Nation Before Party

Two Targeted Thumbs Up Obama

2009-09-15T14:10:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-22T22:35:00.000-07:00

". . . 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.

2009-08-08T12:25:00.001-07:00

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.

2009-05-12T01:34:00.001-07:00

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

The Bill

2009-05-07T22:50:00.000-07:00

Federalism Should Be Our Future

2009-05-05T11:44:00.001-07:00

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.

2009-05-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

The new clergy of the NEA make themselves known:

Obama pays another campaign debt.

Another Video

2009-04-09T10:25:00.001-07:00

Ummm.

2009-03-24T08:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-16T15:33:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-02-08T00:10:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-05T14:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-29T14:13:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T09:03:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-06T12:19:00.000-08:00

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.

The Source

2008-12-27T18:34:00.000-08:00

When the angels sang "Peace on earth, good will towards men". It was obviously connected in some way to the babe just born. Indeed it was

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

Fascinating; read the whole thing.

Too True

2008-12-26T09:11:00.000-08:00

Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage

"Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month."

This is what we are talking about. The ostracising of those we don't agree with on everything. You can disagree with some of, or most of, Rick Warren's beliefs, but banning him from offering the invocation at the inaugural ceremony is the height of partisanship. It's not like he's an adviser or formulating policy.

To really cut through the crap, Jim Morin at the Miami Herald:

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T08:25:00.001-08:00

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Rule of The Few

2008-12-22T20:57:00.000-08:00

Time and time again the voters of California have given their elected and appointed officials a mandate to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I find it terrifying that said officials are so quick to impose the will of the few on the citizens of California. This is a mockery of the democratic process.

National Review has an impressive article California Betrayal.

Caleb's two cents:

A great find by Blog Wizard Dan. I think this quote is the meat of the article. I suggest you read it all. At least read this carefully:

"A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court."

As the Wizard says this is a mockery of the democratic process. Basically, if the political elite in California come to hold an opinion contrary to their fellow citizens they can ban it from the amendment process. The people get no say. This interpretation of constitutional law is not isolated to California.

A most interesting thought

2008-12-22T20:38:00.000-08:00

"It is a more important goal of government to uphold civilization than to find a general principle that will iron out all the apparent inconsistencies of the current dispensation."

City Journal: Always a good read in my experience.

Pathetic.

2008-12-19T22:43:00.000-08:00

An Amazing Turn Around In African American Families

2008-12-17T23:05:00.000-08:00

Great News.

"The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data."

I mean check it out!

"According to the bureau’s estimates, the number of black children living with two parents was 59 percent in 1970, falling to 42 percent in 1980, 38 percent in 1990 and 35 percent in 2004. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, it was 40 percent."

Oh wait never mind.

"The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents."

You don't solve social problems by redefining the what the problem is. This is a disservice to those the statistics are tracking and the taxpayers funding the studies. What are we going to call deficits profits now?

Want Some Killer Che Shirts?

2008-12-12T08:35:00.001-08:00

Is China the Real Capitalist?

2008-12-11T08:43:00.000-08:00

Looks that way.

How are they responding to the current economic slow down. Cutting business taxes.

"CHINA may soon cut business tax as part of its efforts to prop up the slowing economy amid the global financial crisis, state media reported on Tuesday.
The government is 'very likely' to soon cut the business tax for enterprises by one percentage point, the China Daily said, citing an unnamed source close to policymakers"

By comparison our solution is to effectively nationalize corporations:

"Detroit's automakers may soon be answering to a powerful "car czar," who would dole out short-term emergency loans like a kid's allowance, put them on a restructuring diet and hold veto power over any transaction of more than $25 million."

and

"The designee would have the power to "examine any books, papers, records or other data" of the companies and those of any subsidiary holding more than 50 percent of the automaker. Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP owns an 80.1 percent stake of Chrysler."

How is this not nationalization?

We have the commies doing what needs to be done here: lowering the confiscatory burden of the government from struggling businesses, lowering the burden of the government on the people, and injecting liquidity into the markets. If we are just going to deficit spend to the tune of $700+ Billion why not just cut taxes on those that employ Americans. I'm not against spending but lets not kid ourselves. The government screws up most of what it does. Let the companies and individual Americans spend the $700 Billion.

What an embarrassment. We have to look to China for creative market oriented solution.

2008-12-09T21:45:00.000-08:00

Few people are of this caliber -- Pray for this man as he prays for the pilot:

"A Korean immigrant who lost his wife, two children and mother-in-law when a Marine Corps jet slammed into the family’s house said Tuesday he did not blame the pilot, who ejected and survived.

“Please pray for him not to suffer from this accident,” a distraught Dong Yun Yoon told reporters gathered near the site of Monday’s crash of an F/A-18D jet in San Diego’s University City community.

“He is one of our treasures for the country,” Yoon said in accented English punctuated by long pauses while he tried to maintain his composure.

“I don’t blame him. I don’t have any hard feelings. I know he did everything he could,” said Yoon, flanked by members of San Diego’s Korean community, relatives and members from the family’s church.

Authorities said four people died when the jet crashed into the Yoon family’s house while the pilot was trying to reach nearby Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Another, unoccupied house also was destroyed.

Yoon named the victims as his infant daughter Rachel, who was born less than two months ago; his 15-month-old daughter Grace; his wife, Young Mi Yoon, 36; and her 60-year-old mother, Suk Im Kim, who he said had come to the United States from Korea recently to help take care of the children.

Fighting back tears, he said of his daughters: “I cannot believe that they are not here right now.”
“I know there are many people who have experienced more terrible things,” Yoon said. “But, please, tell me how to do it. I don’t know what to do.”

… Yoon’s wife came to the United States about four years ago, Shin said.

Yoon spoke softly when he talked about his wife.

“It was God’s blessing that I met her about four years ago. She was a lovely wife and mother,” he said.

His voice fading, he added: “She loves me and babies. I just miss her so much.”"

Symptoms of a Greater Problem

2008-12-08T16:19:00.000-08:00

The beleaguered American public has been consistently bombarded with dire financial tidings for the past several months. The economy is sick. New symptoms are manifesting themselves daily. Even today as we wait with bated breath to learn the fate of the Detroit Three, the ominous financial woes of the news sector flash across our computer screens. Industry across the board has felt the effects of a deepening recession. Which will be the next symptom to flash across my screen?

The New Republic has an interesting article recommending some possible solutions to the Detroit problem. I agree with a majority of Americans who believe that the automobile/manufacturing sector is an essential part of our economy. It is an industry that we can't afford to lose. Therefore I support a responsible loan to bolster viable automakers through the current crisis. That being said, this bail out business is a slippery slope. Bail out one industry and more will follow. Which will be the next industry to come a knocking?

We must keep in mind that these are all symptoms of a larger problem. If the government fails to exercise restraint in dealing with these individual symtoms, I fear a lot of money will be wasted without adequately addressing the true sickness: The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch. The government's number one priority must be to address this crisis, thereby restoring credit and American confidence. The lack of oversight of the 700+ billion dollar rescue package tells me that this isn't the case. It is made plainly evident by the current state of our economy, that we cannot afford to fail in addressing the subprime mortgage crisis. Fix the financial system, and the rest of the symptoms will follow.

That's A Lot of Money

2008-12-08T11:35:00.001-08:00

The current economic crisis we are experiencing is indeed unprecedented. What is interesting is to understand in what ways it is unprecedented. There is no way to know if this crisis has reached an sort of bottom, but we do not have the 25% unemployment of the Great Depression, or near the collapse of manufacturing, in every way this economic crisis is not as bad as one has been before. What is unprecedented is the monetary expenditure the government has made in attempting to arrest the crisis. As of now the total expenditures made by the fed and government is $4.6 Trillion! I don’t think we realize how much that is. Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched some inflation adjusted numbers:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

We have outspent nearly every major government expenditure. The only other expenditure that would tip the balance is WWII. It cost 3.6 Trillion inflation adjusted. Alone, we have spent a Trillion more than WWII on this crisis. Whether or not you think these expenditures are justified, what remains true is that this is an unbelievable expenditure of money.

I am not one who says that we should not have done anything. I do however take issue with the way things have been done. We are trying to avoid a serious depression, but we should not avoid that fact that recessions and even painful recession are often and some would argue always beneficial. They work out the imbalances in the economy, they liquidate investments that did not result in profitable production, and probably most importantly they are the risk that cautions unwise future investment. This entire fiasco we are experiencing was, in the end, the result of over exuberance and the disregard of risk.

Add to that the fact that the bailout money has been utilized with zero -- zero -- oversight:

“. . . no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.”

This is turning out like any government program that fails to utilize proper oversight. I’m no economist, but I do know that humanity’s timber is crooked especially in the proximity of other people’s money

Courts vs The People

2008-11-20T15:49:00.001-08:00

With the controversy over Proposition 8 in California, defining marriage as a union of man and woman, we have starkly seen a battle that has been playing out for many years. In the spirit of full disclosure I would have voted with reservation for Proposition 8, but whatever your opinion is concerning same sex marriage, the role of the courts in our democracy should be of concern to you. The courts over the past century, most prominently by the Warren Supreme Court (1953-1969), have expanded their role from defending constitutional rights to the creation of rights. The battle over same sex marriage in California encapsulates this issue nicely.

Lets look at what happened in California. First in the year 2000 California voters passed a state initiative defining marriage to exist between a man and woman. One must ask, why did Californians feel it necessary to put forth an initiative in 2000? Clearly, there was some measure of concern that existing California law was insufficient to contain marriage in its traditional form, and in response citizens passed the initiative with 61% of the vote. It seems that their fears in 2000 were well founded, in May of 2008 the California Supreme Court struck down the 2000 initiative as unconstitutional. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision, Proposition 8 (a constitutional amendment) was placed on the ballot by traditional marriage activists, and in no small measure was voted for in repudiation of the California Supreme Court’s decision.

Why should we be concerned with the actions of California’s Supreme Court? If you don’t live in California you should be concerned in the sense that it is a symptom of a national problem. Traditionally, the role of the court was to defend the law of the land, and a Supreme Court’s role, whether federal or state, was to defend the supreme law of the land: the constitution of the state or nation respectively. Today many justices on our national and state Supreme Courts no longer function under this guideline. They create rights and expand freedom. Why should this worry you? More freedom and rights is a good thing right? Generally speaking yes, but that assumption fails to recognize the source of our freedoms and rights. Rights dispensed by a group can be revoked by that same group. On the other hand, rights inherent to us cannot be revoked. This is the essence of rights. Rights are divinely given, or for the irreligious, inherent in our existence. They are not granted by government.

Our founders recognized this and enshrine these in the Bill of Rights. Thus, placed in the supreme law of the land, they could not be infringed upon by a powerful central authority. The protector of these rights in our system is the Supreme Court who’s duty it is to defend the Constitution. Yet, over time this role has be abdicated by many justices. Impatient for social change and unwilling to abide the pace of democracy they impose their will by expanding the meaning of the constitution in a manner pleasing to their sensibilities. Judges have a role in our democracy as a necessary check on legislative or executive excess. One of their roles is indeed to protect minority constitutional rights, and yes they have failed in the past (for example: separate but equal). Yet, such failures are not remedied by committing the same wrong act of subjective interpretation for a more preferred cause. We must preserve the fundamental rights of all Americans and let the constitutionally inherent process of amendment create and expand the rights of this nations citizens.

All Americans have an interest in preserving the integrity of the Constitution. We must support more justices like Carol A. Corrigan, who place the law above their wishes. As she said in her dissenting opinion to overturn the 2000 initiative: “In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.”

Amen.

The Change We Need

2008-11-10T22:12:00.000-08:00

By Caleb Van Bloem and Dan Jackson
Monday, November 10, 2008

Our political discussion has become more and more rancorous, and sadly our debate seems to revolve around who can most quickly discredit the other party, rather than address the issue at hand or the proposals of the other party. These petty indulgences were once a luxury we could afford. The Cold War had been won and the nation was at peace. Yet, now many Americans believe that the challenges we face are too big to continue down this road. We must discover again: what unites us, how do we balance our different ideologies, and how do we form a more functional and civil government?

Unity:

What makes America worth fighting for? What makes the sacrifice of those who have died in its defense worth the price? Really these questions ask the larger question: what is America?

Is America a deeply flawed great power that needs radical transformation?

Alternatively, is America a source of good; a shining city, calling those who wish to live free and achieve?

Or is the answer somewhere in between?

Whatever the answer, there is something that unites us as a nation, some form of shared principles, values, and beliefs. We are not a tribal nation fighting only for family regardless of their morality. Instead, as a nation we were forged from the fires of a principled revolution, and our founding document was formed through a passionate and honest debate over what principles would animate our nation. What are those principles that we share? What keeps us together after all this time?

The vast majority of Americans believe that we each possess inherent rights, and many of those rights are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Some Americans believe there are more rights not contained in the Bill of Rights, but most at minimum believe in those. These rights are what bind us in a common cause; a cause to defend these rights for one another and preserve a future with these same rights for our children. We can't examine every right here, but some of these rights include: the right to debate and petition government, the right to self defense, the privacy of our homes, the right to a just criminal process, and that all our laws apply equally to all citizens.

These are some of the ideals we hold in common that we can and still unite around. Let us not lose sight of these as we engage in our political debate.

Democracy:

In an election year where “change” has been a common phrase echoing from both sides of the political spectrum; it is evident that the theme has resonated with the majority of voters. While it may have become a convenient buzzword in the final months leading up to the election, it is obvious that Americans voted for change over what they felt was the status quo. Given the inherent ambiguity of the word, especially in a political context, we are left to ponder the specifics. What is the change that America voted for?

Was the “change” that the majority of Americans embraced a radical ideological shift to the left? We submit that it was not. Instead they voted for the end of a political culture that has been rendered stagnant and ineffective by years of increasing polarization, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Compromise has become increasingly rare in this day and age when the interest on one’s party is put before effective governance. In Washington, partisan power and influence are maintained at the expense of the American people. History teaches us that this type of polarization, and the obstructive practices that accompany it, is an enemy to democracy.

Americans have grown dissatisfied with the hypocrisy of a Republican party that preaches fiscal responsibility and limited government, and when in power practices the opposite. They now hope that the Democrats have managed to change their ways after they were voted out in the 1990s. Yet, if their time in the minority and two years in congressional majority is any sign of things to come, we remain quite cautious in our optimism.

Toward Loyal Opposition:

We call upon government officials on both sides of the aisle to bring about real change by ending this destructive political culture, and to work in the spirit of compromise towards effective solutions for the major issues that now face our nation. Now in the minority, Republicans need to be the loyal opposition. Opposing on principle is the strength of our republic, but loyalty is also necessary. 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. We do not ask America's parties to sacrifice their ideology or the right to dissent, but rather to put their nation before their party.