The audacity of audacity
Sen. Obama has just released all of his earmark requests. This is going to be fun.
______
Occam’s razor — The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
Or more simply, the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
For instance:
- In 2004, just before Michelle Obama’s husband was elected to the Senate, her salary at University of Chicago Hospitals was $121,910.
- After Hubby Obama is elected to the Senate, the next year, Michelle’s salary gets bumped to $316,962 in 2005.
- The following year, Sen. Obama requests a $1 million dollar earmark for — you guessed it — the University of Chicago Hospital.
Using the principles of Occam’s Razor, it sure looks like Obama earmarked $1million dollars for his wife.
For a guy talking about “change”, the act of earmarking a bunch of money for his wife’s employer (right after they more than double her salary) sure seems like “business as usual” to me.
(h/t to Riehl World View)
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
It’s all semantics.
When he says he hopes for change, he means the change we have in our pockets, sofa cushions, car ashtrays, piggy banks, etc.
He is an uber-liberal, after all. Other people’s money is the most alluring.
Maybe he was trying to put money in his wife’s pocket.
Maybe he was, I dunno, earmarking money for a GODDAMN hospital.
Either way, can’t we agree that money for hospitals is a good thing?
Beat me to it, John.
It’s not like she worked for an obscure mom and pop outfit. It’s kind of his job to acquire Federal funding for his constituents. And a major urban hospital is the sort of infrastructure that actually deserves earmark funding.
that’s some salary for for someone who has never been proud of their country.
john, pres,
when we talk about how “good” helping hospitals is while ignoring someone extorting taxpayer money to increase their personal family income, aren’t we being a tad disingenuous?
Adam:
I’m saying maybe it’s in the interest of his constituents to increase funding for institutions like hospitals, and that his wife being employed by the hospital is a coincidence.
Do you think he SHOULDN’T give money to the hospital because his wife is employed there?
Or even if (mind you if) his wife pulled strings to get the money, perhaps it’s because she works for a hospital and wants more money so that, I dunno, sick people can be more readily attended to?
Actually, is the University of Chicago Hospital a non-profit organization? Or are they a private hospital in the money-making business?
Because, I’m generally NOT in favor of earmarking federal money for private local businesses. To include hospitals.
Any reason Dick Durbin couldn’t have requested this particular
earmarkshafting of the tax payer?You don’t think it unusual that Michelle happened to get a 160% raise in one year?
john,
if he must earmark money for his local hospital, that doesn’t make him any different from any other corrupt senator. hardly equates to “change” huh? but if subtly channeling this money to his wife’s hospital is some sort of moral endeavor, as you imply, isn’t it possible for it to occur without michelle’s 160% raise quickly following?
let’s get real. you’ve posted twice now. you continue to rail about helping hospitals and even when you apply a little common sense and preface it with “if”, you still don’t even acknowledge mrs. obamas substantial increase in pay. have you ever got a $200,000 raise? are you disputing she did? are you scrambling to research how she thought she could get away with it? are you seriously trying to tell us all to move along, there’s nothing to see here? do you think you may be acting a bit disingenuously?
pres,
you only commented once. what’s with this blatant dishonesty? when do the rabid change supporters take the blinders off?
Either way, can’t we agree that money for hospitals is a good thing?
No. You’re asking people to say money for this hospital is a good thing when it may not be. Hospitals compete for funding based on many different criteria. Why should this hospital get funding based on what appears to be a conflict of interest?