Same Old Square Dance

Mark Steyn on the futility of trying the same, tired ideas and expecting different outcomes:

President Barack Obama was supposed to be “cool.” But he isn’t. He’s square. Not just mildly so, but embarrassingly square. He’s squaresville squared. It’s like you’re having a party with your friends, and he’s the cringe-making middle-age parent who wants to show he digs where the young people are at by grooving around in the middle of the dance floor all night long.

How do I know? I’ve been there, and I’ve been square. By “there,” I mean I’ve been in places that have tried all the cool Obama dance moves and eventually wised up to what utter clunkers they are.

A week ago, the House of Representatives passed some gargantuan “cap-and-trade” bill designed to “save” “the environment.” Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, accused those Neanderthals who voted against the bill of committing “treason against the planet.” By that standard, most of the planet is guilty of treason against the planet. I don’t mean just in the sense that China, already the world’s No. 1 CO2 emitter, and India and other rising economic powers have absolutely no intention of doing what the Democrats have done, no way, no how - because they don’t see why they should stay poor just because New York Times columnists think it’s good for them.

No, I mean that most of the developed world has already gone down the paved road of good intentions and is now frantically trying to pedal up out of it. New Zealand was one of the few Western nations to sign on to Kyoto and then attempt to abide by it - until New Zealanders realized they could only do so by destroying their economy. They introduced a Dem-style cap-and-trade regime - and last year they suspended it. In Australia, the Labor Government postponed implementation of its emissions-reduction program until 2011, and the Aussie Senate may scuttle it entirely. The Obama administration has gotten to the climate-change hop just as the glitter ball’s stopped whirling, and the band’s packing up its instruments.

It’s like watching the four millionth rerun of Saturday Night Fever expecting it to end differently. Folks like Paul Krugman are demanding even more “stimulus” spending even though the “old” stimulus has been increasing unemployment instead of producing jobs. Expecting different outcomes is a specialty of the left.

Out of control spend and tax programs beget new, bigger spend and tax proposals. Yet the song remains the same, the tired, dated dance steps go on endlessly under the strobe lights and the glitter ball. It ends the same way every time the movie plays.

The outcomes remain the same. Rapidly rising deficits. The only growth is in a bloated Federal bureaucracy needing ever increasing feedings of tax dollars. Tax dollars that are just not there as more and more people lose jobs as the economy spirals down, crushed under the increasing load of debt and the looming financial disaster all this spending will bring about.

Over and over and over, the same, tired, statist ideas that only lead to more statist ideas.

Go read the whole thing.

Flunking Basic Math

Forbes on the Marxman-Wacky fraud bill:

Electricity is a good thing. It powers your computer, drives economic growth, transmits images from Tehran streets, keeps preemies alive in hospitals, prevents meat from rotting and enchants and cools you in movie theaters.

Yes, electricity is a good thing. Where does it come from?

In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources. If you are reading this on a handheld and can’t read Wikipedia’s wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:

48.9% — Coal
20% — Natural Gas
19.3% — Nuclear
1.6% — Petroleum

Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called “evil” energy–that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based–to almost 90%.

The remaining sources of U.S. electricity, the renewables, are, by comparison, tiny players:

7.1% — Hydroelectric
2.4% — Other Renewables
0.7% — Other

Hydroelectric accounts for 70% of renewable energy in America. But, of course, hydro is mostly tapped out. Almost every dam that could be built has been built. Ironically enough, political opposition to building more dams comes from the same crowd of tree huggers who oppose coal, gas and uranium.

Do you see where I’m going?

The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House on Friday by a 219-212 margin will punitively tax energy sources that contribute 90% of current U.S. electricity (or 71% if you want to leave out nuclear). The taxes will be used to subsidize the 10% renewable contributors (but really just 3% after you leave out hydro).

I’ve pointed out before that wind energy is a bad bet. Yet this is deemed to be the future of this nation. Marxman-Wacky dooms the United States to a future of rapidly-rising energy costs and a much lower standard of living. On top of the, it hammers the economy while we are still in serious economic trouble. 

On top of that, the “science” this is based on is more faith than fact.

Start calling your Senators and help stop this monstrosity.

Target: Democrats

By the left:

In the high-stakes battle over health care, a growing cadre of liberal activists is aiming its sharpest firepower against Democratic senators who they accuse of being insufficiently committed to the cause.

The attacks — ranging from tart news releases to full-fledged advertising campaigns — have elicited rebuttals from lawmakers and sparked a debate inside the party over the best strategy for achieving President Obama’s top priority of a comprehensive health-system overhaul.

The rising tensions between Democratic legislators and constituencies that would typically be their natural allies underscore the high hurdles for Obama as he tries to hold together a diverse, fragile coalition. Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of “true health reform,” but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill.

In recent days — and during this week’s congressional recess — left-leaning bloggers and grass-roots organizations such as MoveOn.org, Health Care for America Now and the Service Employees International Union have singled out Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) for the criticism more often reserved for opposition party members.

“Will Mary Landrieu sell out Louisiana for $1.6 million?” says one Internet ad that suggests a link between contributions she has received from the medical industry and her reluctance to back the creation of a government-sponsored insurance option.

Why the full frontal assault on Democrats? Simple. If Harry Reid can muster a simple majority, the leftist Democrats plan on blasting this health care “fix” (it is not) through, bypassing the normal rules of the Senate.  

What they are not calculating, I suspect, is that should they do so, they will own - wholly - the ire of those people who are forced off their private health insurance because their employers decided it was cheaper to pay than play in a rigged game.

If I were one of the targeted Democrats, my back would be up right now. I sincerely hope this effort by the likes of MorOn.org accomplishes exactly the same result as their attacks on the surge in Iraq: the opposite of what they intended. 

I’ll just point out that MorOn.org is very, very loud and knows how to grab left-leaning media attention. But in terms of actual strength, not so much. So the targeted Senators have no real reason to fear the sliming from such groups.

Via Memeorandum.

About Face

This is really no surprise to anyone who has been watching Barack Obama’s regular reversals on campaign promises, routine double-speak and outright hypocrisy on subject after after subject. But today he carefully executed a tight little pirouette and completely reversed himself on what is probably one of the most important promises he made during the campaign that had a lot to do with getting him elected.

Instead of the oft-repeated promise that people would get to keep health insurance they are happy with, Obama firmly announced that the government would force them to switch. Which is completely dodging the fact that the government’s perverse incentives would make companies opt out of offering any health insurance. This has always been the danger of the Democrat’s big plans.

Every bill now being drafted in Congress would establish a “pay or play”-type choice for employers: Employers must either offer government-approved coverage to workers (”play”) or pay a tax to the government instead to partially cover the costs of their premiums for insurance secured through a new “exchange” system. For years, Democrats have argued that this construct would ensure that reform “builds upon” the employer-based insurance system. But, in fact, the Democratic approach to reform would have exactly the opposite effect. Employers would get burdened with new costs and insurance requirements, even as the government used price controls to offer a government-run insurance option with artificially low premiums and provided new subsidies for coverage only for workers getting insurance through the “exchange.” That’s a recipe for dismantling job-based insurance. The Lewin Group has estimated that, assuming certain plausible specifications, some 119 million people would end up leaving job-based coverage for a government-run plan as employers opted to “pay” rather than “play.”

Faced with incontrovertible evidence that he and his allies have no intention or ability to fulfill their commitment to Americans regarding their current coverage, President Obama decided today at his press conference to try to redefine the promise. What he meant, he now says, is that the government wouldn’t force people out of their health-care plan. If tens of millions of people get pushed out of their current coverage, it would be because firms chose to drop their insurance plans - never mind the fact that they would do so based on the financial incentives the government put in place.

As I see it, based on what little is being leaked at this point, the very first victims to lose their health coverage will be those who retired from companies before the age of 65 and who have “bridge” health care coverage until they reach aged 65. Then it will be employees of companies that simply make the calculation that it is cheaper to pay than it is to play - especially since the falsely low cost government option will inevitably drive up the cost of playing.

The left knows full well - as does Obama - that a government option will destroy the private health insurance market. They also know that a lot of people will, indeed, lose the coverage they like. They simply do not care.

Add to that the fact that Congress will exempt itself and Federal employees from the rules they will impose on the rest of us and you should be able to see where this is heading. It is not going to be pretty and there will be a lot of very unhappy voters in a very short period of time after they find out what has been done to them.

But your private, employer-based insurance? Gone. Bet on it.

The. Lowest. Requirement. Of. Respect.

A follow up on something I posted the other day. You may remember that a Senator from California berated a brigadier general for answering her questions with the honorific “ma’am”. Said Senator demanded that the general refer to her as “Senator”. A note from Blackfive on the matter:

As a former Army Officer, if one of my soldiers called me “Lieutenant”, instead of “el-tee” or “Sir”, I would know that he found me lacking. Calling me by my job title or rank is only done because it is the lowest requirement of respect.

The. Lowest. Requirement. Of. Respect.

If one of my soldiers called me “Captain”, without using my last name behind it or “Sir”, I would know that he found me substandard.

BG Walsh was showing Barbara Boxer respect by calling her “Ma’am” instead of “Senator.” Believe me, the title “Senator” does not really hold a whole lot of credibility in the US military. It’s a job, and a Corporal leading a team in Baqubah has more honor than most of those holding that title.

Do read the entire thing, including the suggestion for sending a letter to the senator. The only thing I would suggest would improve the entire letter-writing campaign would be to address the letter to “senator or current occupant”. Please note the lack of capitalization. 

Which will henceforth be my chosen form for addressing anything the senator or current occupant says or does for the remainder of her time in office.

After she leaves office, it will just be “occupant”.

On Addressing Nobility

Oh, my. It would appear that Barbara Boxer, Senator from California, is very, very emphatic that her elected title be used when addressing her.

Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer’s questions with “ma’am” when Boxer immediately cut him off.

“You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’”

“Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected.

“It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you,” she said.

“Yes, senator,” he responded.

One could point out a simple few words from the Constitution of the United States:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States…”

In other words, “Senator” is a job and a job title, not a patent of nobility. The honorific ‘ma’am’ is completely acceptable under military regulations, as the article points out.

America was founded specifically to get away from titled nobility. I find it more than a bit ridiculous that Barbara Boxer insists that her elected job title define her. No disrespect was intended, the general in question followed - precisely - regulations on the addressing of others and Boxer’s insistence to the contrary makes her look both small, officious and overly concerned with her “title”.

Whip It, Whip It Good

When a good time turns around
You must whip it
You will never live it down
Unless you whip it
No one gets away
Until they whip it

Devo - Whip It

Gee, no hint of coordinated whipping from the left on this, is there. The JournoList strikes again with horrifying, hideous, nearly identical hysterical whipping of the meme that - gasp - Obama care might be in trouble.

What’s the latest assessment from those closely monitoring health care reform? Prognosis negative.

“Health reform is, I think it fair to say, in danger right now,” wrote Ezra Klein this morning at the Washington Post.

“Attention fellow liberals who want health care reform,” wrote Jonathan Cohn yesterday at the New Republic. “You are in danger of losing the fight for universal health insurance. And it’s not only - or even primarily - because of the public plan.”

“Anyone else think the net result of health reform is going to be that insurance companies have even more political power?,” twittered Atrios this afternoon.

What’s got the pro-reform contingent worried?

“It’s because of the money,” writes Cohn.

Yes, it actually is about the money. As in “It costs too much”. Not as in, “We want even more,” as the Klein meme is pushing. Klein is the proud papa of the coordinating emporium of the JournoList, let us not forget that.

I have been all over the Obama care scheme because of the brutal cost, the brutal loss of insurance by people who work for their coverage and the brutal taxation that will be required to pay for a plan that actually strips insurance coverage away from working stiffs who have played by the rules.  Not as an attempt to whip up hysteria and fear to get this abomination passed.

Bush, Retroactive

This is late in the day to post about this particular gem, but it is a bit hard to pass up. It seems that it is quite fashionable in the Washington, DC suburbs to blame George W. Bush for every treasonous act committed since the Carter administration:

He was a courtly State Department intelligence analyst from a prominent family who loved to sail and peruse the London Review of Books. Occasionally, he would voice frustration with U.S. policies, but to his liberal neighbors in Northwest D.C. it was nothing out of the ordinary. “We were all appalled by the Bush years,” one said.

What Walter Kendall Myers kept hidden, according to documents unsealed in court Friday, was a deep and long-standing anger toward his country, an anger that allegedly made him willing to spy for Cuba for three decades.

“I have become so bitter these past few months. Watching the evening news is a radicalizing experience,” he wrote in his diary in 1978, referring to what he described as greedy U.S. oil companies, inadequate health care and “the utter complacency of the oppressed” in America. On a trip to Cuba, federal law enforcement officials said in legal filings, Myers found a new inspiration: the communist revolution.

Myers became an agent - a spy - for Cuba in 1978.  So he became a spy while Carter was in office - and continued right on through Reagan, George HW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush.

But, apparently, it is all GW Bush’s fault.

Both Myers and his wife are very much the children of privilege. They both come from families with money, position and power.

And they both turned on the very country that gave them what they had. They did so more than 30 years ago.

Yet the media - and their fellow travelers in the Washington, DC suburbs still want to hang the treason of the Myers on Bush. 

Time to put all employees of the State Department through polygraph testing. They are privy to much of the same information as the CIA gets. No more country clubby, connection-driven State Department career employment without any scrutiny.

These people work for us, we need to know whether or not we are their only employer.

And Still More Pooh

Isn’t technology wonderful? British researchers have discovered a way to use satellites to discover the whereabouts of Antarctica’s emperor penguins. By tracking their poop stains.

Satellite images have picked up giant red-brown stains on the pristine white sea ice, indicating the presence of thousands of penguins.

It meant that researchers for the British Antarctic Survey were able to locate every colony on the continent for the first time ever.

The in-depth satellite survey identified 38 breeding colonies - believed to amount to between 200,000 and 400,000 breeding pairs of emperor penguins.

Until now it has been difficult to accurately estimate the population of emperor penguins because scientists have not been able to track them during the winter breeding season.

Researchers now hope by tracking the penguin colonies they can monitor the impact of climate change, which threatens to wipe out 95 per cent of the population by 2100.

One applauds the application of technology, but one is also at a bit of a loss to figure out exactly how “global warming” will “wipe out 95 per cent” of the penguin poopulation. Perhaps by freezing them to death? Because the Antarctic ice sheet is GROWING, not shrinking.  In fact, it is about one million square kilometers bigger than the historical average right now. The increase is  larger than the total area of Texas by about 1/3. The Antarctic ice growth dwarfs the much-talked about Arctic sea ice loss, by the way.

What The National Media Is Not Telling You

The national media has been pontificating all day about what a disaster the California referendum results are. They have been wailing about what cuts are going to have to be enacted as a result of the vote. Some are even bemoaning the fact that voters exercised their democratic rights to reject the tax hikes.

What is missing, from what I have read at least, is the incredible size of the majorities that beat hell out of the spend and tax proposals. If Obama’s 6% election victory was a “landslide”, this is a thermonuclear landslide.  We are talking about a nearly 2 to 1 rejection of higher taxes here, not a just-got-by defeat.

The only thing that passed in an even bigger landslide was that pesky proposition 1F - cutting off any legislative or state executive pay increases when the state is running a deficit. That one passed by a 3 to 1 margin.

The sheer size of these numbers is stunning.

The national media will ignore the numbers and deride the ignorant masses that defeated the measures. So will the tax-increase-crazed national Democrats.

The percentages say they do so at their peril.

If California is the bellwether that many in the media proclaim when it tilts left, they are foolish to ignore it when it tilts right.

Klein

I have posted a number of times about something Joe Klein has written. Often because he was under attack by some of the less-hinged members of the left. This quote from Klein about Charles Krauthammer is unfortunate:

“There’s something tragic about him, too,” Klein said, referring to Krauthammer’s confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. “His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s writing about.”

Unfortunately, Klein’s defense of that quote is even more unfortunate:

So it is possible to write brilliant, nuanced commentary-on the war in Iraq, for example-without visiting there. But it sure does help to understand a complicated situation in an unfamiliar culture if you can see it for yourself. Indeed, I believe the leavening effects of direct experience are especially valuable for those who are blinkered by ideology and debilitated by extreme views.

In other words then, if you agree with Klein’s positions, you are bright and able to rise above disability. Cripples who disagree cannot.

Yeah, that was a pretty harsh way to put it, but that would be what Klein appears to have meant.

(For the record, I had no idea - at all - the Charles Krauthammer even uses a wheelchair. Nor does it matter in any way, shape or form.)

I’ll point this out, yet again: if Klein was a conservative pundit, he would already have been fired by Time for his comment. Just as David Axelrod would have been gainfully unemployed right now had he made his Miss California joke as a Republican consultant rather than as an Obama White House adviser. Just as had Obama been a Republican, he would have still been dealing with a firestorm over his Special Olympics crack. 

Jason Arvak, writing at Michael Van Der Galein’s place, doesn’t even care for Krauthammer’s opinion writing - but understands just how badly Joe Klein stepped over a line here:

Personally and logically offensive double standards from some arrogant liberals. What a shock.

BTW, I disagree with Krauthammer’s approach to Iraq and Iran and, well, pretty much everywhere. But Klein’s particular reason for dismissing Krauthammer’s views is a betrayal of everything liberals are supposed to stand for, and what far too many of them including Klein have long since sacrificed in their partisan vendettas. 

I rather doubt I’ll bother defending Klein again.

The Political Left - Dissed By Dems

This one I did not see coming at all. The Democrats in Congress have blocked all funding to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said on Tuesday that they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Obama, who on Thursday is scheduled to outline his plans for the 240 detainees still held in the prison, has faced growing pressure from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, to find a solution that does not involve moving the prisoners to the United States.

While Democrats generally have been supportive of Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention center by Jan. 22, 2010, lawmakers have not stepped forward to offer to accept detainees in their home states or districts. When the tiny town of Hardin, Mont., offered to put the terrorism suspects in the town’s empty jail, both Montana senators and its Congressional representative quickly voiced strong opposition.

So, after all the posturing worrying about the “rights” of the terrorists, it suddenly occurs to the Democrats that they might actually have to face the prospect of these illegal combatants running loose in the US.

Well, duh.

Bonus here is that the left finds out that polls matter more to their chosen party than the principles of the left do. Because the issue of importing these detainees into the US must have polled very, very badly indeed for the Democrats to have shifted this hard, this fast, on this issue.

Well, double duh. 

Welcome to the sudden realization that Bush just might have made the right call on these illegal combatants - which is what the Geneva Conventions call them.

Where We Are Heading

I listen to NPR on my long drive to and from work each day. I have heard Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, repeatedly mention the Obama strategy for eliminating health care choices that “Don’t work”. As in treatments that don’t restore the recipient of the treatment to health.

Let’s take that to its logical conclusion, shall we?

Once again, we have people taking the shortage, rationing approach to its logical conclusion. In a non-shortage, free-market approach, people can choose for themselves whether to pursue cost-effective strategies based on their own resources, and the free market would incentivize the creation of enough resources to meet the demand. Only by restricting choice and setting prices will resources become scarce, which we have seen gradually for the last several decades in our own heavily-regulated health-care system, and seen dramatically in the various single-payer systems around the world.

What happens when the state controls all the resources? New resources do not develop, and the government winds up rationing care based on its own priorities, and not the priorities of the patients or caregivers. Professor Altman’s suggestion that the elderly get hospice treatment to save scarce care resources is exactly the kind of decisions the state will make for its citizens, and it won’t be limited to the elderly, either. Anyone whose value does not show a positive “cost-benefit” ratio to the state will also likely wind up without the kind of care necessary to stay alive and healthy.

Let me point out something that should be obvious, but apparently escapes the proponents of “free” health care.

Ultimately NO medical procedure whatsoever can defeat death.

So, in the end, isn’t all medical care futile?

This health care push is heading into territory a lot of voters did not think out fully.

The politics of envy have some ugly costs associated.

I hope we are better than this. No, I pray we are.

The Slippery Slope - On Steroids

As I - and many others - have been pointing out for quite some time now, somebody has to pay for all the grandiose Obama agenda. The mirage that Obama has been pushing - that only the rich would pay for all of this spending spree - has already been shattered. By the Obama administration itself. Now the real extent of how much money this will all cost is coming to light - and the draconian taxation - and the authoritative mentality driving the “solution” to the need for money to pay for all of this - that is coming.

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

McQ at QandO notes the same story and is also chilled at the authoritarian drive pushing these tax plans:

Well, here you go:

Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government’s health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.

And that’s the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The premise that it is the job of government to modify behavior through taxation (especially if it saves money) has obviously been swallowed whole.

Back to the original point about the myth of the tax cuts for 95% of Americans:

The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They’re expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.

But you can bet that the list won’t be too narrow - someone has got to pay for this. And, with mommy government deciding what you can and can’t eat, you might actually lose some weight. Not because you are necessarily eating healthy food, but because you can’t afford as much anymore. That’s because the one thing you can count on is your wallet will definitely lose weight as this “health care reform” abomination moves forward.

Understand something here: The left is unbelievably authoritarian. It firmly believes it has an absolute right to dictate exactly how each person conducts his or her personal life.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have already bought into this insanity. And they have cooperated in setting the stage for all of this.

So, now they have turned smokers into pariahs to be mercilessly taxed and opened the door to their own merciless taxation for whatever particular habits they enjoy.

There really is no small infringements of personal liberty. The minute one cooperates in the taking away of other people’s rights, they open the door to the removal of their own rights later.

The really stupid thing about the left’s reasoning here - that they have a right to tax behaviors they dislike out of existence - is that eventually, if they succeed, they will have to find another way to fund their mad spending.

Ready to be the next pariah? You will be if you don’t say no to all this real soon.  

Because taxes - the real, everyday taxes and costs and fees that everyone - everyone - pays will be skyrocketing in the near future. And this is only the tip of the Obama iceberg that is about to sink this economy.

Lights Begin To Come On

Some of Barack Obama’s biggest - and most generous - backers have now begun the painful process of realizing just what hope and change they paid and voted for - and are beginning to hope they can avert that change before it is too late.

Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obama during the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.

But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

A top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: “I’m appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it’s the real world. I’m surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He’s a real class warrior.”

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a free enterprise think tank, said Democrats in Congress were unnerved by the president’s latest plan to raise $210 billion over 10 years from multinational corporations.

The money is needed to pay for a national debt that will double over the next five years; and triple over the next 10 years to $17.3 trillion. But the crackdown already faces fierce Democratic resistance.

Personally, I’m not all that impressed with their reasoning skills if they couldn’t figure this out until they saw the mob with pitchforks at the gates. But then, Moe Lane councils staying away from “I told you so’s”.  Which seems a reasonable position to take.

One could, of course, point out the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress following the 2006 elections. A year later, the US economy entered a recession. Two years later the economy hit the wall. A few months after that, Barack Obama unleashed the mother of all spending sprees with no way to pay for the insane spending.

Let’s see if there is any ability of former or soon-to-be former Obama-backers to reason through that chain of events to the logical conclusion.

 Saying that Washington is spending like a drunken sailor is an insult to drunken sailors. They stop spending when they run out of money. Obama and the Democrats do not.

But the bills will still come due, the piper must be paid for all that fun dancing at the gala Obama spendaholic ball.

When the “free” health care and the Carbon Crap and Tax - oh, excuse me, Cap and Trade - begin to bite at the economy, that is when real damage will begin to accrue to the system. That is when the average people will begin to be crushed under the increasing costs of everything. Literally everything.

So, welcome then to reality - not the echo-chamber reality where hope and change is enough. The reality where someone has to pay for all of this. And it will be you, your children and your grandchildren.