It’s Thursday, March 22nd, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

First up, Conn Carroll, writing in the Morning Examiner, exposes….

Obama’s Buffet Rule Farce

 

President Obama previewed the center-piece of his reelection campaign when he delivered his State of the Union this January: “Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. … Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

But since Obama’s State of the Union, the president and his press secretary Jay Carney, have been extremely vague about how the Buffett Rule should be implemented. After yesterday, we now know why.

Last month, Sen. Sheldon Whithouse, D-R.I., introduced a bill that actually did translate Obama’s Buffett rule into law, requiring a minimum 30 percent tax rate for the highest U.S. earners. Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation released two revenue estimates of the legislation. The first, found that over 11 years Obama’s Buffett rule would raise just $31 billion. JTC was then asked to re-score the bill. They did. This time they made more generous assumptions about how much income wealthy individuals would shield from taxation. The new verdict: the bill would raise $47 billion over 11 years.

How much is $47 billion over 11 years? Well, in FY 2012 the federal government is expected to spend $3.63 trillion dollars, otherwise known as $9.9 billion a day. In other words, the center piece of Obama’s wealth redistributing tax plan would take 11 years to pay for less than 5 days of federal government spending.

At $47 billion over 11 years, it is clear that the Buffett rule has nothing to do with fairness, common sense, or reducing the debt. Thanks to Sen. Whitehouse and the JTC we now know it is nothing more than election year class warfare rhetoric.

Obama claims to be a Christian; but perhaps, like so much else in Scripture, the Reverend Wrong’s version of the Good Book omits the Tenth Commandment…..you know,….Thou shalt not covet?!?  Der Fuhrer had it right: “If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”

Next up, writing in the WSJ, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe ask….

What Do Republicans Believe?

In 2004 the GOP establishment backed Arlen Specter, providing the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare. Why are the bigwigs urging a similar strategy again?

 

Republicans seem particularly prone to doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. While grass-roots Americans seem more committed than ever to taking their country back from an entrenched political class, particularly those occupying the White House and the U.S. Senate, GOP cognoscenti seem reluctant to offer voters a clear choice in 2012.

President Obama’s re-election campaign is doubling down on the failed economic policies of tax, spend, borrow and print. It’s leaving little doubt in voters’ minds where the aggressively progressive Democratic Party stands.

But what do Republicans believe in? The party’s “experts” are retrenching to the defeatist view that a commitment to economic freedom and constitutionally limited government, particularly among the foot soldiers of the tea party, is a political liability. Indiana’s Sen. Richard Lugar even claims that “Republicans lost the seats [in 2010] in Nevada and New Jersey and Colorado where there were people who were claiming they wanted somebody who was more of their tea party aspect—but they killed off the Republican majority.”

The 36-year incumbent presumably meant to say Delaware, not New Jersey. But what Senate majority was killed off?

Before a resurgent commitment to principle from the bottom up, and the emergence of a new generation of fiscally conservative candidates turned things around, the party brass was trimming its sails. In the spring of 2010, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), seemed resigned to the prospect of a 60-vote Democratic supermajority. “We’ve not only got to play defense,” he said, “we’ve got to claw our way back in 2010. It’ll be a huge challenge.”

Establishment strategists have always relied on conventional thinking when it comes to voter turnout. So they embrace candidates based on shortsighted partisan political criteria, and not on long-term public policy grounds. This was the logic that saved Arlen Specter in 2004 against the insurgent Pennsylvania primary challenge of Pat Toomey. Six years later, Mr. Specter would switch parties and provide the 60th vote for ObamaCare. Even then, the GOP establishment showed little remorse about, and even less interest in, Mr. Toomey. “I don’t think there is anybody in the world who believes he can get elected senator there,” said NRSC co-chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch.

This same logic also produced an NRSC endorsement of Republican-in-name-only Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio in Florida’s 2010 Senate primary. At the time, Mr. Crist’s primary accomplishment as governor was the unilateral implementation of Al Gore’s radical cap-and-trade agenda.

Could it be that product differentiation—candidates who actually believe that the government is spending too much and stifling economic recovery with heavy-handed intrusions—might bring new customers out to vote?

We wouldn’t even be talking about a Republican majority in the Senate today if the tea party hadn’t bucked Beltway wisdom by backing strong fiscal conservatives in 2010. FreedomWorks-endorsed candidates took five races ranked as “toss-ups” by political pundit Charlie Cook: Mr. Toomey, John Boozman in Arkansas, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Rob Portman in Ohio. Then there was Ron Johnson’s victory in Wisconsin, in a race where Mr. Cook once ranked him as a “solid D.” NRSC favorite Mr. Crist, meanwhile, abandoned the GOP and was promptly crushed by Mr. Rubio, by 19 points.

Today it seems like déjà vu all over again. Establishmentarians once more are lecturing activists and candidates—those who, in the words of Rand Paul, “actually believe in limited government and individual freedom”—on the practical limits of principles in politics. Sen. Lugar, facing a serious grass-roots challenge from Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, recycles the arguments once used by Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter: “If I was not the nominee it might be lost.”

What is the point of politics anyway? Is it really about power for power’s sake? Or are we trying to fix the very real economic problems facing Americans trying to find jobs? Is it about “holding a seat”? Or about whether we can still provide better, freer futures for our children and grandchildren?

Does anyone really believe that settling for more of the same will create a Republican majority with the principles and practical skills required to replace ObamaCare with a patient-centered approach? To stop the EPA’s destruction of American energy markets? To scrap the tax code, reform our broken entitlements, and balance the budget? Can 36-year incumbents now dismantle the big government they helped build? Are we going to once again do the same thing, expecting different results?

In closely watched Senate races, the top tea party candidates are state treasurers who have successfully won statewide elections. Mr. Mourdock won re-election in 2010 with 63% of the vote. Don Stenberg won in Nebraska in 2010 with 73% of the vote. Josh Mandel won 55-40 in 2010, receiving more votes than anyone else running for a statewide office in Ohio. Maybe voters are looking for someone with actual government-finance experience?

Building on the historic successes of 2010, we have an opportunity to take control of the Senate and dramatically increase the ranks of entrepreneurial fiscal conservatives, creating a dynamic new majority within the majority. That means taking on incumbents who have abandoned their principles. It means fighting for compelling candidates in primaries, like Ted Cruz in Texas. It means winning races in key battlegrounds like Florida, where Rep. Connie Mack is emerging as the most able fiscal conservative, and Ohio.

Our thinking is simple: When we act like us, we win. When we act like them, we lose.

And deservedly so!

In a related item, another member of The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight demonstrates the current crop of GOP campaigners unerring ability to strike the only target they seem consistently capable of hitting….

….their own foot.  With apologies to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, does anyone else get the feeling the GOP candidates seem intent on providing Dimocrats the rope with which to hang them in November?!  Hells Bells!  Why not just produce Obama’s attack ads for him?!?

Next up, a bit of thought-provoking prose from Jonah Goldberg:

To heal government, go local

 

The bleating about broken government and partisanship continues. Why can’t those boobs in Washington agree on anything? We’re constantly told that the way to fix the country is to dethrone the left and right and empower the middle. Handing things over to these middling mincers and half-a-loafers — Americans Elect, No Labels, the “gangs” of six or 14, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans — is supposed to be the answer to all of our problems.

But what if the real compromise isn’t in forcing the left and the right to heel? What if instead the solution is to disempower the national elites who think they’ve got all the answers? Federalism, the process whereby you push most political questions to the lowest democratic level possible — to states, counties, cities, school boards — has been ripe on the right for years. It even had a champion in Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) still carries that torch.

Federalism is simply the best political system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness. A one-size-fits-all policy imposed at the national level has the potential to make very large numbers of citizens unhappy, even if it was arrived at democratically. In a pure democracy, I always say, 51% of the people can vote to pee in the cornflakes of 49% of the people.

Pushing government decisions down to the lowest democratic level possible — while protecting basic civil rights — guarantees that more people will have a say in how they live their lives. More people will be happy, and the moral legitimacy of political decisions will be greater.

The problem for conservative and libertarian federalists is that whenever we talk about federalism, the left hears “states’ rights,” which is then immediately, and unfairly, translated into “bring back Bull Connor.”

But that may be changing. In an essay for the spring issue of Democracy Journal, Yale law professor Heather K. Gerken offers the case for “A  New Progressive Federalism.” Her chief concern is how to empower “minorities and dissenters.” Not surprisingly, she defines such people in almost purely left-wing terms of race and sexual orientation. Still, she makes the very compelling point that the current understanding of diversity — including minorities as tokens of inclusion — pretty much guarantees that racial minorities will always be political minorities as well.

“While the diversity paradigm guarantees racial minorities a vote or voice on every decision-making body, it also ensures that they will be the political losers on any issue on which people divide along racial lines,” she writes. “Racial minorities are thus destined to be the junior partner or dissenting gadfly in the democratic process. So much for dignity.”

Allowing local majorities to have their way, Gerken continues, “turns the tables. It allows the usual winners to lose and the usual losers to win. It gives racial minorities the chance to shed the role of influencer or gadfly and stand in the shoes of the majority.”

She’s right, and not just about her favored groups. For instance, Mormons (not a group Gerken highlights) are a national minority. But they are a Utah majority. Hence, Utah takes on Mormon characteristics. It’s no theocracy, but it is more representative and distinctive. In areas where Latinos or blacks are the majority, what’s so terrible about having institutions that reflect their values?

And, let them all live by their mistakes as well. In San Francisco, which Gerken touts as a haven for “dissenters,” they translate their values into law. I think much of what passes for wise policy in San Francisco is idiotic, but it bothers me less than it would if Nancy Pelosi succeeded in making all of America like San Francisco.

I don’t see eye to eye with Gerken on everything, and I suspect she would be reluctant to push some decisions downward — for instance, the “safety net” (the county of Galveston, Texas, for example, opted out of the Social Security system). Still, I’m delighted her essay has received respectful treatment on the left. A left-right federalist compromise would make America a happier, freer, more prosperous and interesting country. It would also dethrone those in both parties who think they know what’s best for more than 300 million Americans.

Speaking of those who pretend to know what’s best for more than 300 million Americans, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, the attorneys who represented the 26 states in their challenge to ObamaScare before the trial and appellate courts, offer their insight as….

The Supreme Court Weighs ObamaCare

Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is broad but not limitless.

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin an extraordinary three-day hearing on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. At stake are the Constitution’s structural guarantees of individual liberty, which limit governmental power and ensure political accountability by dividing that power between federal and state authorities. Upholding ObamaCare would destroy this dual-sovereignty system, the most distinctive feature of American constitutionalism.

ObamaCare mandates that every American, with a few narrow exceptions, have a congressionally defined minimum level of health-insurance coverage. Noncompliance brings a substantial monetary penalty. The ultimate purpose of this “individual mandate” is to force young and healthy middle-class workers to subsidize those who need more coverage.

Congress could have achieved this wealth transfer in perfectly constitutional ways. It could simply have imposed new taxes to pay for a national health system. But that would have come with a huge political price tag that neither Congress nor the president was prepared to pay.

Instead, Congress adopted the individual mandate, invoking its power to regulate interstate commerce. The uninsured, it reasoned, still use health services (for which some do not pay) and therefore have an impact on commerce, which Congress can regulate.

Congress’s reliance on the Commerce Clause to support the individual mandate was politically expedient but constitutionally deficient. Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is broad but not limitless.

First among the limits is the very nature of congressional authority, which is based on specifically enumerated powers. As the Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged, the Constitution denies the federal government the type of broad public health and welfare regulatory authority known as a “general police power,” which is reserved exclusively to the states. The court has also repeatedly held that preservation of this division between federal and state authority is a matter for supervision by the courts, and its precedents make clear that congressional Commerce Clause regulation must be subject to some judicially enforceable limiting principle.

The defining characteristic of a general police power is the states’ ability to regulate people simply as people, regardless of an individual’s activities or interaction with goods or services that might themselves be subject to regulation. Thus, the Supreme Court has ruled that states, exercising their general police power, can require all resident adults to obtain a smallpox vaccination. Only this type of authority could support ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which applies to all Americans as such, regardless of any goods they may buy or own, or any activities in which they might choose to engage.

Congress has crossed a fundamental constitutional line. Neither the fact that every individual has some discernible impact on the economy, nor that virtually everyone will at some point in time use health-care services, is a sufficient basis for federal regulation. Both of these arguments, advanced by ObamaCare’s defenders, are flawed because they admit no judicially enforceable limiting principle marking the outer bounds of federal authority.

On the left and right, legal thinkers too often forget that Congress has no constitutional power simply to regulate the economy. Rather, that power comes from a series of discrete authorities—to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, to tax, spend and borrow, to coin money and fix its value and so forth—that together allow it broad control over the nation’s economic affairs. As a result, congressional efforts to address national problems may well be less economically efficient than would a more straightforward exercise of police power. The Constitution subordinates efficiency to guarantee liberty.

The Constitution divides governmental power between federal and state governments so that one may check the other. This requires that the electorate be able to tell, especially on Election Day, which government is responsible for which policies and regulations with which we live.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in one leading Commerce Clause case, United States v. Lopez (1995): “The theory that two governments accord more liberty than one [emphasis added] requires for its realization two distinct and discernible lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States.” Congress’s use of its commerce power in passing ObamaCare eradicates those “discernible lines of political accountability.”

Even so, Congress’s enumerated powers support a vast and ever growing regulatory state, much of it based upon the Commerce Clause. Neither that Leviathan, nor the Supreme Court’s precedents upholding it, is now at issue.

Justice Antonin Scalia explained in another of the Supreme Court’s recent Commerce Clause cases, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), that the power to regulate interstate commerce, especially in conjunction with the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution” its enumerated powers, gives Congress broad authority to reach even local and non-commercial activities when necessary to make legitimate regulatory schemes effective. Raich upheld federal control of purely local cultivation, sale and use of marijuana, and it is often incorrectly cited as support for the individual mandate.

But the Necessary and Proper Clause does not guarantee Congress whatever power it would like to reach its policy goals. That provision supports only otherwise legitimate exercises of Congress’s enumerated powers. So under the Commerce Clause, Congress can try to achieve universal coverage through regulating the interstate health-care insurance market, as ObamaCare does, by requiring insurance companies operating in that market to cover pre-existing conditions. Then under the Necessary and Proper clause, Congress could also require employers to collect data on pre-existing conditions from new hires so insurers can better plan.

Requiring all Americans to have health insurance may well create a new revenue stream for insurance companies so as to lessen these new burdens on them, but it does nothing to make these new coverage requirements effective regulations of interstate commerce as the Supreme Court uses that term. In particular, the individual mandate does not prevent avoidance or evasion of these new insurance regulations. Nor does it make compliance easier to police, as was the case in Raich. There, the ability to regulate local marijuana production and use was necessary to make its interstate regulation effective because, as Justice Scalia noted, the homegrown variety “is never more than an instant from the interstate market.”

Unlike the regulations at issue in Raich, the individual mandate applies regardless of anyone’s interaction with a commodity, service or other activity, like the interstate sale or transport of marijuana, that Congress can legitimately regulate. Put another way, the Controlled Substances Act is about the regulation of drugs, not people. It affects individuals only to the extent that they interact with the substances it proscribes, and it can be avoided by simply avoiding those substances.

Americans cannot escape the individual mandate by any means because it regulates them as people, simply because they are alive and here. That requires police power authority. Permitting Congress to exercise that authority—however important its ultimate goal—is not constitutionally proper and would forever warp the federal-state division of authority.

It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the court’s ruling; the fate of the Republic, as the Founders envisioned and we’ve known since birth, quite literally hangs in the balance.  And we for one will not prove willing to watch the land where our fathers died, land of the Pilgrims’ pride, go gently into that good night just because some judge determines 2+2=5.

Which brings us to the “With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?!?” segment, courtesy today of The New Media Journal:

Karzai Calls United States, US Military ‘Demons’

 

In a related item, we turn to the Muslim Minute, brought to us again by The New Media Journal and the unprincipled, uncivilized, ungrateful bastages of the Religion of Peace:

Moroccan Girl, 16, Forced to Marry Rapist Commits Suicide

 

The case of a 16-year-old girl who killed herself after she was forced to marry her rapist has spurred outrage among Morocco’s internet activists and calls for changes to the country’s laws. Countless social networks were afire with expressions of horror over the suicide of Amina Filali, who swallowed rat poison on Saturday to protest her marriage to the man who raped her a year earlier.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the “kidnapper” of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honor of the woman’s family.

“Amina, 16, was triply violated, by her rapist, by tradition and by Article 475 of the Moroccan law,” tweeted activist Abadila Maaelaynine. Abdelaziz Nouaydi, who runs the Adala Association for legal reform, said a judge can recommend marriage only in the case of agreement by the victim and both families. “It is not something that happens a great deal — it is very rare,” he said, but admitted that the family of the victim sometimes agrees out of fear that she won’t be able to find a husband if it is known she was raped.

The marriage is then pushed on the victim by the families to avoid scandal, said Fouzia Assouli, president of Democratic League for Women’s Rights. “It is unfortunately a recurring phenomenon,” she said.”We have been asking for years for the cancellation of Article 475 of the penal code which allows the rapist to escape justice.”

The victim’s father said in an interview with an online Moroccan newspaper that it was the court officials who suggested from the beginning the marriage option when they reported the rape. “The prosecutor advised my daughter to marry, he said ‘go and make the marriage contract,'” said Lahcen Filali in an interview that appeared on goud.ma Tuesday night.

In many Islamic societies, the loss of a woman’s virginity outside of wedlock is a huge stain of honor on the family… In cases of rape, the burden of proof is often on the victim and if she can’t prove she was attacked, a woman risks being prosecuted for debauchery.

THIS is an abomination; only Liberals could:

–  Repeatedly condemn the only functioning democracy in the Middle East while supporting Muslim misogynists.

–  Maintain the politically-correct fantasy of cultural equality in the face of such barbarism.

–  Claim Republicans are pursuing a “war on women”, all the while defending the most virulently anti-female religion on the planet.

And in the Environmental Moment, Jeff Foutch forwarded the following from the Nevada Journal:

Obama to tout green energy ‘investments’ at solar facility employing 5 workers, relying on $54 million in taxpayer subsidies

Presidential visit to Boulder City solar plant shines light on high costs, small rewards of ‘green energy’ projects

 

President Obama will tout investments in “renewable” energy Wednesday at the local Copper Mountain Solar 1 plant, although the plant has only five full-time employees. The plant, owned by San Diego-based energy company Sempra, was built in late 2010 at a cost of $141 million. Funding included $42 million in federal-government tax credits and $12 million in tax-rebate commitments from the state of Nevada.

Construction of the plant involved over 300 part-time jobs, but currently only five full-time employees operate the plant, a Sempra spokeswoman confirmed. That comes out to $10.8 million in tax-dollar subsidies per employee.

Solar 1 is the largest solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant in the country and is regarded as a “revenue generator” by Sempra. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Boulder City expects to receive over $60 million in lease revenue from the plant. Boulder City Manager Vicki Mayes, however, told Nevada Journal the $60 million was “highly inaccurate” and that the total lease revenue will be “much less.”

Increasing green-energy production has been one of President Obama’s main goals since he took office. Politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and officials including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu have zealously encouraged green-energy subsidies in Nevada. In addition to wanting to create many new jobs, President Obama has claimed green-energy investment will decrease America’s energy costs and reduce the country’s dependency on foreign oil.

In Boulder City, however, renewables have produced no lower energy costs. Instead, in late 2009, the city approved a 35 percent rate hike, while power generated by Copper Mountain is to go to Southern California — rather than serve Nevadans whose taxes helped finance the plant. The solar energy is being sold by Sempra to California, which has mandated that 33 percent of the state’s energy must come from renewable sources by 2020.

Nationally, solar energy is unlikely to help the president achieve his goal of lower energy costs. Geoffrey Lawrence, deputy policy director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, the free-market think tank that publishes Nevada Journal, noted in his Solutions 2013 report that, even according to the U.S. Department of Energy, solar-PV energy will cost three and a half times more than energy from traditional sources such as coal.

“President Obama’s visit to the Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City is the perfect illustration of why the president’s economic policies are such a failure,” said Andy Matthews, president of NPRI. “The government has spent over $50 million to ‘create’ five permanent jobs and build a plant producing a product — expensive solar energy — that no one would purchase without a government mandate.

“That’s not a path to a vibrant economy; it’s the road to serfdom. This mindset — of government attempting to pick winners and losers in the economy through subsidies and regulation — is a major reason why the national unemployment rate is at 8.3 percent, Nevada’s unemployment rate is 12.7 percent and the national debt is over $15.5 trillion.”

Nevada received over $1 billion in federal “stimulus” funds for energy and environmental projects, yet state ratepayers still pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Recently, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission approved yet another rate increase.

Solar plants aren’t the only government-funded energy projects in Nevada that haven’t lived up to their proponents’ promises. The Reno Gazette-Journal recently reported that seven local windmills that cost taxpayers $1 million to install have only saved the City of Reno $2,785 in electricity costs over their 18 months of existence.

As Jeff Foutch noted, should the windmills’ rate of savings remain constant, they’ll have paid for themselves in a mere 545 years.  Which makes the windmills a great investment….at least by Solyndra standards!

And we know THIS will come as a surprise:

Energy industry accuses Obama of misleading public about extent of untapped oil resources

 

In almost every energy speech, President Obama makes this statement: “We’ve got 2 percent of the world oil reserves. We use 20 percent.” But there’s more to those numbers than meet the eye.

“It’s accurate but extremely misleading,” says Dan Kish of Institute for Energy Research, which is supported by the industry. “What he is talking about is oil we already have found.” Misleading, he argues, because the president is pointing to “proven” reserves, which is some 21 billion barrels, but the U.S. is sitting on vast reserves of untapped energy that are far greater.

That’s energy the government knows we have but that has not yet been drilled for. Industry experts argue it’s there for the taking. “The trillion-plus barrels of oil in this country, more oil than in Saudi Arabia, is not counted by the president, and I think that’s misleading the American people,” John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, said.

With those kinds of resources, the U.S. could continue at its current consumption rate for 200 years without any imports, Kish of IER said. “And add Canada and Mexico? The numbers go off the chart.”

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this from the Education Section:

Teen’s porn star date to prom scuttled by district officials

 

Like Dean Wormer said….

Finally, we’ll call it a day with The Wide, Wild World of Sports, and living proof idiots come in all colors, creeds….and levels of education:

Jets’ Cromartie: ‘We don’t need Tebow’

 

The New York Jets announced Wednesday that they have acquired Tim Tebow from the Denver Broncos, but how the move is perceived in the fractured Jets locker room remains to be seen. Cornerback Antonio Cromartie took to Twitter Tuesday when reports began surfacing that the Jets had an interest in Tebow. “We don’t need Tebow,” Cromartie wrote. “We sell out every home game. Let him go to Jacksonville, Tampa or Miami.”

As reports intensified, so did Cromartie’s belief the Jets did not need him. “Y bring Tebow in when we need to bring in more Weapons for @Mark_Sanchez let’s build the team around him. We already signed to 3 year [extension],” Cromartie wrote Wednesday before news of the Tebow trade broke.

A source told the New York Post earlier Wednesday that the move was not made to help fix the locker room chemistry, as originally perceived, and was solely a football decision. Tebow could give the Jets a new dimension at quarterback to complement Sanchez. The unconventional quarterback could run the Wildcat formation, a favorite of head coach Rex Ryan and new offensive coordinator Tony Sparano.

So YO, ‘TO!

Seein’ as yo is paid to play, NOT coach, what say yuz leave stategerie to the professionals….and just keep doin’ what you seems to do best….i.e., numbers: fathering nine children with eight women living in six states.

Which is why the Jets had to give you a $500,000 advance just to keep with your child support payments….YO?!?

Magoo