Two Targeted Thumbs Up Obama

As we stated in the beginning: "Loyal opposition is demonstrated by reaching back when the other side reaches out in good faith and by supporting the president when they think he’s right."

It has been difficult to find something to really hang my hat on in terms of supporting our president other than simply being civil. All those things have been lost in the chaos of his government expansionism al la health care, cap and trade, and stimulus. Now, however, I think I should spell those things I agree with him.

1. Continuing the struggle in Afghanistan: way to go Obama. Keeping Gen. Petraeus around and Bob Gates as Sec. of Defense. I worry his bone to the left by accelerating the Iraq draw down will jeapordize what we did there, but lets no let that muddle the general continuation of our policy to confront the Islamic extremists around the globe.

2. Authorizing the killing of the Somoli pirates that had the American ship captain hostage. Dude that was a crazy shot.

3. And, finally in more recent news. Dispatching the navy seals to nutralize a retched terrorist in Somalia.

Way to go Obama. Don't let me down on this one. It seems everyone is going wobbly on the War on Terror.

-------------Update------------

Oh and a big thumbs up for this: Kanye West a "Jack Ass" (Click For Audio)

What was that $800 Billion for again?

". . . in Brazil, India, China, Japan and much of Continental Europe the recession has ended. In the second quarter this year, both the French and German economies grew by 0.3 percent, while the U.S. economy shrank by 1 percent. How can that be? Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of, the Germans declining to go the Obama route on the quaint grounds that they couldn't afford it . . . And yet their recession has gone away. Of the world's biggest economies, only the U.S., Britain and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can't compete with Obama's $800 billion porkapalooza. The president has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet."

I got an idea. Maybe tying up $800 Billion in capital on delayed projects, breeding uncertainty with trillion dollar health reforms, proposing tax increases, and massive energy taxes in the form of carbon credit schemes isn't such a great idea to stimulate the economy. You know maybe. I would have more sympathy if the stimulus bill didn't flagrantly violate Obama's own economic adviser's (Larry Summers) stimulus parameters timely, targeted, and temporary.

Horrifyingly bad intervew.

Worst interviewer in the world:



Dan's two cents: Yikes, it's like a liberal Sean Hannity: Typical incendiary political commentator trading content with substance for ratings. This practice of using rhetoric to discredit dissenting points of view is why Washington is so utterly broken. Enough with political posturing, and lets work to find solutions that we can agree on. Say it with me now... COMPROMISE.

Caleb's follow up: Perfect analogy Dan. Unfortunately there are some issues upon which there is no agreement that can be reached. For instance. If the goal is, at least, a first step towards inevitable single payer health coverage (aka the government option) then there can be no compromise. But, if your goal is to improve health coverage then there can be some agreement. If your goal is controlling health care costs then there can be compromise. Clearly as always our political classes goal is not the national good, but the good of the party.

Good thing we spent all that money.

Graph showing projected unemployment with and without "Economic Recovery Plan" and the triangles being that actual numbers.

The Bill

Federalism Should Be Our Future

To many observers, the nation is rent asunder by cultural fault lines that constantly threaten to erupt. Whether it is religion in the public square, abortion, legalizing drugs, or currently the most disruptive gay marriage, these issues divide and disrupt our civic life. Most disturbingly these types of issues often lead to very divisive political tactics; making use of accusations, aspersions, and impugning the opposition’s motives to further one group’s preference. How can we as a nation peaceably craft policy around these understandably sensitive issues? The answer is not a new or novel political idea, but rather a return to a more vibrant federalism: more independence for the states that comprise our union.

Federalism’s Demise

American federalism is defined in the 10th Amendment as, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Unfortunately the states have slowly been losing ground in defining what powers were reserved to them, the biggest blow being the adoption of the 17th Amendment, which allowed Senators to be elected by the people and not the state legislators. This populist Amendment, while perhaps well intentioned, actually removed one of the key features of the separation of powers (its core concept) in the constitution. No longer did the states have a direct voice in national government, instead relying on an already waning sense of state patriotism to give voice to the states. Coupled with the expansion of federal power during the New Deal and Great Society, and the states have lost a great amount of their relative power.

What are the possible benefits of federalism?

Cultural Geography: Federalism was born in an environment of very independent and different states. Today while the independence of the states may have lessened the differences have not. The cultural rifts of our nation can quite often be geographically defined, and while there are some outliers – for example secular leftist urban areas in a largely rural conservative state – the general rule holds. Thus would it not be beneficial to delegate a large percentage of public policy to the states, who can craft different policy for different cultures?

Experimentation: A nation of federated states has inherent in it a collection of experimental public policy labs. As Louis D. Brandeis wrote, “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” This allows greater risk management in public policy development.

Mobility: In a robust federalism, an individual or family, after exhausting the democratic process to change the laws of their state can move to another locality that better reflects their particular world view. This nation has a long history of this exact sort of mobility. For example, California was once the place to move, it offered a business utopia. The best Pacific ports, great farmland, business friendly laws, and a well educated workforce. All these factors created one of the top economies in the nation and even the world. Recently, however, the state has seen an out migration of residents. If the state government continues their anti-development policies this trend will likely continue.

Harmony: Flowing from the benefit of mobility is the harmony that results from the ability of citizens to find communities that better reflects their world-view. For instance, how divisive and volatile would the issue of abortion be if each state had decided the issue democratically rather than through the federal courts? Likewise, if we would let the states decide the issue of gay marriage democratically, like Vermont has done, the issue will resolve in a manner that allows a greater unity of civic spirit. While it is a different subject, it is unfortunate that many states have had the issue resolved legally; an avenue that also inflames feelings of disunity and disenfranchisement, but not nearly as much if it were decided by nation’s Supreme Court.

Indeed, arguments can be made for federalism in a variety of areas, but certainly it can be made for the more inflammatory cultural issues. By allowing states greater independence to craft their version of community, it would seem that we would be a more fractured nation, but bound by an abiding love of liberty and shared history we will in actuality be more not less united.

The new clergy of the NEA make themselves known:



Obama pays another campaign debt.

Another Video

Ummm.

Headline:

Geithner Asks Congress for Broad Power to Seize Firms

What could go wrong?

Alternate headline: Empty Failing Treasury Seeks Power to Seize Failing Firms

Any other headline ideas?

Read it and Weep

Doom doom doom. And as always follow the trail back to "the island of misfit toys" called Washington.

"the Federal Reserve will [feel great] pressure to “monetize” our debt — that is, print new money to buy our bonds. In fact, the Fed is already suggesting that it will buy long-term Treasury securities in order to lower borrowing costs. If it does, then our money supply, which has already increased substantially over the past year, will grow even faster . . .

As Milton Friedman noted, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” It is a situation in which too few goods are being chased by too much money.

To American families, inflation is a destroyer of savings, a killer of wealth, a crusher of confidence. It calls into question the value of our money. And while we all share in the pain, the people whom inflation hits hardest are elderly people who live on fixed incomes, those in the middle class who are struggling to save for retirement and college and lower-income people who live paycheck to paycheck."

Time to buy some gold.

A worthy video & an unworthy sitmlus bill.

Funny and awesome.




The stimulus bill that will inevitably pass is, being kind, extremely disappointing. What is the goal here?

If it is purely short term relief of suffering then yes much of it goes toward that goal, but so much of it is just a Democrat Party stimulus. Nation before party people!

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office of congress that analyzes upcoming legislation, estimates that,

"CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing."

What is the point then? To get the economy back on track or to demonstrate one's compassion?

I also read this interview with a Harvard economist. In answer to his assessment of the legislation:

This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much.

Garbage.

There are so many other options that will create real long term jobs in the real productive economy than this porktastic train wreck.

How about:

1. A temporary lifting of the capital gains tax until 2 consecutive quarters of economic growth.
2. $20 - 30k tax credit to each net increase in a business' payroll in 2009.
3. $20 - 30k tax credit for each new home purchased in 2009.
4. Directly fund every infrastructure project green lighted to go in 2009 (meaning they've passed all requisite planning and review processes and just need funds).
5. Reduce corporate tax rate enough to shock people and get the attention of the business world.

In short get people working now! Not later, and not on completely temporary projects. When the housing and financial industries recover so will the rest of the economy. The above will cost so much less than what is on the table now, and it will avoid the long term consequences of so much debt.

A Reluctant Post

I have been avoiding commenting on the ongoing Obama nominee fiasco. Trying to maintain a less partisan atmosphere on this blog is a constant goal. But, with the third shoe to drop it is too big not to comment on.

Nearly every new Obama appointment has been front page material. Three haven't paid their taxes. Beginning with Peter Geithner, his tax problems did stop him from receiving his nomination. This was followed by Tom Daschel's unpaid taxes, who would have faced additional scrutiny as a lobbyist (he has now withdrawn his nomination). Now a new tax problem is on the books of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' husband. If the entire vetting team is not fired after this I don't know what more they can do to get fired. Hopefully Obama's team can get their act together; our country needs some effective leadership. I honestly hope this isn't indicative of their effectiveness in other areas of governance.

In other administration appointment news.

This is Painful:



He reminds me of Bush's Scott McClellan just before Tony Snow (may he rest in peace).

Horrifying, could you look anymore like you are spinning, and then that reporter from ABC (no not Fox) just owns him.

Anyway, more to the point. The reporter's question concerning waivers for lobbyist to serve in Obama's administration is very pertinent. One of the first things Obama did as president was issue an executive order barring lobbyist from serving in his administration.

Yet this seems to be a very loose ban. Apparantly the president can waive the ban if it is in the public interest. The following have been granted exceptions:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

I had hoped that his lobbyist ban would spur a cultural change in Washington, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

The Rangel Rule

Awesome:

"Americans may be able to rest a little easier this April if Congressman John Carter, R-Texas gets his way.

Rep. Carter introduced a bill Wednesday to eliminate all IRS penalties and interest for paying taxes past due.

The legislation calls for the creation of what he calls the, "Rangel Rule," -- drawing attention to the recent legal issues of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., enabling citizens who fail to pay taxes on time to do so later with no additional fees.

Rangel, who writes the country's tax policies, acknowledged last fall that he failed to pay thousands in real estate taxes for rental income he earned from a property in the Dominican Republic.

As of September 2008 the Harlem Democrat reportedly paid back more than $10,000 in taxes but that did not include any IRS penalties.

"Your citizens back home should have the same rights and benefits that come to you as a member of congress. You shouldn't be treated any differently under the law than your citizens back home," Carter said."

This is certainly and indefensible situation and the legislation fabulous in political and just terms. No party should be against equal protection of the law.

Obama's Stimulus Plan

In keeping with our attempt at a more collegial tone and our commitment to the spirit of loyal opposition, I have honestly hunted the web for some counterpoint video/article/audio file. I couldn't really find a proponent that wasn't a politician with a lobbyist on their arm.

The video to be presented is not partisan in its criticism with Bush receiving at least half of it.

That said I present to you an informative and skeptical take on the plan:

Proportional Wisdom

Two things are striking about the debate surrounding the current warfare between Hamas and Israel.

1. The condemnation of Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hamas’s constant rocket barrages.

2. The myopic focus on the morality of the conflict as opposed to the wisdom of the conflict.

On Proportionality

Israel’s retaliation against Hamas has been roundly condemned. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.” The ever outspoken Congressman Kucinich said in a statement, “All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law . . . Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.” What do all these call for proportionality mean? Do they call for Israel to respond in kind? Should they to build Qassam rockets and fire them randomly into civilian centers as well? I doubt that is what they want.

Perhaps they think that Israel should match casualties at a 1:1 ratio? If that is the case then if Israel is monitoring 5 Hamas fighters loading rockets and preparing to fire them would Israel have to wait for Hamas to kill five Israelis? Again I doubt that is what they mean. What are they saying?

I suspect, it is just a rhetorical tool to condemn any retaliatory action? I really don’t know what they are asking for.

Moral vs. Wise

Israel faces a problem. Under much duress they withdrew all their settlements and forces from Gaza. Unfortunately, after the election of Hamas, rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly everyday into Israeli cities. In the past week Israel began to bomb Hamas targets in Gaza linked to this and other terrorist activity. As in any hot conflict between Israel and its neighbors the action has been debated and discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, many questions are left out of the discussion.

Most of the debate, as the previous question of proportionality reveals, is just a debate about the morality of either side in the conflict. This isn’t a waste of time by any means, the moral equation of a conflict is important to understand, but because an action is moral does not mean it should be taken. It doesn’t address such questions as: will our situation be bettered by the proposed action, will this action actually resolve the issue at hand, what will the consequences of the action be? None of these are addressed by the morality question. For example, if my family is hungry it is certainly moral of me to build an addition onto my house, but that is in no way wise of me in that situation.

Likewise, the additional questions the press and pundits should be asking (and hopefully Israeli leaders) are: will this bombing and possible ground campaign actually end the rocket attacks, will this conflict strengthen Israels position, and what are the possible consequences of this action? Personally I don't know enough about the tactical details of the situation to answer any of these questions, but they should be asked of those who do.