Yeah...right, I'll be monitoring my butt crack for flying monekys in the mean time.

Tuh, you adorable dreamer, you. Next, I suppose you're going to propose a car that generates its own electricity as it drives down the road by using an on-board wind turbine. You get some bad booya, or what?

Does somebody need some noogies?

LAMBERT: I'll put you down as a Dubious Luddite.

I think our own Jason Lewis would do an excellent job exposing the shortcomings of Mr. Obama. Take away the speech written for him and Barack is a complete moron.

(Jason is doing a wonderful job illustrating liberal hyprocasy as substitute host on the Rush Limbaugh show. Many Minnesotans may not know that because our largest news source, the fair and balanced Star-Tribune, still cannot bring itself to even mention that a local guy is filling one of the most influential positions in this year's election.

LAMBERT: Thank you, Jason. (And Obama writes his own stuff.)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love to see "Question Time" instituted in this country. Although, have you ever listened to Canada's. it sounds like a scene from "Snake Pit."

LAMBERT: The public would quickly see the "snakes" for what they are.

54/46 seems about right. Indeed, you may be smarter than you think. Since BO became the nominee the stock market has sighed and sank. This week it is down 450 points.

I know you liberals all believe you can tap investors by doubling capital gains tax, increasing the top marginal income tax rate and hit all those with incomes over $250,000 with a 12% social security tax.

But some caution should be pursued. Witness the Saturday WSJ article that quoted economist Mundell. Some of the quotes are:

“So when Mr. Mundell says that rescinding the Bush tax cuts "would be devastating to the world economy," that oil prices are "not so far off track," that Asia needs its own multilateral currency, or that the ham sandwiches sitting before us could use some mustard, one is inclined to pay attention – and, except in the case of lunch, to think long term.”

“Should taxes instead be cut again, I ask him, to stimulate the sluggish economy? Mr. Mundell replies that he favors a ceiling of 30% on marginal rates (the current top rate is 35%). He recounts how the past century experienced a titanic struggle over whether tax rates are too high or too low: from a 3% income tax in 1913; up to 60% during World War I; down to 25% before Congress and President Herbert Hoover raised taxes back to 60% in 1932 and "sealed the fate of our economy for a long, long time"; all the way up to 92.5% during World War II before falling in three steps, reaching 28% under President Ronald Reagan; and back to nearly 40% under Bill Clinton before George W. Bush lowered them to their current level.”

“In light of this fiscal roller coaster, Mr. Mundell says, "the most important thing that could be done with respect to tax rates now is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Eliminating that uncertainty would be more important than pushing for a further cut – in the income tax rates, anyway."

“One tax that he would cut, to 25%, is the corporate tax rate. "It could be even lower," he says, "but I think it would be a big step to lower it to 25% . . . I made that proposal back in the 1970s."

Remember, Robert Mundell is a Nobel Laureate in economics and is the father of the Euro.

LAMBERT: Rather than automatically resetting the Bush tax "cuts", (the effect on the middle class has been, effectively, a tax increase when you start totaling up dramatically increased fees for all sorts of government services that used to be funded via one mechanism or another), what do say this time we BEGIN with a round of significant middle-class tax cuts, then wait a year to gauge their impact on demand for goods and services ... and job growth ... before resuming the usual conservative bromides for the ruling class?

Jason Lewis couldn't find his way to Mendota Heights with a map.

LAMBERT: If it was a Jason Lewis Fan Club gathering he'd MapQuest it.

Lambert: Don't forget the number one Obama PAC is Goldman Sachs, the second is the University of California and down at six or 7 is Harvard University.

Through March 2008, contrary to popular and MSM belief, Obama had 39% of his donors as $200 or less. At the same time in 2004 John Kerry had 42% of his collections from donors giving $200 or less.

Party of the people?

LAMBERT: Really, #1? I'll have to check that out. But are you saying these 4 million new registrees are really Goldman, Sachs derivatives traders and not "people"? I'm sure you've ot numbers for either Bush campaign, 2000 or 2004.

Which fees would those be? I can stand to be convinced - I'm just saying I thinks thats one of those things that get said that isn't borne out by reality. And certainly, if its true at all I dont think the fee incidence racked up my a middle class family approaches the amount taxes were cut for them.

I found the child tax cedit to be the biggest reliever of my taxes due. Its a fine mechanism I suppose, but I still believe its one of these things that contributes to the over complexity of the tax code.

Assuming "the people" bothered to watch or listen, yes, they'd soon see these people for what they are.

But the thing is, it's these very people who would have to choose to out themselves as nitwits and weasels by passing legislation to create "Question Time." So, unless you're hoping to get a Constitutional Convention going on this issue, it's simply not going to happen, despite what John McCain may say knowing full well even as thte words pass his teeth that it will never happen.

LAMBERT: Why would it need legislation? The President says, "I'll do it." Congress either excepts or declines. C-SPAN runs it. Bingo. The fun part might be the President reversing the action and calling out the next Congress's version of Tom DeLay to explain his last trip to the Marianas sweat shops ad what in the hell he thinks of Jack Abramoff?

You're throwing lightweights at Obama. Sean Hannity, the head of conservative's intellectual leadership?? Try George Will or David Broooks and perhaps a conversation will ensue.

LAMBERT: I am being facetious about Hannity. Brooks or Will would make for good sparring. The point is, bring in the best interrogators you can find. I'll feel more comfortable knowing whoever it is can deal with some despot if I can first see him parrying with shrewd adversaries here.

Name for us something that involves more than one branch of government interacting that is NOT codified....I'm stumped.

The State of the Union? It's in the Constitution, albeit vaguely. But do you really think a president the likes of Bush right now wouldn't blow off the State of the Union and not come to Congress to explain what in God's name he's been doing lately if he could?

The budget? The president proposes and the congress disposes. But not because a president thinks it'd be a good idea for the congress to have a look at the budget. It's in the Constitution. Etc.

And it's not as though "Question Time" in England and some of its former colonies is an organic, spontaneous phenomenon without cant and agitprop theatrics. Of course, one nice aspect of it, and presumably any version we'd come up with, is that lying to or deliberately misleading Parliament (Congress, if we do it)is illegal and British ministers have lost their positions for it.

But, come on, the White House uses Congressional subpoenas for toilet paper now. Whichever party is NOT in power at the time this would be proposed would shoot it down. And I don't care what McCain's saying out on the hustings now (he'll clearly say ANYTHING), if in the unlikely event he were elected president, there is no way he would actually push for some American version of "Question Time."

And it certainly would never happen in the reverse. As Jake said at the end of "The Sun Also Rises," "Yes, isn't it pretty to think so."

This will never happen. McCain knows it, otherwise, he'd never have brought it up in the first place.

LAMBERT: Hence the reference to Jonathon Swift.

For 108's scrutinous consideration:

http://www.pawlentyunplugged.com/index_files/Page1882.htm

Your man, Swift, an Irishman, was being ironic with his proposal that his countrymen eat their young to supplement the starvation diet imposed by their British oppressors.

Though I've no doubt Swift's pamphlet was lost on the sensibilities of many of the English gentry of the time leaving them late to the joke, and thus, the deserving brunt of it.

You, I and many others, on the other hand, would dearly love to see your modest proposal come to fruition. In this case, of course, the ruling class would be self-cannibalizing, metaphorically speaking.

And the one area where there has always been bipartisanship in DC is when it comes to the appetite for power, getting it and keeping it. So there'd be rare unanimity and the joining of well-greased palms across the richly-carpeted aisle to prevent this potentially ignominious tradition from ever taking root on these shores.

But, yeah, it'd be delicious catharsis.

Jim,

Be that as it may, true or otherwise, Brian was postulating that the Bush tax cuts have been the cause for fee increases that have significantly eroded those same tax savings. He was not speaking of the Pawlently budget cuts.

I would add, I thought you folks were of a mind the citizenry shouldn't be led to believe government can be done on the cheap, that they need to know services cause real money. Removing the federal or state subsidy to local services accomplishes that.

Hey, Maestro, how 'bout some keen insight into the new wave of political ads hitting the airwaves this week? Norm and Laurie Coleman together as they attempt to humanize him; I wonder if they had to be reintroduced. And Franken, attempting to show some gravitas after the porn/satire dust-up with his infrastructure ad.

Let the Games begin.

LAMBERT: Give me a minute, man. You know, I've got a day job.

The Bush tax cuts would appear to have been the stimulus for nothing more than record deficits and deeper dependence on debt to the Chinese. Last I checked, this economy and the job market were as moribund as Bush's former baseball franchise.

As to your facile point about local services and paying what they cost, the concept of revenue sharing and then, under Reagan, block grants, is a fairly well-understood and established concept of creating some semblance of equity among the states and counties and cities. Same with revenue sharing within the state's budget.

No dout it offends a bootstrapper like yourself who is an island unto himself.

Prime Minister's Question Time (seen live on C-SPAN2 on Wednesday mornings, repeated on C-SPAN on Sunday nights) is great political theatre and worth checking out on a regular basis. I got hooked on it during the Tony Blair years as PM and, after sitting in the visitor's gallery in the House of Commons during my last visit to London, came away with a new appreciation of it. Don't miss the first 10 minutes each week when PM Gordon Brown gets grilled by Tory leader David Cameron. It's a game of one-upsmanship. Wouldn't it be great to see it replicated here in the U.S. Senate?

LAMBERT: And here's to you, Mr. Dickens.

No jimmy, what offends me is the specious leftist orthodoxy thrown in these posts thats immediately contradicted when convenient in the next discussion. Such as "the Bush tax "cuts", (the effect on the middle class has been, effectively, a tax increase when you start totaling up dramatically increased fees for all sorts of government services that used to be funded via one mechanism or another."

This is only true if you can identify federal budget cuts associated with the Bush tax cuts. State aid, etc. Theyre were none. The Bush administration hasnt been known for belt tightening. And that is acknowledged when you folks complain of the record Bush deficits.

Bootstrapper... Thats some really edifying insight from a writer who proclaims such disdain for caricature.

LAMBERT: Bush has blown the budget on the usual misadventures (and, always remember, most of his Iraq adventure is "off the books") while gutting "social spending" unpopular with true conservatives. As the federal govt. pulls back, -- or fails to properly fund stuiff like No child Left Behind mandates -- it falls to the state, with which a no new taxes pledging governor passes it down to municipal districts. Do you have kids in school? How much are they paying to play football? Choir trips, etc.? The trickle down amounts to, at best, a wash with any "tax cut" for the middle-class, whose earning power has been stagnate for years.

Left-bert Lambert apparently has crossed over from media "pundit" to full blown Democratic Advocacy.

How else do you explain his ignoring the contemptable Move On.org anti-military ads, the Franken "I'm No Porn Chuckler" attempts, the Obamasiah's refusal to have head-scarved Muslims sit near him for an appearance, etc.

Even Jason Lewis subbing for Rush gets ....nothing. That's the biggest local media story of the year.

Or, how about a comment on the roster of American enemies endorsing the Obamasiah (Castro, Hamas, Kim Jong, etc) ?

Nope, just a constant drumbeat of Bush Hate.

LAMBERT: Jason filling in for Rush is "the biggest local media story of the year"? And what, Hugh Hewitt belching topped the bridge collapse?

Aaaaaaaaaaand THAT brings us full circle. Do we start again now? Alrighty.

Yeah, PMQT's a venerable tradition. It'll never happen here. Okay, Brian's turn.

LAMBERT: I'll defer to the great orator from ...

I do have kids in school. Soccer and T ball fees are running $65 - $85 for us. Am I supposed to believe that’s exorbitant because of the absence of a federal block grant to mitigate those fees? Jeez man, prioritize. Is there nothing you wouldn’t tax and spend for given the option?

You can cite Pawlenty unplugged all day. I stipulate that if I’ve had a $2000 savings on my federal taxes due, there is no way the subsequent increased fee incidence I incurred at the state and local have approached 25% of that. My property taxes went up a couple hundred bucks over several years. That was not unexpected. It’s yet some ways from approaching a wash. It’s weird though. I don’t know how I got a tax cut – I’m not rich.

Bush has not ‘gutted’ social spending, but I’d be happy to see an attribution. A reduction in the annual increase does not count. This is knee jerk ideological mythology. I do believe there’s plenty to bash Bush on. I just choose to bash him for the stuff that’s true.

But I won’t continue. Heller vs. DC came down. That battle is over, and the proper view won. Boy, the Democrats wasted a couple decades political capital on that. What a monumental waste it was. There could have been a President Gore, for crying out loud.

LAMBERT: What, effectively, is the difference between a tax and a fee you have to pay because the tax has been "reduced", or in the case of Bush-o-nomics, shifdted to someone else?