Hating That Other BP

Never send Brian Higgins to do the free market’s job.  Bass Pro will now never officially appear in Buffalo despite, or perhaps because of, his efforts.  Why weren’t they impressed by his congressional-level pleading?

With that mystery looming, he’s employing his best strategy under the circumstances, namely pretending he never liked them anyway.  The Skyway-disregarding representative can go ahead and amusingly call the deal’s collapse “liberating.” For once, he’s right about something, at least in the same sense that he’d be liberated to spend more time with his family if he loses this November.

The least surprising news in city history means there are no winners following the Bass Pro debacle.  At least we don’t have to cheer for the disagreeable participants.  So, was the collapse the fault of an aggressively overbearing yet criminally incompetent government or the disreputable private concern in question?  Yes.

As much fun as it is to blame Higgins, we must also remember to curse the stupid fishing conglomerate in question to rot in retail hell.  That other BP will forever be viewed infamously in Western New York, as they may as well have dumped countless oil barrels into the adjacent water for all the damage they did.

I’m particularly glad this area’s decision-makers knocked down the Aud for the garbage-scented merchant in question; are there any other war memorials they’d like us to demolish as a final request?

At the same time, they were just playas in the game, yo.  We should cancel the event.  Conservatives are pro-market, not pro-business, which is never more apparent than when it comes to being anti-Bass Pro. (more…)

Obama Gets Buffalo Wings

That pretty much sums up his entire trip. At least from a national perspective.

A quick perusal of online stories about Obama’s split-second trip to our miserable, dying city finds that the non-Buffalo media (and blogs) really dug the fact that Obama got buffalo wings in Buffalo.

USA Today: Obama orders some Buffalo wings
NY Daily News: President Obama gets saucy reception at Buffalo chicken wings shop
Associated Press: Obama eats Buffalo wings in Buffalo
Obama in Buffalo: Wings for Lunch

You get the point…

But, that’s okay. That was probably more significant than the b.s. he was trying to get everyone else to swallow about the economy. If you believe Obama, he singlehandedly rescued the economy, and 9.9% unemployment is what he calls “beyond a shadow of a doubt … headed in the right direction.” All while ignoring the failure of his stimulus and touting job growth numbers inflated by the temporary hiring of census workers.

It kind of reminds me how when Bush was President, and the unemployment rate kept going down (towards 4 percent) and Democrats acted like it was the Great Depression. Now that Obama has our economy lingering around 10 percent and they act like things are fantastic.

Eat your damn buffalo wings Obama. At least when you are stuffing your face with local cuisine you can’t talk.

Turner Uncovers Our Secret: We’re Dumb Racists!

Take off your Klan hoods and pay attention, my fellow conservatives: we’re in trouble.  To wit, Douglas Turner has found us out.  It’s hard to get through The Buffalo News copy-churner’s columns, as his output is as boring as it is unpleasant.  But disregard how he’s a student of the Rod Watson School of Journalism, drink an iced cappuccino, and try to wade through his astounding exposé on the recent CPAC convention to find out the truth about participants.  Spoiler: those on the right are awful, and awfully prejudiced.

For one, Turner surely recognizes that those who want a limited government that focuses upon national defense merely see things a little differently than him, and that such disagreement is actually healthy.  Or not:

The Conservative Political Action Conference is as close as you can get to a skinhead convention in a nice hotel.

Yeah, that’s reasonable.  Turner’s assessment would serve as a revelation to people like, say, Allen West and Michael Williams.  As for us cracker redneck whiteys, we thought we disagreed with the president because he’s attempting to impose a far-left agenda based upon income redistribution, governmental involvement in countless aspects of life, and a weak foreign policy that doesn’t take threats seriously.  But Turner knows that it’s Obama’s complexion we don’t like:

Frothing at the mouth, has-beens like former Vice President Dick Cheney and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, railed against the nation’s first black president.

If they’re has-beens, why not ignore them?  Perhaps the temptation to point out they dislike a president who happens to be black was too strong.  Plus, it served as one more chance for him to toss cheap insults, which might be considered his hobby:

Nasty wannabes like Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. C., whined that President Obama is a “socialist” and said he governs “from a teleprompter.” Fox News’ Glenn Beck, a real skinhead, also wowed the 10,000 attendees last week.

An editor should have noticed that Turner called Beck a “skinhead” a sentence after referring to a U.S. senator as “nasty” for the crime of being a conservative.  But, as with the general public, maybe it was too painful for other News staffers to read entire paragraphs at a time.  The writer himself apparently failed to recognize the irony of his own spitefulness, which can’t surprise any poor soul who’s encountered his previous work.

It’s hard to pick out the most fun example of Turner’s ludicrous hyperbole.  Phrases he used to classify CPAC, such as “embarrassing idiocy” and “hypocritical plunderers,” are among my favorites.  That said, such characterizations pale in comparison to his summarizing claim that, “Republicans hope to harness these fears, suburban resentment against Obama’s overreach and, let’s face it, a measure of racial antagonism this November.”  That’s the winner, as it confirms Turner is the saddest type of journalist: a Keith Olbermann wannabe.  Should we similarly invite The Buffalo News hack to a Tea Party?  We can explain to him in person why he’s not very good at uncovering duplicity: 

Speakers auditioning at CPAC called for smaller government, more tax cuts and less spending. At the same time, Republican congressional leaders, who are now in the minority, are in the lead when requesting earmarks.

Does Turner realize that “Republican” and “conservative” aren’t synonyms?  Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.  It’s unfortunate Turner didn’t actually listen to Beck’s speech instead of lamely tossing accusations of supposed racial, racist racism.  If he had bothered to pay attention, he would have learned why the Fox News host thinks GOP officeholders have contributed to the mess precisely by not acting with fiscal restraint.

Turner should in fact be happy when Republican leaders spend like liberals.  But he’s too busy pointing out how much they totally hate minorities to notice.  He’s got interesting company.  Meanwhile, even the quick aside with which he closes his column deserves shredding:

Two great Obama moves last week: meeting with Tibet’s Dalai Lama over the ChiComs protests, and offering government help for nuclear power plants.

Turner failed to notice that the White House figuratively bowed to the “ChiComs” by insultingly steering His Holiness out the back door past a garbage pile.  I’d expect to be ushered through the back entrance if I visited the White House; of course, I’m not quite a spiritual leader.

And it seems that Turner can only get excited about nuclear power when the feds guarantee loans for the conglomerates.  Everyone’s aware of what government involvement does for the economy.   On the other hand, letting the industry compete in the free market is probably racist for some reason.

It will just be more of the same.  We’ve given up hoping that the News will ever strive for genuine editorial balance.  But at least they could deploy liberal columnists who stick to policy disagreements.  Instead, the rag features the rantings of a sad, demonstrably hateful little man who accuses anyone dissenting from his leftist views of being a diabolical, treacherous, swastika-wearing caveman obsessed with hating the president solely because he looks different than the previous presidents.  And Turner thinks CPAC patrons are fearfully intolerant?

Failing to Earn Credit

The one thing that’s better than making money is being handed some.  That’s why anyone who doubts the Earned Income Tax Credit is the most wondrous gift our benevolent government has ever bestowed upon us should read The Buffalo News.

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.

Off-the-Rails Spending

We need government-funded trains to facilitate travel across the country.  On top of that, their construction will spur financial recovery.  That’s because it’s 1936.  Regrettably, when it comes to fixing and administering the economy, we’re still coping with a Depression mentality; further, Washington is strangely pushing a mode of transportation that was popular in the same era.  Next, we’ll take our dimes to the cinema and buy tickets for a talkie.

Back here in the alleged present, many states are competing against each other in the name of getting the feds to buy them choo-choos.  It’s a race that shouldn’t be run and is worth losing.  Of course, some media outlets see nothing but currency raining upon certain well-connected states:

New York finished an unimpressive eighth Thursday in the race to share $8 billion in federal money to develop high-speed passenger rail service.

The $151 million awarded to the state is a small fraction of the amounts awarded to other states. The biggest winner, California, got $2.3 billion, and Florida got $1.25 billion.

Grabbing the most federal money counts as a lousy contest victory.  On the other hand: jobs!  Jobs!  Jobs!  Not really, but: jobs!

“This is great news for New York,” Senator (Kirsten) Gillibrand said. “Building high-speed rail here will connect more commuters and businesses, create jobs immediately and help rebuild our economy for the long term.

The junior senator’s press release carries on a bit longer about how any day now the stimulus will align the planets and remove the calories from birthday cake while proving employment for 102 percent of Americans.  Please hear her out: she should get to enjoy being senator while she can in case her time is running short.

Still, Gillibrand disregards why train-builders aren’t already in action: the government’s in the way.  As usual, the same entity that’s running a debt of $12 million million or so is futilely trying to create jobs by tossing even more cash at the problem.  Unfortunately, a year of Obamanomics hasn’t precisely enriched anyone, especially the one out of about every 10 Americans who aren’t working at all.  Spending more federal money to repair the economy is like trying to sober up with a swig from the Beefeater bottle.

Perversely, the government is creating circumstances so business-hostile that only same government can afford major projects.  Of course, neither many media outlets nor the federal monstrosity itself ever considers from where the funding comes.  To clarify: they’re taking, borrowing, or printing money, all of which are diametrically different from earning it.  Only those accountable to customers truly understand each dollar’s value; of course, they’re also the ones who aren’t being permitted to unilaterally initiate railway construction.

Private companies would be far better at determining if we want or need hopped-up trains.  If genuine demand existed for passenger railways, investors would be fighting to lay down track first.  Naturally, they’d be looking to make money in exchange for offering transportation.  Instead, states get money from the communal pile to build away despite the dubious demand level.

We seem to get around just fine without a speedier Amtrak at our disposal.  Take Buffalo’s traveling options, which epitomize the rail service’s gratuitousness.  People heading to Rochester or Albany get on the Thruway; those with destinations in different time zones get on a plane.

In broader terms, America’s geography makes train travel impractical in most cases.  As for the exceptions, some of the remaining corporations not owned by the public should be allowed to construct practical railways and reap the ensuing benefits from grateful riders.

And we’ve already seen the futility of such funding and planning.  This city has endured wasting money on a useless track project before: the present scheme reeks of the Metro Rail.

Consider what this city endured to get the train down Main.  It took ages to build, especially considering the paltry 6.2 miles it covers.  It cost an extraordinary amount even by public construction standards.  It doesn’t go much of anywhere, especially if one wants to head left or right.  It’s often light on users despite the fact it was built because we allegedly needed it.  It firmly shoved a downtown district that was teetering on a precipice.  Other than that, we should thank the government for what they did to help us.  When it comes to bullet trains in New York, we’ll go nowhere faster.