diabolical conservatives couldn’t be against a child’s education, could you?  That’s quite heartless, and probably bigoted for some reason, too.

That said, perhaps those on the right could calmly point out the argument for the currency shift comes down to “getting a check is good.”  Oh yeah, and conservatives will also note that the bonus money is taken from others.  Class warfare is in session, but only those who skip off deserve credit.

Yet the rag’s editorial staff neglected to find anyone who thinks the wealth transfer is detrimental to both the economy on the whole and ultimately to its recipients.  After all, the reallocated money would assuredly have been spent or invested by those from whom it was seized; that would be good news for retailers or other companies, respectively.  But the present administration and its dwindling army of sycophants quite obviously are loath to acknowledge that we all profit when greedy fat cats buy things with the ample money they’ve made.

In fact, many hold that this form of mandatory wealth sharing is at worst rife with fraud and at best a tax refund for people who don’t pay taxes.  Somehow, none of them were contacted by a News reporter or editor looking for even cursory balance.

The EITC is an entitlement that demonstrates why getting free money is always a bad deal.  Every word of the name is fraudulent: the cash doled out is not earned, income, or a tax credit.  Those who want to redistribute income should at least be upfront about it.

Additionally, the reporter could have taken the time to let readers know the price of these currency gifts.  Specifically, the EITC will cost nearly $50 freaking billion this year.  Of course, noting the onerous price wouldn’t fit with the paper’s cheery social democratic narrative.

It goes without saying that everyone is entitled to disagree that the checks from Washington in question amount to a welfare payment.  What’s not okay is to forget that there might actually be opponents of the Robin Hood approach to taxation.  By willfully or obliviously overlooking them, the city’s newspaper has once again disgracefully tried to pass off opinion as reporting.  The numerous left-minded columnists at The News should revolt: they don’t need in-house competition.

For example, Louise Slaughter has been the bane of Western New York’s conservatives ever since contrived redistricting bumped her into the area.  But Slaughter’s adversaries can finally agree with her, kind of, for the first time since the invention of her earmuff-shaped domain.

The Weekly Standard has drawn attention to a story in The Hill which highlights a most unlikely alliance between children and the Trix Rabbit.  Specifically, conservatives and Slaughter equally hate the Senate’s attempt at remaking health care, even if for diametrically constrasting reasons:

Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill’s exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.

Foes may want either more or less governmental participation in health care.  But they at least agree that the upper chamber would set involvement at the wrong level.  As for a centralized power enthusiast, Slaughter writes in a linked CNN.com editorial that the present attempt to commandeer one-sixth of the economy won’t make anyone happy:

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

She wants the right thing for the wrong reason.  Naturally, she thinks ceding more control to Washington will aid competition, somehow:

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

 

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

In summary, she maintains that an entity with unlimited funding that doesn’t have to worry about profitability, efficiency, or service would bring down prices and enhance the market.  Perhaps the feds should first demonstrate the ability to create and/or save jobs.

Big business’ foes curiously think big, big government will alleviate everything.  But who cares why she hates the bill that snuck through Congress’ other side during shifty late night and holiday sessions?  Sabres and Leafs fans can hate both each other’s teams and Ottawa.

In this case, there’s eclectically widespread contempt aimed at different Senators.  A semi-prominent liberal has gained some odd, extremely provisionary allies in conservatives, libertarians, and tea partiers who all despise the bill as much as she does.

The dissenting coalition’s formation resembles voting-based reality show strategizing.  In short, competitors are temporarily uniting to knock off a formidable yet undesirable fellow player.  The uneasy coalition can worry about taking out each other at a later time.  For now, the right and a prominent member of the left can unite in one common belief: the odiously devious Senate bill sucks, and opponents must gang up on it to ensure it’s sent packing.

Western New York’s own Chris Lee was one of those members who stood in bipartisan opposition to government-run health care, and he has sent a letter out to supporters asking for help in the fight.

The fight to stop Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s budget-busting, government takeover of health care is not over.

As you probably know, late Saturday a bare majority of the House of Representatives voted for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s $1.2 trillion, 2,000-page government takeover of America’s health care system. Along with 39 Democratic colleagues, I strongly opposed this misguided, fiscally irresponsible measure.

There is no question that urgent reform to our health care system is necessary, and I have been a strong proponent of common sense reforms to lower the cost of care and make health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.

The alternative plan I supported would have actually lowered premiums for Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It would have allowed Americans and small businesses to access the same health care breaks that large corporations receive. It would have taken costs out of the system by enacting meaningful medical liability reform to stop the costly practice of defensive medicine (which CBO says can save tens of billions in health care costs). It would have helped guarantee affordable coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. And it would not have added to the deficit.

Speaker Pelosi’s bill — which was so bad, so reckless, so extreme that 39 of her own Democrats voted against it — costs $1.2 trillion. It hikes taxes on small businesses, families and large employers by more than $700 billion. It creates more than 100 new commissions and bureaucracies that will have the power to decide what treatments are covered and which are not in the government health plan. An untold number of new federal workers will have to be hired to manage this giant new bureaucracy. I ran for Congress to shrink Washington and grow Western New York, not the other way around.

The good news is that this bill won’t pass the Senate.

We can agree that health care in America is superior to health care anywhere else in the world. We don’t need a system like Canada’s which is apparently so good, Canadians come down to this country for health care. You don’t see, however, Obamacare advocates in Western New York crossing the border to Canada for treatment do you? Pelosi’s version of Obamacare won’t make health care better, it will make it worse. It won’t make health insurance cheaper, it will make it more expensive. Chris Lee’s letter continued,

Pelosi’s bill will do nothing to lower the high cost of health insurance. In fact, according to CBO, Pelosi’s bill would raise insurance premiums for middle-class families. Health care reform that does not reduce the cost of care for families and take waste out of the system is no reform at all.

So, let’s start early and give Chris Lee the support he needs.We need to keep him in Congress.

Congressman Brian Higgins has been instrumental in securing federal funds for the project.

It was nice of everyone across the nation to pay for Buffalo’s waterfront rehabilitation.  The report didn’t mention how some feel that trying to get more money than we send to Washington is a game where everyone loses.  But intermission only lasts so long.  Besides, they needed to give Higgins time to present his fascinating worldview on economics:

The fundamentals of economic development is to import new wealth into the community that isn’t ordinarily here.

It used to be that economies developed by letting people open companies, work, invest, and engage in voluntarily transactions.  But Higgins would have to trust his constituents enough to let them make their own money and by extension improve this area’s quality of life without his aid.  That’s apparently why he’s intervening: you didn’t think you could get by without federal help, did you?  While it’s not shocking that he’s so ignorant of basic commercial tenets, it’s refreshing to hear him admit it so candidly.

What’s more irritating is the Sabres’ active support for the plan.  Like everyone else in the area, they’d like to see more development near the team’s home.  But the franchise is a little too eager about endorsing the particulars.  Of course, Sabres managing partner Larry Quinn just happens to have thrown money at Higgins before, so such flattering coverage might not be coincidental.  Quinn is also similarly unenthusiastic about free markets.

It’s little wonder they’re working together.  Both Quinn and Higgins are inept doofuses who are reviled by many of those whom they supposedly represent, whether they bleed blue and gold or live in NY-27, respectively.  As with life in Higgins’s district, any success the Sabres enjoy comes despite Quinn’s oafish efforts.  The Skyway remaining standing is the equivalent of Pat LaFontaine and Chris Drury leaving.

Worst, Higgins was the last person some of us wanted to see on Saturday evening.  Some political junkies were trying to escape the gloomy drudgery of tracking Washington’s efforts to put Washington in charge of our health.  Instead of switching to hockey and getting a respite from House members embracing boundless spending, we inadvertently found ourselves enduring a spend-happy political lecture during a Sabres/Bruins game break.  We may as well have stuck with C-SPAN.

It’s always frustrating to be told that the government spending our money will fix our problems.  But it’s additionally inappropriate to hear it while waiting for the second period, especially if it cuts into the amount of time devoted to Mike Robitaille amusingly jousting with Rob Ray.  Instead of doing public relations work for Higgins or bragging about how much sales tax revenue the project will allegedly generate, the Sabres should be working to ensure that being outplayed in consecutive games is an aberration, not a trend.

In separate interviews this week, three of Western New York’s four House members and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., all said they were reluctant to quickly agree with the recommendation of America’s commander in Afghanistan, who is calling for 40,000 additional troops.

Who’s not on board other than Chuck Daddy?

Reps. Louise M. Slaughter, Brian Higgins and Eric Massa all expressed varying degrees of concern about McChrystal’s written recommendation, which was leaked to the Washington Post two weeks ago.

Higgins, who is eternally busy failing at replacing the Skyway, took a break from that full-time unsuccessful pursuit to announce he wants to fight on a more philosophical plane:

“I’m not convinced that increasing the troop levels is justified at this point,” Higgins said. “Let’s find a more effective way to deal with the real existential threat, which is al-Qaida.”

It’s odd that there’s apparently a reason it’s suddenly not worth combating the regime that let al-Qaida operate at will.

More importantly, the skeptics are ignoring the advice and experience of professionals.  Many of New York’s representatives and senators are missing the lesson we should have learned from Iraq, namely that a counter-insurgency can turn the tide in our favor.  Interestingly, some have recently claimed that the principle also worked in Vietnam, and that a battlefield win was only turned into a loss by political decisions.  Does it need to be repeated what happens to those who don’t remember history?

Despite what our Capitol-dwellers think, a surge focused less on hunting and more on overall control appears to offer the best chance for victory.  But the opinion that should matter most isn’t that of any representative or senator; it also shouldn’t be up to any other civilian, including, frankly, bloggers.  The only take that should matter to the president/Nobel Laureate is McChrystal’s.  After all, the general has dedicated his adult life to determining the best strategies and tactics for keeping us safe.

But the Schumers and Slaughters of the world have their priorities elsewhere.  They’re so fixated on inventing good government that they’re disregarding what government does well.  Our national public servants love cap and trade, but can’t bring themselves to support an effort that’s actually within federal jurisdiction.  Namely, killing terrorists and their enablers in the most obviously just war possible is one of the few useful efforts Washington can lead.

Victory is the only option.  Neither previous strategic missteps nor Afghanistan’s corruption can hide the necessity of triumph. This isn’t like blowing an Olympic pitch: we have to win what Obama once deemed the “good war” if we’re at all serious about beating terrorism.

The top general in Afghanistan has laid out a course that he feels will do the job.  Despite that, many of New York’s elected officials have frighteningly short memories about what happens when we’re tepid about defending ourselves.  At best, they want to stay the course on a clearly rickety path; at worst, they’re succumbing to fatigue at a moment when we should be shaking it off and preparing for overtime.  Either way, they’re sorely mistaken if they think not fighting back will end the fight.

A political neophyte just a year ago, New York Rep. Chris Lee looks like a veteran lawmaker when he’s interacting with colleagues on the House floor. And he’s fostered close bonds with other young Republicans, including California Rep. Duncan Hunter and Florida Rep. Tom Rooney.

Democrats are eager to position Lee as a Republican in lock step with his leaders. But as one of only three GOP lawmakers in New York — and a freshman, at that — he is already working closely with upstate Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter and Brian Higgins on regional priorities, such as forcing an investigation into the Continental airplane crash in his district earlier this year. He even attended a delegation meeting to ask Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) about the recently passed climate change bill.

Lee gets high marks from his predecessor, Tom Reynolds, who says Lee has “hit the ground running.”

In preparation for the partisan debates here in Washington, Lee has assembled teams of local experts to brief him on a range of topics, such as health care reform. Given his business background, Lee, who quickly earned a seat on the Financial Services Committee, often likes to go directly to the source when he has a question or a concern, asking aides to get him on the phone with administration officials, constituents or party leaders to find the answers as he navigates his first year on Capitol Hill.

Congrats to Chris Lee on a job well done!