Rust-Belt Conservative

A Window into the Future of Health Care

2009-11-17T12:18:00.009-05:00

For those looking for a preview of what US health care will look like under Obamacare, look no further than to the recent changes to cancer screening guidelines. A couple of weeks after changing the recommendations for PSA (prostate) screenings, the US Preventive Task Force (a government agency) "updated" their recommendations for breast cancer screening. Why the sudden shift, after years of encouraging early screening?

For years, women have been told to have annual mammograms and do breast self-exams starting at 40 and, in some cases, earlier. The logic was that the earlier the cancer could be found, the higher the likelihood of cure. Moreover, 40 was when the risk was supposed to increase. Now, the Task Force is recommending 50 as the starting point, saying that earlier screening doesn't save many more lives and only increases cancer scares. The recommendation also discounts the need for annual exams and calls for an end to breast self-exams. The Task Force utilized the same data set that led to its 2002 recommendation of the current screening practices. What changed, then, in the last 7 years? ObamaCare.

A look at the population data will tell why. There are approximately 153 million women in the US, 54% of which are 35 and over (approximately 83 million) and 47% (approximately 72 million). The average cost of a mammogram nationally is $125. If you annually screen every woman 35 and up, it would cost $10.375 billion, while annual screening for women 40 and over would cost approximately $9 billion. However, if you limit it to 50 and over, the number of women decreases to just over 49 million, bringing the tab to just over $6 billion. Combine that with the change on annual exams, and the cost drops even further. There is a cost savings of $3-6 billion on annual exams alone, more when you factor in the shift to an exam every 2-3 years.

So, what does this have to do with ObamaCare? One of the major problems that Obama and Congress have been having with their sweeping health care legislation is the cost. The Congressional Budget Office has not been kind to the various bills that the House and Senate have sent them, with the cost of most proposals costing over $1 trillion. Both chambers have been desperately looking for ways to lower the price tags on their plans, and that is where the Task Force comes in. If you reduce the number of screenings covered, you can reduce the overall cost. This guideline change (for the record, the American Cancer Society, as well as a number of their patient advocacy groups as well as physician groups have not changed their treatment guidelines) allows Congress and the President to reduce the cost of their bills, since you're now cutting both the cost of the exams as well as any attendant treatment resulting from the exam, while also professing to be following best practices/standards of care. This will also insulate them from any legal repercussions (i.e. malpractice accusations), as they can claim to be following established standards of care- standards that the government set. Imagine if the Bush administration had one of its agencies call for a reduction in the frequency of mammograms, as well as delayed the age of initial exam? Can you hear the accusations by women's groups about the anti-women bias? Or the calls from liberals calling him uncaring? Or that he was politicizing science? Or that he was trying to save money at the cost of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, and daughters?

This is reminiscent of the ALLHAT trial done several years ago. Conducted at VA centers, it was a comparative trial of various anti-hypertensive therapies. The trial authors claimed that the best treatment for hypertensive patients was a diuretic- not coincidentally, the least expensive (see a pattern?). When the trial was more closely examined, it turned out that the recommendation was only good for the uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate hypertensive- someone without any co-morbidities, family history of cardiovascular disease, etc. A diabetic with high blood pressure should not be treated with a diuretic. However, the government used this as its basis to treat all government-covered hypertensives with diuretics first, irrespective of other factors. It is a study that still can raise the blood pressure of cardiologists and internists, given its "findings". we now have another example where the federal government places dollars before patients- consider the outcry by these same people if an insurer were to apply the same practices and rationales.

This will be the future of American health care- one size fits all care, lowest possible cost. A government unwilling to cover routine exams, uninterested in considering other factors. It doesn't matter that Obama has made preventive care one of the main rationales for his plan. The guidelines for such care will be remade to fit into the budget. The Wall Street Journal (link here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html) shows how this is already happening in Washington state. The battle over health care isn't about the best way insure all Americans, or how to care for all citizens. It's about the government taking control of American society. The next time some liberal tells you it's a matter of compassion, or of caring for/covering everyone, ask them how they plan to continue delivering high quality care without skyrocketing costs. You can care for everyone, if you're willing to drive taxes and fees up. Or you can do it by cutting costs and rationing care. You can't have both. We now see how Obama and the Democrats plan to accomplish this.

A National Mistake

2009-11-13T09:58:00.003-05:00

The Obama Justice Department made the announcement today that the first of the terror suspects at Gitmo, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City. At what point can we say that this President is not only in over his head, he's clueless?

Never mind the timing of this decision- a week after the terror attack at Ft Hood. The wisdom (or complete lack thereof) is what troubles me. We have seen this movie- back in 1993. Back then, the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were tried in federal court, making their trial a matter of public record. It was there that we learned that the World Trade Centers could withstand a hit from a 747 jet. So, what did the terrorists learn? Use a 757 or 767 (neither of which were in existence when the towers were constructed). Eight years later, two of those jets were used to take down the WTC in what can only be called an act of war. Now, we are going to give the perpetrators of this act full Constitutional rights? We're going to re-create the mistake we made in 1993? Also, what of the victims' families? An open trial will only provide a forum for the terrorists to openly mock the families as well as the city they attacked. It will re-open old wounds for the families and the city. Giving them access to the federal systems, complete with its rights, will allow their attorneys to utilize every legal option to draw out their cases and delay any penalties they may face, only adding years to the effort for families to gain closure. And, what happens if they walk?

The sad part is, this is in keeping with Obama's "See no evil" approach to terrorism. Obama was quick to condemn the act of a Cambridge, MA police officer for arresting his friend (justified, it turned out), yet could not bring himself to call last week's act at Ft Hood a terror attack, despite the flood of evidence that pointed to Hasan being committed to Islamic terror (how many people do you know who have SOA- "Son of Allah" on their business cards, and are not Islamic fanatics?). I believe it is because Obama does not take terrorism seriously. He's dithered on an Afghanistan decision. He's sent the 4 options presented to him back for revision. Recall that he had a summit on Afghanistan back in May. Six months later, he still has no idea about how to secure victory there? During the campaign, he chastised former President Bush for ignoring the "necessary war" in Afghanistan and instead pursuing the "war of choice" in Iraq. Given the supposed importance he placed on Afghanistan, and the fact that he's been talking about it since the campaign, is it too much to ask that he have a plan by now? Can't wait for that jobs summit in December- maybe he'll have some options to finally begin pondering by next June, just in time to maybe head off 11% unemployment.

When coupling all of these together, we're left to draw the conclusion that this President does not consider Islamic terrorism a serious problem. When this President fails to understand the consequences of his profligate spending, it means more taxes for citizens. Detrimental to the economy, but not necessarily life-threatening. When he treats terror in such a manner, people die. Will we have to witness another 9/11 because of this President's lack of focus? Will another President have to clean up this one's mess? And, at what point can we now call Obama a mistake? He is unable to call terror what it is. He is either unable or unwilling to treat terror as an act of war. It is not a crime in the same vein as a bank robbery, assault, etc. These were acts comparable to acts of war, and need to be handled as such. By placing these suspects in federal court, Obama only increases the risk that we'll see another 9/11. By then, he will have vacated the White House, leaving another President to have to comfort the families, address the nation, and make the tough decisions. Unlike Clinton, he can't plead ignorance of the threat. He can only plead ignorance.

Amatuer Hour at the White House

2009-09-18T10:52:00.004-04:00

With the Wizards of Washington now back in session, I was prepared to look at the mess being made of the health care debate- how Joe Wilson's impromptu "You lie!" comment draws an admonishment from the House (right on substance, wrong venue) while Obama's prepared remarks accusing his opponents of lying garners plaudits from the media peanut gallery- a particularly distasteful move, since he was a guest of Congress and should have displayed more tact. No one would react well to having someone enter their home and then level accusations at them. However, Obama's move to reverse a Bush-era decision to employ missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic took precedence. It's an amateurish move, one that only makes the world more dangerous, all the more so because after nine months on the job, Obama hasn't learned that there are some people who just can't be charmed.

In April of 1961, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschchev, believing he could charm the man into some agreement. Kruschchev left the meeting thinking that the US leader was naive and the US weak. 18 months later, Kennedy had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a direct result of his naivete. At least Kennedy had learned his lesson from the ordeal. Obama has not. To date, the man who promised to enhance our standing around the world has offered a hand to autocrats and thugs while giving the back of his hand to our allies. On his first day in office, he returned a bust of Churchill to the Brits, a gift that was given after 9/11 as a reminder to be resolute. He then gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of 25 DVDs as a gift after their first meeting, compounded by the fact that they were formatted for North America and did not play when Brown returned home. For his first trip the the UK, he gave the Queen of England an iPod with video of his speeches loaded on to it (could one be more narcissistic?). However, these are merely tactless moves. It's the policy decisions that are most worrisome.

Since taking office, Obama posed for a photo with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and accepted an anti-American book as a gift. In June, former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya attempted a coup similar to the one Chavez pulled off in Venezeula. Both the Honduran courts and Congress rejected Zelaya's attempts to change the laws unconstitutional. Zelaya tried to forge ahead, using ballots from Venezuela (see a pattern here?). The military then ousted him on June 28th, and the Honduran Congress named Roberto Micheletti as his successor until elections could be held this fall. So, in recognition of its adherence to the rule of law and upholding its democracy, what reward did Obama have? Obama called for the restoration of Zelaya, and he had the State Departement revoke the US visas of Honduran officials and cut off all non-humanitarian aid to the Latin American democracy. And, in an unprecedented move, Mr. Micheletti will be barred from attending the upcoming opening session of the UN. So, while autocrats and dictators like the Castros, Iran's Ahmadinejad (a man who has called for the elimination of Jews and called the Holocaust a fraud and a lie), Hugo Chavez, and others with a history of human rights abuses and anti-democratic actions, a nation who stood up for democracy and defended the law is punished. All this while Obama has delayed trade treaties with both Columbia and South Korea, picked trade battles with Canada and Mexico, imposed tariffs on China, hounded Israel over West Bank settlements, and shut out Japan on dealings with North Korea. Meanwhile, he has tried cozying up to the likes of Burma, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia, a nation backsliding away from democracy. It's this attitude that has led to his most egregious sin yet.

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that it will not be employing missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, no doubt signaling to Russian Premier Putin and President Medvedev the same weakness Kruschchev saw in 1961. Meanwhile, the reversal has upset the two former Eastern Bloc nations and signaled to US allies that we can't be counted on for defense and support. Doubt this? Read Czech legislator and a supporter of the defense agreement Jan Vadim's quote: "If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it." . Sounds like we're making friends. The decision leaves both Prague and Warsaw in a vulnerable position to both Russia and to Iran's missiles, which already have the capability to reach Poland. The IAEA recently found that the Iranians have sufficient information to build an atomic bomb and that they will overcome their shortcomings in delivery systems. Obama claims that the move was made due to recent findings that Iran lacks the capabilities needed for long-range missiles. However, Obama signaled as early as February that he intended to scrap the Bush-era agreement, before he knew what Iran's capabilities were. Russia has benefited from having Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions, as it has given them a market to sell such technologies. Further, any instability created by Iran has a tendency to spike the oil markets, increasing the prices for Russian oil. Russia has a financial interest in having a nuclear Iran. Iran has been recalcitrant in ending its ambitions, and the Russians have obstructed tougher UN sanctions. So the reward for these two rogues is to leave our allies defenseless in the hopes one resistant government will get tough with another resistant regime. How this ends well, I don't know. The rationale for Bush's nuclear defense agreements was to offer protection from nuclear weapons so that other nations didn't feel the need to develop their own warheads. Now, Poland and the Czechs may have a sense of urgency to arm themselves. American credibility has taken a severe hit. American interests are at increased risk. All because we have a President who has yet again demonstrated he's not up to the job.

Critics of Obama have stated that he's more comfortable with dictators, anti-democrats, and socialists than he is with democrats and capitalists. His defenders have consistently rejected such thoughts. When looking at his first nine months, he's moved dramatically to the left on his domestic policy. The US government now owns two auto manufacturers. He's in the process of an attempt to socialize the health care industry. He hasn't given up on card check legislation, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. And most troublesome, he has found himself more at ease with those who oppose America while shunning traditional allies. The claim that he is a capitalist and that he supports democracy is becoming a harder claim to make. His poll numbers have plummeted and it seems that more the American public is coming to this realization. The question is, do we fix the problem before it's too late?

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

2009-07-16T23:19:00.003-04:00

For Republicans, the silver lining in last November's elections was having Joe Biden move into the #2 slot in the administration and in national politics. The walking gaffe machine has been hard at work giving the GOP seemingly endless footage for election ads for 2010 and 2012. Whether it was his admission that he would advise his family against using public transportation to avoid H1N1 flu to the administration's "misread" of the nation's economic situation, the VP has had no shortage of headache-inducing situations for the Democrats. His latest, however, is a real head-slapper: that without the deficit-creating stimulus package, the nation would be bankrupt, a comment that should be met with a collective "What?" by the American public. Biden's latest, uttered at a public appearance in Richmond, VA deserves all of the ridicule it's sure to receive.

Let's review- the Obama administration came into office with a struggling economy. They handed over the construction of a $787 billion unstimulating "stimulus" bill that was supposed to stem the tide of unemployment and create or save 4 million jobs. Since there is no measurable way to track saved jobs, it was already greeted with some degree of skepticism. Administration projections were that the passage of the bill would cap unemployment at 8%, and without it unemployment would rise to 9%. We are currently at 9.5% unemployment and rising. The package was sold as being timely, with Obama touting "shovel-ready" projects. To date, only 7.7% of the money has been spent. Further, much of what has been spent has been used for extension of unemployment benefits and to help states close budget deficits- not exactly stimulating behavior. Meanwhile, deficit projections are fast approaching $2 trillion. How exactly could the situation be worse without the bill?

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to pile on the deficits, passing a $3.6 trillion federal budget and are in the process of attempting a radical overhaul of health care that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will only pile on more debt while having a marginal effect on insuring the uninsured. Concurrently, the Federal Reserve continues to print money around the clock, potentially creating an inflationary situation when- or if- the economy turns around.

Biden further contended that the stimulus has spurred banks to resume issuing loans- the same banks that have been routinely criticized for using stimulus funds to improve ledger sheets instead of creating loans (for that matter, he repeated the false claim that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. It's not. It is the worst since Jimmy Carter, and Obama and company seem intent on re-making Carter's mistakes).

Biden continues to show an absolute lack of a grasp of reality. Americans are seeing a mountain of red ink with little to nothing to show for it. Try selling the effectiveness of the bill in places like Ohio or Michigan, where unemployment has soared into double digits- lots of jobs created there. Or wait to see what happens in coal-producing states, if the abominable cap-and-trade bill becomes law. Poll after poll shows that the most important issue for citizens is deficits- it could be why Obama's disapproval numbers have gone from an average of 15% in January to 38% in July, matched with a decline in approval numbers to 57%. However, he's proving to be a boon to the GOP. House Democrats- particularly those in toss-up and Republican-leaning districts- won't be pleased with being associated with Biden's remarks or the attendant policies. How a marked increase in spending avoided bankruptcy defies any measure of logic. In the meantime, Biden has created another problem that White House spinmeisters will have to deal with. It might be time for another trip abroad for old Joe.

How Low Can You Go?

2009-07-09T12:36:00.005-04:00

So it's come to this- a gang of 7 Democrats are now willing to accuse the CIA of violating federal law in an effort to cover for Nancy Pelosi's lie. To review, earlier this year Pelosi was caught up in the question of when she may have known of the CIA's us of waterboarding, and she accused the CIA of misleading her. Now, she has succeeded in arm-twisting the Democrat members of the House Intelligence Committee to try and give her cover when they released the contents of a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta to "clarify" comments he supposedly made on June 24th in a closed door meeting with the committee.

Where to begin?

First, it's a violation of federal law for the CIA to willfully mislead or lie to members of Congress or to the Executive branch. So, the first issue here is that we're being told that someone or a few people decided to commit a federal crime, punishable by jail time. Second, according to the accusations, the lying began in 2001 and ended this year- how convenient, since that would make the time span cover the Bush administration. So, someone who was ethical and honest decided not to be, and then just opted to revert back to form?

Second, the letter references remarks supposedly made in a closed-door meeting. No corroboration has been offered. No meeting notes, no other witnesses to the remarks have verified them, and Panetta has not confirmed making them. No offense, but I can say whatever I want about the contents of a closed-door meeting. Unless they have some proof of the remarks, or until Panetta confirms saying them, they are nothing more than an empty accusation. A call to committee chair Rep. Reyes' office came up empty on any sort of proof. Pelosi's office was also unable to offer proof of a CIA lie (By the way, have to love the "better than you" philosophy of Congress. When challenged for proof of a federal crime, a representative of Pelosi's office accused me of yelling and hung up. I'll remember that the next time the government tries calling me).

Third, if someone was guilty of lying to you, and was also guilty of a crime in the process, why wait two weeks before saying anything? Why not call for an immediate investigation? If the charge is true, then this is a major scandal for the CIA, and heads should roll. Note that the Democrats' letter did not call for an investigation, merely for Panetta to clarify the remarks (although Pelosi did say that she expects the committee to investigate, which I guess is going to mean more arm-twisting). If what Panetta said was true, then we should know exactly what the CIA said to whom and when. I would not wager on such an investigation, as it may end up confirming Pelosi's lie in the process.

Some thoughts here- first, it is a grievous charge to accuse the CIA of intentionally lying. Such a letter should not have been made public without some factual support. The fact that Reyes' office can't do so is extremely troubling. Until someone can definitively answer this, we have no choice but to view the letter as an attempt to grant Nancy Pelosi cover for her issues. The second issue here is with the absolute lack of ethics and integrity on the part of Democrats, from Pelosi on down. Nancy Pelosi needed help making her potential lies go away, so the 7 committee members did that. What type of person is wiling to make a so-far baseless charge and accuse someone of committing a crime in an effort to help out a fellow politician? And they wonder why the public has more trust in used car salesmen that in politicians? There are now some serious doubts and questions here- not about the CIA, but about the Democrats' House leadership. Finally, I save my worst for Pelosi herself. How low is she willing to go to save her own backside? This is a desperate action undertaken by someone morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I've never thought much of her intellect, but now I can say the same for her character. The fact that she's willing to level accusation at those tasked with keeping our national security in a lame attempt to retain power is about as low as I've ever seen a person go. Quite frankly, it's shameless. I would hope that rank-and-file Democrats would not support such an action (a long sot, I know). This woman isn't fit to run a yard sale, let alone the House of Representatives. The House GOP should call her bluff- by all means, let's have a full investigation into what was said by whom and to whom, and when. And when the charges are disproven, all eight of these stooges should then be brought up on ethics charges for lying and for false accusation of a crime. It's against the law for a private citizen to file a false police report. Members of the US military are charged with conduct unbecoming and given a dishonorable discharge for such behavior. It's time that these cretins are held to the same standard, and summarily dismissed. Next time, try not to live down to my expectations.

Asleep At the Wheel

2009-06-20T00:40:00.004-04:00

What do Gerald Walpin and Dick Durbin have in common?

At first glance, not too much. Durbin has made a career of being a US Senator, representing the state of Illinois. Walpin, a career attorney, has had a couple of stints in public service. He started as an employee of the US attorney's in New York's southern district and returned to become the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2007. At first blush, the two would seem to have nothing in common.

However, they have two rather glaring similarities: one, both have been at the center of scandal. Two, neither scandal has received much media attention.

Dick Durbin left a meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke on September 18th where the two officials implored Congress to create legislation to aid banks that were potentially failing. On September 19th, Durbin sold almost $43,000 in mutual fund holdings and invested it in Berkshire Hathaway stock. By the end of the month, he shifted over $116,000 from mutual funds and placed most of it in Berkshire Hathaway stock. Either Durbin is an astute trader, or he utilized information not available to the general public to avoid investment losses.

Meanwhile, Walpin investigated the actions of St HOPE, a community organization in Sacramento, CA that had received funds from AmeriCorps. His investigation found that Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter and now mayor of Sacramento, had misused funds for political and personal uses. Walpin referred the matter to the US Attorney's office for prosecution. The legal counsel for the city of Sacramento became concerned about the case, as it could potentially make the city ineligible to receive stimulus funds. The case was eventually handled by Lawrence Brown, another Obama appointee, where the case was settled in an unusual manner. Johnson was to repay approximately half of the $850,000 from AmeriCorps, and no suspension would be implemented, meaning that Johnson could apply for federal funds in the stimulus bill. When Walpin referred the case, he made a recommendation that Johnson be permanently barred from ever receiving federal money. Not only was Brown's settlement highly unusual, but Walpin was not involved in the discussions, another unusual occurrence. Since St HOPE was broke, the money would never be repaid. Further, by not barring Johnson from eligibility for funds, it set a bad precedent for future cases. Walpin was displeased with both outcomes. What was his reward for his stewardship of tax dollars? Obama attempted firing him with an hour's notice. This would violate a federal law requiring that the termination of an IG receive 30 days notice and a reason for termination. Better yet, the law was passed in 2008 and co-sponsored by... Barack Obama. Obama was now breaking the law he helped pass.

Both these cases are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, they are abuses of office on the part of Obama and Durbin (is anyone surprised that both are Illinois politicians? Apparently the Chicago way has traveled to Washington). Second, the cesspool that was supposedly going to be drained by the Democrats is alive and well. Third, the mainstream media has been conspicuously silent on both matters. When Martha Stewart engaged in insider trading (in a situation nowhere as blatant as Durbin's), we were treated to nonstop coverage. When Bush terminated eight US Attorneys (who, unlike IG's, do serve at the pleasure of the President), we got constant updates. There was talk of scandal. However, when Obama actually breaks a law- his own law, no less- we get crickets. When Durbin engages in an instance of insider trading that dwarfs Stewart's, it is summarily ignored.

I've talked before about how poor a job the MSM has done covering this White House. Frankly, it has gone beyond embarrassing. Outside of Byron York, who has done yeoman's work on the Walpin issue, the rest of the media can't stop slobbering enough to ask Obama a serious question. They're apparently more interested in Obama swatting a fly (something that occurs at picnics across the country on a regular basis) than asking why he thought it was OK to break a law he sponsored. Additionally, they can't muster the interest to ask Dick Durbin how he gained such foresight that prompted him to liquidate his mutual fund holdings right before the market collapse, or why he neglected to share such knowledge with millions of voters who subsequently lost their investments.

I find two disturbing issues here. First is the absolute disregard for the rule of law shown by two individuals charged with enforcing the law. In fact, I seem to recall that both took oaths where they promised to protect and defend the Constitution and laws of this nation. I fail to see how these actions do that. Firing a taxpayer watchdog to protect a political friend, and flouting the law in the process, is not upholding the laws you promised to defend, let alone are charged with enforcing. Similarly, using knowledge of a pending bank collapse to not fix the problem but hurrying first to protect your own money is not my definition of public service. Making the matter worse is Durbin's proclivity for chastising those on Wall Street and elsewhere for... making a profit. If you work in private industry, profit and wealth are bad. If you roam the halls of Congress, personal wealth is OK. Nice double standard. Durbin might want to keep his mouth closed the next time he feels compelled to rail about wealth.

The second major issue here is the media complicity. Journalists fancy themselves the defenders of the common man via inquisition of those in power. They see themselves as the check on those who would abuse their power. Yet, when faced with an opportunity to actually fulfill that role, they chose instead to engage in hero warship and ignore such abuses. They no longer care about the damage to their credibility, whatever is left of it. When people like Rush Limbaugh refer to them as part of the "state-run media", how do they argue? One can quickly point to these two examples as Exhibits A and B. Or, how about the abuses by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan? No one thought to ask how two Congressmen arrive in Washington with little and become wealthy? One man had bribe money in his freezer and no one seemed overly interested in where the money came from. I've almost grown tired of discussing the media's failure to do its collective job. One does not need to worry about ethics or the appearance of hypocrisy if you wish to become a journalist. You just have to know who to kiss up to, and how much to kiss up. Everything will be forgotten when the invitations to the D.C. cocktail parties are mailed. Just don't ask some politicians why they circumvented the law.

The Downward Spiral of the Media Continues

2009-06-16T16:04:00.004-04:00

The media coverage of the President has thus far been largely embarrassing. Few media members have bothered to move beyond the fawning and slobbering long enough to ask serious questions of either Obama or White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. Whether it's been on issues of transparency (or lack thereof), hidden costs in spending bills, or lack of efficacy of government programs (i.e. the "stimulus" bill being anything but). ABC News, however, has decided to take the love affair to a new level- they're offering Obama an hour to discuss his health care "reform". I don't recall George Bush being offered an hour to discuss his positions on anything.

ABC News assures us that there will be a balanced offering of questions, there is clear cause for concern. ABC News President David Westin hasn't exactly established a reputation for being fair or balanced during his tenure. This is the man who said that the Pentagon attack on 9/11 may have been a legitimate target (he couldn't bring himself to have an opinion) and also created a list of 480 minority figures that ABC was to use when seeking sound bites as a way of increasing diversity (funny, but he couldn't find time to do the same when it came to diversity of opinion). He ran out and hired George Stephanopoulos when Stephanopolos was fresh off his turn in the Clinton White House- the same man who now has daily conference calls to advise Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, something that Westin should have put a stop to if he hoped to retain any sense of objectivity at the news network. ABC News hasn't been the bastion of even-handedness and we're now supposed to believe that they'll exercise fairness when it comes to the selection of questions for Obama?

Given its track record, the special is likely to end up being an infomercial for Obama's socialized medicine plan. I have a few questions if it does end up going on as such: first, will ABC then give a critic of the plan equal time to air his/her views, in a sense of balance? Or, if not, will ABC note this as an in-kind contribution to Obama, subject to FEC requirements? Every president has sought to utilize the bully pulpit as a way to advance his agenda, and I wouldn't expect Obama to differ on that. However, I also wouldn't expect a news network to be such a willing dupe in the process. This is the type of media broadcast that exists in countries like Iran, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, where the "supreme leader" takes to the airwaves to preach about how wonderful the government is and what a great job it is doing. I might be reassured that ABC would keep the program balanced if I thought that other media types would hold them up for criticism in the event that it became slanted, or if Obama was subjected to nothing more than softball questions. However, since the rest of the media has engaged in similar boot-licking, I am going to venture a guess that they'll see it as a solid performance as well as a good argument for nationalizing health care- a sad state of the current media. It is such blatant bias that should keep any discussion of a federal shield law off the table. No more privilege until you learn to properly manage your responsibility. They may be winning the battle, but when one looks at the declining readership of newspapers and the decline in viewership for the three major network newscasts, one has to wonder how much longer they think that they can get away with such naked partisanship. Those numbers should prompt them to work for better balance, not giving away airtime for continued fawning of Obama. It's pathetic that some lessons are never learned.

Did I Miss Something Here?

2009-06-04T13:41:00.007-04:00

Today's Los Angeles Times has an article extolling the virtues of "funemployment", where those recently displaced from the workforce are discovering the virtues of not having to go to work daily (link here:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-funemployment4-2009jun04,0,820021,full.story). According to the article, they're going on vacations, visiting relatives and friends, pursuing leisure activities, volunteering, etc.., all while either living with their parents or burning through their savings. My question is, how can the anyone in the media run such an article and wonder why people question the media objectivity (or lack thereof) in this country?

When Bush was in office, we were treated to story after story about how bad the job market was, which was followed by the supposed "jobless recovery". Meanwhile, we have unemployment numbers at 9.2% (and likely to increase when tomorrow's job numbers are announced), and it's suddenly wonderful to be unemployed? Meanwhile, the author is soliciting more such examples of such unemployed bliss. This comes while the Man-Child tells us about how many jobs have been saved- the Department of Labor keeps no such number, and no one can accurately predict this. We have a government that just took over two major auto companies, Congress is dragging executives from both GM and Chrysler up to Capitol Hill to explain how they decided which plants and dealerships to close (an aside- they didn't. The White House did. I'm sure Ohio is glad they went for Obama, as he decided to close three plants there and who knows how many dealerships). Maybe someone should just go to those autoworkers and dealership employees and remind the of the joys of their new situations.

If the media is sensitive or upset that many people look at them as an extension of the White House PR office, then perhaps they should stop with such nonsensical articles. Or, they could run similar articles when a Republican is in office. How about stories about McJobs, or jobless recoveries, when the economy finally turns around, although that could take some time due to the so-far disastrous spending plans and non-stop printing of money. Somehow I don't see that happening. Maybe the Times should review this article as one of the reasons that its circulation has declined by double-digits. It's said that the addict is the last one to realize they have a problem. Maybe when the only ones reading the Times are the ones writing it will they realize the issue. In the meantime, brace yourselves for more fatuous articles from the media touting the benefits of being unemployed. If being unemployed is so wonderful, then we'll have to remember these points the next time we're treated to the tough side of unemployment during a Republican administration.

A Dishonest Discussion

2009-05-29T11:34:00.003-04:00

"John McCain talks about a $5,000 tax credit for health care.But here’s what he’s not telling you. McCain would make you pay income tax on your health insurance benefits. Taxing health benefits for the first time ever. And that tax credit? McCain’s own Web site said it goes straight to the insurance companies, not to you, leaving you on your own to pay McCain’s health insurance tax. Taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can’t afford John McCain."- Barack Obama campaign ad, 10/3/08

Someone should remind Obama of this ad as the health care debate gets underway in Washington. For that matter, someone ought to start questioning him on his "No new taxes" oath for those making less than $250,000. Obama and Congressional Democrats are desperately seeking funding for a government-run health plan that carries an annual price tag of $1.2 trillion, and everything is on the table- including your health plan. Only, the Democrats don't plan on giving you ownership of it.

During the campaign, John McCain proposed ending the tax exemption on employer-paid plans and giving everyone a $2500 (or $5000/couple) tax credit to go and purchase a health plan. This would make health plans portable, giving workers the ability to take their plan with them from job to job. It would also allow people to shop for plans that best fit their needs, instead of being forced into whichever plan their employer chose. This, along with allowing consumers to shop across state lines for plans, was McCain's idea to increase insurance coverage for US citizens. Obama and the Democrats mercilessly assailed him for the plan, calling it a huge new tax increase on Americans. Now that he's in office,it seems that Obama may be receptive to ending the exemption. However, it's not to allow people to shop for their own insurance, but to pay for his expensive new plan.

Since taking office, Obama has spent money at a break-neck pace. He threw $787 billion into a "stimulus" package that has had a near-negligible effect. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist and former advisor to Bush 43 looked at the Obama administration's estimates for unemployment with and without the "stimulus" and found that the unemployment rate has exceeded the estimates for unemployment without the plan (link here: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/accountability.html). He then followed that with a $3.6 trillion budget. We've spent billions bailing out the auto industries (and are in the process of handing them over to the unions). A cap-and-tax plan may be in our future, adding a couple of thousand dollars to the average family's energy costs. Meanwhile, the Treasury is printing money around the clock. It's no wonder that there's no money left to pay for an expensive, government-run plan. This is where Obama and the Dems have begun scouring for new revenue sources.

Among the ideas under consideration are: excise taxes on hard alcohol, beer, and some types of wine. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a $16 per proof gallon tax might generate $6 billion/year; a 3 cents/12 ounces of sugary beverages might bring in $5.4 billion/year (CBO); ending or limiting the tax-exempt status of charitable hospitals would raise a possible $6 billion a year (how this will improve health care is beyond me); make college work-study pay subject to payroll taxes,a s well as doing the same to medical residents; reducing Medicare reimbursement rates for "over-valued medical services" such as diagnostic imaging; and ending the tax deductability of health savings accounts, raising $10 billion if eliminated. A VAT (value-added) has been discussed as well, where a tax would be placed on goods at each step in the manufacturing process. After they're done chasing these smaller pools of cash, the employer plans are next- it would potentially bring in $226 billion. However, instead of targeting "gold-plated plans"- which McCain proposed- the Democrats would try taxing this via income levels. If you're wondering why this approach, consider who generally has the gold-plated plans: unions.

The administration could have ended this discussion, but chose not to do so. Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, was asked about these by CNN's John King, and said that while the proposal wasn't in their budget, they wouldn't rule it out. So, when McCain wanted to end the exemption to allow people to buy their own plans, he was excoriated for proposing a large tax increase on the middle class. When Obama and the Democrats do it, it's an idea under consideration. Will Obama apologize for his attacks on McCain? While it is good to see John King asking these questions, where are the others? Obama has already placed a great deal on the nation's credit card, and is proposing more. Meanwhile, he has expressed openness to an idea that he ripped his opponent for last fall. Most significantly, his plans are going to end up placing an enormous tax burden on most Americans (which he claimed he wouldn't do), something that anyone with cursory mathematical skills could have figured out. The Wall Street Journal estimated that in order to pay for his budget, he'd need to tax 100% of income all the way down to earners making $75,000. So much for the tax cut for 95% of Americans (scrapped in the budget, by the way). If Obama is allowed to do this, it would not only be a tax hike on most Americans, it would pave the way for a significant move toward government-run health care, where tests such as diagnostic imaging are considered luxuries. Obama certainly shouldn't be allowed to move health care in that direction. However, he should first be held accountable for his own words. He may not raise income taxes (although it will be hard not to), he's going to tax everything else. Some honesty about his plans and their costs should have been part of the campaign. Such blatant dishonest should not go unchecked, and deserves to be punished electorally.

Do You Want to Buy a Car From This Man?

2009-05-13T20:40:00.007-04:00

After months of endless spending by the Obama administration, taxpayers are finally treated to a real spending cut. The administration, acting in its role as head of Chrysler, slashed the car maker's advertising budget by 50%. One of the members of Obama's Auto Task Force wondered if the cuts were deep enough, saying "Idle plants, why market?". And these people now want to take charge of health care?

It's instructive to look at this. Obama decided that it was necessary for the US government to take over Chrysler. The automaker has a glut of cars on its lots, and the geniuses in Washington don't think it's necessary to try and move them? Chrysler has 286,687 units of 2009 model cars on dealer lots, and another 36,370 units of 2008 cars sitting on lots. A business needs to sell its goods and services in order to make a profit. It is clear that Obama doesn't know how to run a business (never mind how to run a nation). Considering that these cars are now Obama's, I would think that he'd want to do whatever was necessary to move them. This isn't a business model that is going to inspire consumers to flock to their local Chrysler dealerships. Combine this with Obama's earlier demand that they move away from manufacturing SUV's and light trucks (the one segment of cars that Chrysler was selling strongly) and ramp up electrical and smaller, "green" cars (which haven't sold well), and one has to wonder why the taxpayer investment in Chrysler was necessary- after all, if the goal is to have the company fail, we could have done so without the billions in taxpayer funds. Perhaps it was so that he could essentially hand the company over to the UAW. The Obama administration's restructuring plan for Chrysler has the UAW ending up with 55% of the common (voting) stock and one board appointee, the brains on the Auto Task Force naming 4 others, and the Canadian government adding one more. Meanwhile, the bondholders- the people who invested their money in the company- walked away with a mere 29 cents on the dollar, having been strong-armed into accepting a deal. If I owned 55% of a company, I would want them making every effort to move as many units as possible. And, if you think that the Chrysler situation is an aberration, consider the deal at GM- the union forgives 50% of its debt in exchange for 39% of the company. The US government does the same and receives 50%. The private lenders forgive all their debt and receive a mere 10%. Additionally, the US government also assumes the ability to relieve former CEO Rick Wagoner of his job. Meanwhile, the US taxpayer, who has funded both of these adventures, get to have the Wizards of Washington run two automakers, ostensibly into the ground. It looks as if Ford made the right choice in refusing government money, although that might not matter. Obama is looking into the authority to regulate executive compensation at ALL private companies, irrespective of whether or not they've received any taxpayer funds.

When Obama said that he sought to remake the US economy, I'm not sure that all of those who voted for him had this in mind. He ran on purposefully vague slogans like "Hope" and "Change", letting the voter fill in what those meant. This assault on the private sector can't end well. The government hasn't shown itself to be competent in running anything, and its foray into the auto industry hasn't started well, unless your goal is to undermine private markets. The result is likely to prolong the recession, as private capital is more likely to stay out of markets due to uncertainty and fear of government-mandated loss. Who would invest in a company that could end up in government hands, and you end up with a fraction of your investment? We got into this due to government intervention into the housing market. Involvement in the auto industry isn't going to improve this. Obama seems intent on remaking the mistakes of the Great Depression, where uncertainty around government actions caused investors to stay out of markets. If you doubt this, look at how Obama handled Chrysler. He browbeat the "money people", demonizing them and forcing them into accepting his deal. GM creditors, "money people" like the Polish Beneficial Association and the Knights of Columbus, will soon be left holding the bag after their turn at the Obama whipping post. Other bondholders, such as Loomis Sayles, had liquidated all of their holdings in GM. Expect other bondholders to jump before their government-mandated haircut. Meanwhile, not advertising isn't likely to get idle plants active any time soon. If Obama's management of the auto industry is indicative of his administrative plans for health care, no thanks. It's one thing if he wants to put autoworkers out of a job and close the doors on Detroit. Overtaking and mismanaging the health care of all Americans is a different matter.

The Dangers of Electing a Good Speaker

2009-04-21T16:52:00.005-04:00

It was my belief after November's election that US voters would come to regret the decision to place such a novice in the White House. I thought that Obama was over his head when it came to dealing with the weighty issues that he would now have to confront. It is becoming clear that Obama isn't merely incompetent, but dangerously so. His global apology tour, combined with his decision to release CIA memos regarding interrogation techniques and his newly-found openness to prosecution for those drafting such policies. These actions combine to weaken us both in terms of the perceptions of rogue actors abroad as well as within the departments charged with keeping us safe at home.

Obama has spent much of the last couple of weeks apologizing for the US, first at the G-20 and NATO and then at the Summit of the Americas. Obama's constant apologizing at the G-20 Summit accomplished nothing. No new NATO troop commitments. He managed to place more taxpayer money into unaccountable hands (this time, the IMF). He got no help on North Korea or Iran. No new support at the UN for any action in the wake of North Korea's missile test. He bowed down the the Saudi King. He then moved on to the Summit of the Americas, where he embarrassed himself with the Hugo Chavez photo-op (complete with an anti-American book) and sat quietly while Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega spent 50 minutes denigrating the US, commenting only to say that he was glad that HE wasn't blamed for the Bay of Pigs. After his return, he declassified CIA documents pertaining to interrogation techniques without releasing their results- we now know why he appointed Shauna Daly, someone with no legal education nor legal experience, to a senior position in the Justice Department. Her job is what it always has been- opposition research (as an aside, she's moved on to a position at the DNC doing... opposition research). Now, he's decided that he's OK with prosecution for those who were tasked with deciding Bush Administration positions on interrogation, reversing a position he took only a couple of weeks ago. The sum of these actions will make the US weaker abroad while making it more difficult to muster the appropriate defenses.

The apology tour combined with the appalling performance at the Americas summit give foreign nations the impression that the US is unwilling or unable to stand up to evil. For those unwilling to admit it, there is evil in this world. By apologizing for the US at every turn, and then allowing himself to be used as a photo-op for Hugo Chavez, he gives nations like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and others that their actions are acceptable and that we are not going to move to stop such actions. It also tells allies that our support is in question (just ask Poland and the Czechs, who have to be feeling somewhat hung out to dry when Obama decided to give them up on missile defense systems). His actions also signal that we're willing to subjugate our interests to the UN. Are we going to wait for the UN to get its act together if we're faced with another act of terrorism? If that was the only thing he'd done this month, it would be bad enough. However, the man who has sought to wreck the US economy and subjugate our interests to international bodies decided to make it more difficult for a President to do his job.

Obama's flip-flop on the possibility of prosecution for Bush Justice officials is a very damaging decision for not only those who drafted the positions, but those who follow. This decision risks criminalizing advice to the President. In this case, it will criminalize the legal opinions given to President Bush in the wake of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Going forward, it creates a significant problem for those who serve any President. Who will serve in any future administration if there is a risk of prosecution from a succeeding White House? And, Obama should think long about this decision. Suppose that, as a result of these actions, the US becomes more susceptible to a terrorist attack on our soil. Some rogue nation and/or band of terrorists conspire to attack the US, and do so successfully. Obama now has opened the door to having his advisers (those who decided to limit the CIA to interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual, etc..) prosecuted by a future President. Suppose that Obama's successor determines that the attack was in part enabled by bad policy decisions by the Obama administration. Should someone who offered advice to the President be opened to potential prosecution? It is unprecedented in American history to criminalize an opposing policy. Banana republics and dictatorships do this. In the meantime, this will make it more difficult for a President to staff his administration. How will a President get the "best and brightest" to agree to work in government when their actions are subject to prosecution by a future administration? Who in their right minds will sign up for a job when they can be criminally tried and sued in civil court? Such jobs already carry long hours and so-so pay- most can make much more in the private sector. No one will avail themselves to prosecution. Obama has simultaneously made it more difficult to get good advice to prosecute a war, made it more difficult for our intelligence operations to get information, and made us look weaker abroad. He's raised the risk for an event while making it harder to stop it.

This is what I mean when I say he's dangerously incompetent. His entire foreign policy thus far has consisted of insulting our allies while trying (unsuccessfully) to make nice with our enemies. He's gained nothing from his "outreach" while angering some allies. He's handcuffed our military and intelligence operations while emboldening those who seek to do us harm. Meanwhile, he's ruined our economy at every turn and moved to nationalize health care and financial sectors. He's not the amiable dunce I'd hoped. He's truly dangerous, and he seems to be making it up as he goes along. I warned of caveat emptor after the election. We've elected a man who's only concern is himself- he's an incompetent narcissist. He's completely self-absorbed, preferring to be liked instead of respected. He has preferred to be the cool uncle instead of the responsible parent. The recent tea parties gave me some hope that citizens are beginning to recognize the mistake of electing such a man. I can only hope that this translates to a change in Congress in 2010 and a new occupant in the White House in 2013, because if we are left on this course, we'll be a weaker, poorer nation. If I wanted to live in a nation with weak national defense and a stagnant economy, I could have moved to any nation in Europe. I have always thought that we're better than that. Hopefully the voters agree.

The Price of Ignorance

2009-03-02T17:14:00.003-05:00

It is bad enough to have a President that is economically naive. Economic damage can be repaired, though it can be time-consuming. It now appears that the worst fears about this man-child occupant of the White House: naivete on international issues. These errors, unfortunately, can't always be undone, and catastrophic consequences can ensue. The Obama administration may have made two such errors in one week, extraordinary by any measure.

The first was the $900 million pledge to help the Palestinian Authority rebuild Gaza. As much as one-third of these funds may end up being distributed by international aid organizations, with no guarantee that the money won't go to Hamas. Hamas has been one of the leading terror groups in the region, and it's incredibly foolish to not have any guarantee that they won't receive any of the money. It defies logic to help fund an organization who has a short-term goal of destroying a key US ally and a long-term goal to destroy US itself. It's an astonishingly naive move. Unless you can be assured that the funds will be used to only rebuild, you don't sent them. A mistake like this would be enough for a week. However, Obama saw the need to trump it.

In what can only be seen as a very risky gesture, the Obama administration has offered to back out of its missile-defense agreements in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russian help in Iran. I lack the proper words to describe just how, well, stupid this is. Did Obama not learn the lessons of the Bush administration? Does he really think that the Russians will be trustworthy? What in their recent history demonstrates this? Additionally, he now places two US allies- the Czechs and the Poles- in jeopardy, as they had agreed to host missile-defense programs. Given what the Russians have done to those nations on its borders, it's entirely plausible that there will be some form of retribution from the Russians toward these former Soviet satellites. This move also will give nations pause to deal with the US, as it can't guarantee that we'll keep our word from administration to administration. Our history has shown that whatever our policy differences, we have traditionally kept our word on foreign policy matters no matter the White House occupant. Further, there is no reason to be comfortable that the Russians will indeed talk the Iranians away from their nuclear ambitions. In fact, it could be the contrary- the Russians have made a good deal of money selling such materials to rogue nations. With a global recession on, and the price of oil down, there would be a great temptation to sell the Iranians nuclear goods. What Obama could end up with is a nuclear Iran and no missile-defense for our allies, making for a bolder Russia. All of this would lead to global instability. If Joe Biden thought that Obama would be tested within his first six months, here is the test. He appears poised to fail it gloriously. The end result could very well be an ambitious Russia seeking to reclaim its former satellite nations and a nuclear Iran. Just as Obama is ruining the US economy at home, he's ruining US prestige abroad with its allies and making us appear weak to our enemies. We can rebuild the markets. We may not be able to rebuild the rubble.

Choices Matter

2009-02-26T14:46:00.004-05:00

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had three simple rules for conduct in his class. One, actions have consequences. Likewise, the failure to act also has consequences. Two, choices matter. Three, privilege entails responsibility. These rules were to govern all actions and reactions within his classroom. They were also meant as life lessons, applicable to future life situations. I bring these up, because our elected officials in Washington have been budgeting and spending as though these rules are meaningless.

It was bad enough to lard up a "stimulus" bill with every imaginable pet project under the guise of economically stimulative spending. Now, President Obama has put forth a budget that disregards commons sense, and acts as though there are no consequences for bad choices. In fact, the negative consequences are reserved for those who have made sound decisions. Further, a little more than a month into the new administration, and we have put record amounts of spending on the national credit card, to be paid by future generations. This from the same party that excoriated every Bush budget? That promised in 2006 to be the party of balanced budgets? If this is their idea of good budgeting, then this current Congress, in conjunction with the man-child in the White House (he's in a man's body, but he thinks and behaves like a child), are going to spend us into ruination. In the process, they threaten to kill the very ideas and principles that our forefathers risked their lives to create.

A look at Obama's budget shows a number of new spending proposals, all to be funded with tax hikes on the top 2% of income earners. However, IRS data shows this to be statistically impossible. If we were to tax these filers at 100%, it would not cover the spending. In fact, we would need to tax all earners making $75,000 or more at 100% to cover Obama's proposals. Needless to say, this conflicts with his campaign promise to give tax cuts to 95% of filers (something that was never real, anyway). He's essentially promised a free lunch- only he can't pay for it. Further complicating the problem is that the same data show that 75% of those upper income filers are not individuals, but small businesses filing as subchapter "S" corporations, which are taxed at the personal rate. The very same businesses that Obama is depending upon to hire workers and lead us out of recession are then going to be slapped with tax hikes to fund Obama's wish list. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these businesses aren't going to hire when they are facing an increase in their tax bills. Actions have consequences. If Obama and the Democrats proceed with this budget, it will only lead to a deeper economic crisis, and it will be hard for them to blame anyone but themselves (not that they won't attempt to blame Bush and/or the GOP). They own the White House, they own Congress. Passing such an irresponsible budget will place them squarely on the hook for its outcomes. Choices do matter. They've chosen to spend recklessly, and they will have to bear the results. Unemployment figures will get worse. Tax revenues will fall, making it more difficult for federal and state budgets to balance. What is worst about this budget and the behavior of Obama and the Democrats is that they think that this all happens in a vacuum- the idea that changes in spending or in taxes don't impact the choices that individuals and businesses make. They are about to learn a harsh lesson- not that this lesson hasn't been learned before.

Voters need to be aware of the candidates and their promises. Obama and the Democrats denied being spenders. They claimed that the vast majority of taxpayers were going to see a tax cut. They claimed that they weren't going to move for socialized medicine. Voters made a choice in November, and that choice has consequences. We are faced with an unprecedented expansion of government without the funds to pay for it. Part of the way Obama plans to fund this expansion is through tax hikes, which will no doubt ripple down the economic ladder. He also plans to fund it by "squeezing" hospitals, doctors, insurers, and drug manufacturers. Cutting reimbursements to everyone involved in the health care sector will lead to fewer doctors, closed hospitals (raising unemployment), less innovations, and fewer insurers. Instead of placing the health care sector on the path to lower costs and better care, he is going to destroy care. Why would a bright individual become a doctor when their faced with making less money for their services? Include the high cost of medical school and the costs involved with residencies and fellowships along with the steep cost of malpractice insurance (because Democrats can't say no to trial attorneys), and its' not worth the cost and effort to become a doctor. Again, choices matter. The Democrats have chosen to ruin the US healthcare system while simultaneously expanding US debt to previously unforeseen levels. It's time for the voters to either choose to remind their elected officials that what they are seeing is not what they were promised, or to choose to remove them at the next election. Remember, the failure to act also has consequences.

The Rhetoric Doesn't Match the Reality

2009-02-06T13:55:00.004-05:00

President Obama appeared at the Democrats' retreat last night (so much for the appearance of being post-partisan) and said this,

"...Then there's the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. And when you start asking, well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you're seeing, where's all this waste and spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars. Well, why wouldn't we want to do that? That creates jobs for people who make those cars. It saves the federal government energy. It saves the taxpayers energy...So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point. No, seriously. That's the point...."

Where to begin? Obama campaigned on cutting earmarks, among other things. Now he admits that they're a part of the legislative process. He promised to cut spending, and now calls spending "stimulus". Obama claims that the voters called for change in the last election, but he is now governing in a diametrically opposite fashion from the change he promised. It's quite likely that had Obama campaigned on increased spending, with money targeted toward interest groups, then it would be a President McCain that would be handling this. Obama ran on promises to cut government spending, eliminate earmarks, and end lobbyist influence. Since taking office, he's granted a number of former lobbyists to join his administration, defended one tax cheat in his quest for a Cabinet position and was poised to defend two more. Meanwhile, he allows Nancy Pelosi to write a stimulus bill that the Congressional Budget Office terms more destructive to the economy that no action. It strains logic to suggest that this is what voters had in mind last November. Perhaps that explains the public opposition to the misnamed stimulus as well as the 12 point slide in Obama's approval rating (although still a healthy 61%). Obama promised change, but was painfully vague on what change meant. It makes for a tough argument to claim that this is what voters chose, and the polls do seem to bear that out. Obama's growing anger (as evidenced by his comments and his Washington Post op-ed column, shows someone who's core arguments have devolved to "We need to do something" and "I won". Well, you may have won, but you can't argue that this is what you won. Obama claimed not to be a tax and spend liberal. Now, he's spending, and we know that borrowing this much money, combined with the Treasury printing money around the clock, will be followed by higher taxes and high inflation. He claimed to be an adherent of "paygo" (despite being a ridiculous premise). Now, he's making no attempt to keep to a budget. The wisest thing Republicans could do would be to allow Democrats own this bill . Don't vote for it. When it fails- and it will- let Democrats try and explain to an already skeptical public why they did this. The public saw the previous bailout bill fail and understand that this isn't likely to succeed, either. Obama can take to the bully pulpit today to push this so-called stimulus. If he gets it, he'll have to answer for it tomorrow.

OK, This Time We Mean It.

2009-02-04T20:57:00.006-05:00

While Washington debates what qualifies as stimulus and what doesn't, the Obama administration has given us a nice diversion from the headache- seeing just how many of his Cabinet nominees can have disqualifying ethical problems. In case anyone has lost count, we're at three- and the counting may not be done.

We've reviewed the issues with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's non-payment of $43,000 in taxes (just a reminder for parents- summer camp does NOT count as a business expense). In the last day, we've had HHS nominee Tom Daschle withdraw over non-payment of $140,000 in taxes, claiming, among other things, that he wasn't aware that being provided with a car and driver counts as income- IRS rules require you to declare any gift or service to be valued and included in taxable income. Most Americans know this, but somehow Mr Daschle got through years of service in the US Senate without ever learning this. Earlier in the day, Nancy Killefer withdrew her name from consideration as Obama's "Performance Czar" due to non-payment of taxes related to domestic help. At first glance, I suppose we can apply Vice President Joe Biden's idea that "paying taxes is patriotic" and consider these three to be unpatriotic. However, the hits may still be coming for Obama. And, one can't forget the withdrawal of New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson, after the appearance of a quid pro quo with a financial firm that won state bids after donating to the Richardson campaign (and is the subject of federal investigation). It's worth noting that the previous three administrations had a total of four withdrawals during their transitions.

Labor nominee Hilda Solis is coming up for questioning, and it has come to light that she served as treasurer for a pro-union organization that was lobbying members of Congress on legislation that she was co-sponsoring in her role as a Congresswoman. So, Ms. Solis was approving lobbying expenditures for a lobbying outfit on her own legislation. She then failed to disclose this on her financial disclosure forms, raising the possibility that she has violated more than one ethics rule. Meanwhile, Deputy AG nominee David Ogden will be facing some issues of his own. Not only has Mr Ogden served as counsel for community pillars like Playboy and Penthouse, he has filed briefs opposing parental notification prior to abortion for 14 year olds, opposed spousal notification prior to abortions, and even opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which required computers used in libraries and schools to implement measures blocking access to pornography (no wonder, as it might harm his star clients).

Then-candidate Obama told voters how ethical his administration would be. No lobbyists. Only the highest standards. WE were told that we'd get change- who knew that the change would mean lower ethical standards than the Clintons? We've already seen the Obama administration issue waivers for three former lobbyists to join his administration, delivering the message that lobbyists are apparently OK so long as you agree with Obama. Lying on House disclosure forms? Not a problem. Owe some back taxes? As long as you agree with administration policy, we'll call it an honest mistake. Better yet, let the nation know that you don't know how to use TurboTax. Obama's critics long questioned how someone raised in the cesspool known as Chicago politics could really emerge unsullied. It appears that Obama understood that ethical lapses are a part of politics there and thought that such issues would be OK with the American public. Some have blamed his vetting process, but I beg to differ. He claimed to have a very stringent vetting questionnaire. If we blame the process, then it means that Obama isn't wise enough to ask basic questions- "Have you paid your taxes?", "Do you have any conflicts of interest that might create a problem?". My belief is that he knew of these and went ahead anyway, thinking that the brand would overcome the problems- besides, it never mattered in Chicago. Pair these disastrous nominees with the larded stimulus bill, and you've got the makings of a one-term administration. Perhaps this supposedly intelligent President isn't so bright- or so ethical. And, after saying very little during the campaign, we are now learning what Obama meant by hope and change.

The Anatomy of a Train Wreck

2009-01-29T11:34:00.004-05:00

In May of 1939, Henry Morgenthau went before Congress to brief members on the outcomes of the New Deal programs and said,

"...We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not
work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job.
I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.
... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much
unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot..."

An excellent history of this failure was written by Amity Shlaes in her book "The Forgotten Man", which chronicled government action in response to the Great Depression. FDR (and Hoover) believed that spending on infrastructure projects would revive the economy. As Shlaes points out, it had a negligible effect on unemployment while amassing significant debt. It took US involvement in World War II to reverse this. My reasoning for the brief history lesson is because the President and Congress appear poised to repeat the error. In fact, a look at the proposed "stimulus" bill displays an even graver error- not only do Democrats ignore the fact that tax cuts are the best vehicle to revive a flagging economy, they don't even tilt in favor of infrastructure spending. This bill is a liberal's wish list, accumulated over decades. Tagged at $825 billion and all as debt spending, it will cost over $1 trillion. For a party that ran in 2006 on fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, and criticized GOP spending, they've apparently decided that deficits aren't a problem.

The bill will spend only 1/7th of its total in 2009. By the time most of the spending kicks in, we SHOULD be past the worst (I say worse, because it is possible that this execrable bill will worsen the situation). It includes such boondoggles as $600 million to "prepare the country for Universal health care", $1 billion for Amtrak, which continues to do nothing but hemorrhage cash, $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts (which creates jobs how..?), $400 million for global warming research (I thought that liberals told us that this was already indisputable? If it is, then why spend more on it, and explain how this creates more jobs?), and $650 million more for digital TV coupons for converter boxes. haven't we already spent enough on this? And how does ANY of this create a single job?

Looking at the parts that supposedly do create jobs, less than 5% ($30 billion) goes toward infrastructure- i.e roads and bridges. $40 billion more goes to broadband and electric grid development. An accounting of the bill shows that only about 12% of the bill can be considered actual stimulus- and it's not the 12% being spent in 2009. In fact,less than 5% of the infrastructure spending will occur in the next two years! The bill also contains such bad ideas as $87 billion dedicated to help states fund Medicaid and another $70 billion to bail out state deficits. None of this can even remotely be called stimulus. It's pork, pure and simple. Taxpayers should be outraged that their government is using an economic recession to pass through its political wish list. If Democrats want to spend to prepare the nation for Universal health care, put it on the floor and debate it. Ditto for global warming research and the rest of the lard in this bill. Republicans were right to unanimously oppose the bill in the House. It seems as if the GOP has belatedly received the message on fiscal discipline.

This bill should serve as a warning to voters- elections have consequences. Because so many voters were taken in with a slogan, the Democrats took this as a mandate to spend recklessly- and make no mistake, this is reckless. Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) took to the press room and uttered such a sentiment on January 28th. Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed that the Democrats won and wrote this bill. She should be reminded of those words when this fails, just as she should be regularly reminded of her celebration to the media on October 1st of last year, when she talked about how wonderful the Wall Street bailout bill was, taking credit for that as well- because while Congress is hammering out a stimulus bill, President Obama is preparing legislators for a Wall Street bailout, round two. The media never asked serious questions of either Obama or the Democrats as to what their plans were should they win election. They allowed them to speak in platitudes, even while the economic situation worsened. Republicans would be wise to let Democrats own this bill- along with the debt and economic morass that will ensue. Perhaps then voters will have a much clearer picture as to what Democrats will do with power and what its results will be. Democrats won't be able to hide behind slogans and platitudes in 2010. Instead, they will have to explain why debt spending is a good idea, considering that the bill will create $6700 in new debt per US household (the bill's price tag is large enough that each man, woman, and child could receive a $2700 check. That would stimulate the economy). Since the media won't do it, the voters will have to ask the questions, or be left in a perpetual tax-and-spend economy. If voters don't want a European-style economy, then they will have to deliver that message in 2010.

Do As I Say...

2009-01-14T18:29:00.005-05:00

Now that the holidays are over, and Washington is busy spending taxpayer dollars again, it's worth looking at those who will be charged with spending said cash. We already have a Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (the originator of all tax bills) who neglected to pay taxes- and cited ignorance of the law as his excuse. Would this be an acceptable excuse for anyone else? And, in case one thinks that this is the first time a politician plead ignorance of the tax code, FDR sent a letter to the IRS regarding his tax bill. In the letter, FDR estimates his tax liability for 1937 and cites his uncertainty over knowing the exact amount as a matter of "higher mathematics". Maybe it was for FDR, but it wasn't for most people at the time, as the tax code was far less complex than it is now. Making matters worse, FDR did this while he was aggressively pursuing Andrew Mellon and other wealthy Americans for perceived tax evasion. Mellon, as it turns out, was paying what he owed- and had no trouble calculating the bill. Imagine if Mellon had sent the IRS the same letter as FDR. I doubt FDR would have been as tolerant with Mellon as he hoped the IRS would be with him.

The reason for the brief history lesson is because yet another Democrat has neglected to pay taxes. Timothy Geithner, President-elect Obama's pick to head Treasury (and oversee the collection of taxes) failed to pay FICA taxes- the taxes that fund Social Security- from 2001 to 2004 while he worked for the IMF. Liberals have been telling us how wrong it is that the wealthy have not been paying their "fair share" of the Social Security burden, and ow one of their own has been found neglecting his obligation. Yet, despite the outcry of how the "wealthy" have been keeping money from the SS fund, Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer have called this an "honest mistake". Imagine if a Bush nominee had dome the same- would it be considered an "honest mistake"? Or would we be treated to accusations of corruption, views of being above the law, and the like? An examination of Mr Geithner's returns found improper deductions, such as claiming dependent-care deductions for his son's stay at a sleepaway camp (not allowed), an improper small-business deduction, ineligible charitable deductions, and expensed utility use that was consumed personally. Worst of all, Mr Geithner prepared his returns in for most of the years in question. So, we have a nominee for Treasury- the agency overseeing the implementation of the tax code- ignorant of tax law. We have the chief tax writer in the House also ignorant of the laws. And, they both follow in the proud tradition of another prominent Democrat who couldn't calculate his own tax bill while accusing others of not paying in full. This episode should disqualify Mr Geithner from sitting at the top of Treasury. It would exclude an applicant for IRS field agent from landing a job there (although, considering we now have a President who couldn't pass a security clearance in position to receive the nation's most sensitive secrets, perhaps it's par for the course). It also highlights a disturbing trend within the Democrat Party- accuse someone of shirking a responsibility that you are currently shirking, considering that this is the 2nd Democrat to be ignorant of the policies that they either are currently charged with, or possibly will be in the near future. In the larger picture, this should disqualify the current majority from speaking out about who is and is not paying their "fair share", not to mention attempting to raise FICA taxes on those who are already compliant with the law in an effort to redistribute said income while members within their own ranks are not even paying what they currently owe. However, being a politician means never having to admit shame.

UPDATE- 1/22/09: Today, Mr Geithner blamed a popular tax prep software, TurboTax, for his failure to report income. Approximately 18 million people a year use the program, which is more or less idiot-proof. Anyone who has ever used TurboTax knows that it goes step-by-step through your return, and specifically asks if you're reported all income. So, Mr Geithner signs a form with the IMF reminding him of his responsibility to declare income, his tax software also asks, and we're to believe that this was an "honest" mistake"? It is bad enough Mr Geithner was involved with some of the bailouts and may be predisposed to using more taxpayer funds in this manner. Now, he tells a whopper to the Senate as to why he didn't pay his taxes. I don't suppose the average citizen could get away with such a story? Also in tax-related news, Caroline Kennedy ended her bid to replace Hillary Clinton over tax issues, as well as the possibility of workers' comp issues related to her nanny. A Kennedy spokesman denies the stories, but one has to wonder: what IS is about wealthy liberals that think that we should all pay taxes and that employers are supposed to pay into workman's comp, but that they are exempted from paying taxes and other employment costs? Perhaps the next time some liberal decides to declare that the wealthy need to pay their "fair share" (yes, you, Max Baucus, he of the "tax gap" fame), maybe we should remind them that if the liberals would just pay what they actually owe, we wouldn't have such shortfalls.

Caveat Emptor

2008-11-04T08:37:00.004-05:00

As Americans head to the polls today, a few thoughts to consider when making that very critical decision: where do the candidates stand, and what type of government would each bring to Washington. A look at a few of the major policies:

Foreign policy: I think McCain's positions here are obvious, particularly given his military and legislative backgrounds. As for Obama, what type of positions will he take, given his previous statements regarding his willingness to speak with any foreign leader without precondition? He cited JFK's talks with the former USSR in 1961 as a model for his policy. What he failed to recall is that JFK got his clock cleaned by Khruschev- by Kennedy's own assessment. Kruschev went home thinking the US was weak. A year and a half later, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had JFK been stronger in April 1961, it's likely he never would have had to face the Russians down in 1962. What possible crises might a weak-appearing Obama create, and how will he handle them? Joe Biden told us we're going to see a crisis within 6 months of an Obama administration- how will he handle it, and have his prior statements emboldened foreign actors?

Taxes/Economy: McCain would seek to continue the Bush tax cuts. Obama claims to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. However, recent statements by him, his VP nominee, and a surrogate (Gov. Bill Richardson, D-NM) leave some serious questions about this. First, his tax "cuts" are really tax credits. You have to conform to Obama-approved behaviors to obtain them. Second, his income threshold for tax hikes has been moving downward. Obama has been claiming that tax cuts are coming for those making less than $250,000. Then, last week he said it was $200,000. Biden recently said that the cut would be for those making less that $150,000. And, last weekend Richardson moved that down to $120,000. So, where would Obama's tax hikes start and his "cuts" end? Never mind the deleterious effect on small business- 3 of 4 filers in the top 5% are small businesses filing as subchapter "S' corporations, taxed at the personal rate. Further deserving scrutiny is Obama's views on the subprime market. Considering that subprime lending has been at the forefront of the economic turmoil, it deserves some examination. Obama has been supportive of subprime lending, preferring to blame Bush's "failed economic policies" and "deregulation". Well, what policies and/or regulatory rules and bodies were not in place that would have prevented this? Obama's failed to say which. His only reference was to the 1999 Gramm/Bliley/Leach bill, signed into law by then-President Clinton. This repealed a portion of Glass-Steagall that barred investment banks from trading in mortgage-backed securities. Obama has failed to explain how allowing banks to buy secondary mortgages created this mess. I'm reminded of the scene from "Miracle" when assistant coach Craig Patrick asks Coach Herb Brooks why Soviet coach Viktor Tikhinov hadn't pulled his goalie in the last minute of the famous Miracle on Ice game. Brooks' reply was that Tikhinov didn't know what to do- this seems to be an appropriate description of Obama's policy responses, this one included. He doesn't know how we got here, or how to fix it. Obama has run around citing tired talking points, and has offered no real policy prescriptions. Further compounding the economic problem is Obama's interview with the San Francisco Chronicle from January of this year when he said he'd bankrupt coal plants. Not only is this an energy problem (we'll touch on later), but an economic one- how many jobs will Obama's energy plans cost?

Energy: McCain has endorsed an "all of the above" plan- drill for more oil, seek out alternative sources, utilize nuclear. Obama had placed his eggs in the alternative sources basket. We've mentioned the Chronicle interview. Obama also said that he expects electricity rates for individuals to go up. Obama also gave an interview where his greatest concern on high gas prices was not that they'd risen, but had jumped dramatically and not gradually. Obama's energy ideas could end up having a harsh impact on the very people he claims to care for- the middle class. Obama has called for a "Manhattan Project" for energy. However, this would be controlled by Washington. The original project placed all control in the hands of Gen. Leslie Groves. Most of our gains have been due to the private sector, not by the public. Undertaking a massive government project, with Washington in control, is not likely to be anything more than a drain for tax dollars.

Education: McCain has supported competition in the schools, ranging from charter schools to voucher programs, all of which have shown success for students. Obama opposes vouchers, but has supported charter schools. What deserves intense scrutiny is Obama's work with Bill Ayers in Chicago. Ayers and Obama funded schools such as a "peace school", often having little to do with education and more with ideology. This is consistent with Ayers' ideas that schools are to be used to advance social ideas and not to educate. This is one reason why the Obama-Ayers connection is newsworthy, and why the media failed miserably on this. Would a President Obama adopt many of Ayers' ideas and implement them on a national scale? It would have been useful to ask the candidate this, but no journalist had the temerity (or could set aside their crushes) to do so.

Courts: Again, another damning area for Obama. His 2001 interview with public radio revealed a candidate who thinks that courts are to be used to enact change, not follow the law. Obama has said that he thinks judges should take empathy int account. In his interview, he stated that the Warren court was not really radical, contrasting from virtually every other Constitutional scholar on the matter (and this man taught Con law in Chicago- a little scary). He has said that he would not seek judges who merely followed the law. He opposed the nominations of both Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. He has also shown a similar disregard for the Bill of Rights, referring to them as a set of "negative rights" and "quaint" (recall the liberal outrage when Alberto Gonzalez called the Geneva Convention "quaint"). Would Obama seek to rewrite the Founding document? His own statements, plus his associations with the likes of Ayers and other leftists, leave this very much a concern.

In sum, there is a great deal of concern, and quite a few questions for a man who may go to bed tonight as the new President. The media has failed to ask these questions, only recently wondering about these and other matters (witness Charlie Rose's interview with Tom Brokaw last week. Brokaw wondered aloud about some of these, but failed to ask any of them in his moderated debate). If the American public decides to buy what Obama is selling, then it should at least know what he's pushing. That way, if we end up with a quasi-socialist government modeled on Europe (a model that Europe itself is trying to change), then we can's say we weren't warned. Just a few things to mull over while standing in line to vote today.

In Their Own Words

2008-10-27T12:28:00.007-04:00

..."The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical...It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted. And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," - Illinois State Senator and University of Chicago constitutional law professor Barack Obama, in an interview with Chicago public radio, 2001

"..'mark my words...watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision. Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound." - Sen Joe Biden, Democratic VP candidate at a Seattle, WA fundraising event, 10/17/08

"It's not that I want to punish your success, I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Sen Barack Obama, campaigning in Ohio, 10/15/08

On "Meet the Press" Jan. 22, 2006, Tim Russert and Sen. Obama had the following exchange:
Russert: "When we talked back in November of '04 after your election, I said, 'There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?' Obama: 'Absolutely.'"
Obama: "I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed."
Russert: "So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?"
Obama: "I will not." - from Washington Times column by Tony Blankely, 2/20/08

The middle quotes are well-known, and have been offered by opponents of the Democratic Presidential ticket as evidence of the potential policy calamities awaiting the nation if the Obama-Biden ticket wins next week. I'll spend some time later with my thoughts on it. However, it's the first quote that I want to look at first- in part because it offers a very revealing view of Barack Obama's thoughts on the Constitution as well as his true ideas on the notion of socialism and income redistribution.

It's useful to look at Obama's views on the "negative rights" contained in the Constitution. Obama is unhappy with the idea that the US Constitution enumerates what the state and federal governments cannot do, and does not list what they must do. Some history- the Founding Fathers were extremely distrustful of government and power. They had just thrown off a regime that had imposed unfair and punitive taxes on the colonies. The colonists had no representation in British parliament. The British government used its authority to impose a number of dictates on the colonists without regard to the rights of the governed. When the Founding Fathers had their chance to create their own government, they strove to ensure the rights of the individual, not the rights and/or responsibilities of government. They believed that the power of government emanated from the consent of the governed, not the reverse. When these men were finally afforded the opportunity to form their own government, they kept those experiences and ideals in mind, and set forth a document that protected individual rights and did so at the expense of government.

Obama's comments from 2001 reveal a basic ignorance of this history (especially troubling for someone who taught constitutional law and thus might be considered an expert). The Constitution does not mandate government responsibilities and checks government through a list of "negative rights" for a reason- the rights of the individual to make his/her own decisions were paramount. The Bill of Rights was created to enshrine those rights. A read of history showed that was one of the most vital deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in the 1780's. It is also telling that Obama made these comments in the same year that Bill Ayers gave his now-infamous 9/11/01 New York Times interview when he said that he didn't think that the Weather Underground domestic terror group went far enough, or did enough.

It also offers a window into the redistibutionist policies an Obama administration might pursue- even doing so via the court system. With as many as three possible Supreme Court vacancies occurring in the next four years, it is not an unrealistic possibility that Obama could attempt to create such policies by the courts, should he fail to do so by legislative action. Obama's comments also reinforce what we're beginning to learn about his days as a Chicago community organizer. It explains how he came to work closely with ACORN, both by training staff on how to agitate for more subprime lending as well as his involvement in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, where ACORN sued to force the bank to offer more subprime mortgages. This belief would also seem to show Obama's claim to have warned the Treasury Secretary of the potential troubles with subprime lending back in 2005 as nothing but a lie. The subprime loans were seen in some way by its advocates as a way to give money to lower-income individuals for home purchases- in some way, a tool of income redistribution. Obama's comments to public radio, as well as his comments to Joe Wurzelbacher in Ohio, reveal the true aims of an Obama Presidency- to redistribute income from those he deems wealthy to those at the bottom of the income ladder. Obama has attempted to dismiss John McCain's claims that his tax and economic policies amount to little more than socialism as nothing more than a "distraction" and as being untrue. However, Obama's own words show him to be in favor of exactly that- socialism. He may be able to brush off McCain's words as a distraction, but how can he dismiss his own words and thoughts? How will he explain these as untrue, inaccurate, or wrong?

A quick thought on Joe Biden's comments, since much has already been made of them. Biden would seem to be warning of a coming crisis should Obama become President. Placed with Obama's professed willingness to meet with anyone without preconditions, this would seem to offer a bleak picture of Obama's ability to manage such a crisis. President Kennedy met with Khruschev in 1961 and placed no conditions on the meeting. Khruschev left the meeting believing that the US was weak. He felt emboldened to act aggressively, culminating with his attempt to place nuclear warheads in Cuba. If a major crisis were to occur in the beginning of an Obama term, might it be because foreign groups or nations might view his administration as being weak, or unwilling to act? Another cause for concern around Biden's comments is that they came soon after both campaigns were given security briefings by the White House. What was Biden told that would cause him to believe that such an event was imminent? And, what is he foretelling us about Obama's handling of such an event? Will he respond as weakly as a potential aggressor might expect?

The last quote was listed for the sole purpose of looking at Obama's words vs. his actions. Obama said he was not running for office because he didn't have the requisite experience. A scant 143 work days later he suddenly had that experience? If Obama isn't wise enough to objectively asses his own experience and qualifications, how can he be trusted to wisely judge some of the more important issues (or foreign leaders) he'll face? If he can't be trusted to keep his word from just four years ago on his political future, how can we believe him when he says he doesn't believe in socialist policies? Or, for that matter, that he's offering a tax cut?

I believe these comments serve as a warning of what to expect under an Obama administration. Domestically, it is reasonable to assume that Obama would pursue crippling economic policies based on the concept of income redistribution. On the foreign policy front, it is shuddering to consider how Obama will perform, and be viewed, on the global front. It is entirely to expect Obama to try and implement socialist policies, be it by legislatures or by courts. The Supreme Court will take a sharp leftward turn. Given his proclivities for associating with '60's radicals and their ideas, it is likely that his governing philosophies will be rooted in such ideas. Most significant is the possible attempt to more or less rewrite the Constitution to fit these policies. The Founding Fathers would be infuriated if we were to have wasted their sacrifice on such a country. Many of them risked life and fortune to found this nation. Their effort to draft a governing document was rooted in their experiences under the British crown and their ideas of freedom. They might want to take back the gift they gave us through that sacrifice. Obama's comments show a disregard for the personal liberties enshrined in the Constitution, and reinforce the accusations of those who believe that he will engage in redistributionist policies and socialistic government. It should serve as an embarrassment for a major party to have nominated him for office. Hopefully, the American people remember how we got here as a nation, and why this nation was created in the first place. They have a chance to deliver a rebuke to such radical ideas- here's hoping they exercise that opportunity wisely.

A Very Bad Balancing Act

2008-10-18T17:16:00.003-04:00

""The Times has reported vigorously on the backgrounds of the candidates and the influential people in their lives, including both prospective first ladies. We reported where the facts led us," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said in a written statement to FOXNews.com."

So said the Times in response to accusations by the McCain campaign about a recent piece the paper did about Cindy McCain. The paper covered Cindy McCain's past addiction to painkillers, miscarriages, and even its attempt to contact a 16 year old friend of the McCain's youngest daughter. It's interesting to note that the Times and other media outlets have spent a great deal of time exploring the backgrounds of Mrs. McCain, Sarah and Todd Palin, even "Joe the plumber", but they have invested so little effort to explore the background of Barack Obama. Many media outlets have even attempted to clean up some of Obama's past associations (such as Bill Ayers), or failed to delve into subject matter like Obama's admitted drug use.

We know that Todd Palin had a DUI twenty years ago, but we know little about what the extent of Obama's past drug use is.

We know what John McCain's class rank was at Annapolis, but we know nothing of Obama's academic career at either Columbia or Harvard.

We know that the now-famous "Joe the plumber" does not have a license to be a plumber (he works under his employer's), but we know little of Obama's legislative past.

We know about Sarah Palin's Pentecostal past, but we know little of the twenty years that Obama spent in Jeremiah Wright's church.

For that matter, we're been treated to a number of stories about President Bush's supposedly heavy-handed tactics in the war on terror, and the allegations of the abridgement of civil rights. Have we heard anything from the mainstream media about Obama's attempts to have the Department of Justice silence either Steven Kurtz's reporting on his connections with Bill Ayers, or McCain's ads linking Obama to ACORN (both stories legitimate and accurate)? This might provide us with a good picture on Obama's views on freedom of speech. He's apparently no fan if it's used to criticize him.

The Times says that it goes where the facts are. How have the facts never led it to any of these items in Obama's past? Similarly, how have the facts never led the Times or any other part of the media to Obama's associations with ACORN? Or what he did as a community organizer? Or even the veracity of more recent Obama claims, like the claim that he sent the Treasury Secretary a letter in 2005 warning of a subprime issue (considering that as recently as September 2007 he had no problem with the idea of subprime mortgages)? How come the facts have never led anyone in the media to attempt to sort out what was fact and what was fiction from Obama's memoirs? Or how a candidate for President could have written more memoirs than he has major pieces of legislation?

The fact is, they don't want to ask. The media has gotten a collective tingle up their legs, and don't want anything to disturb that fantasy. It's no stretch to say that the media tilts left. However, the naked partisanship in this election is ridiculous. The idea that we have an independent media is really become a myth. If the media can't be trusted to thoroughly vet a candidate for President- and explore the relationships, the character judgements, the actions of that man- how can they be trusted with something as serious as a shield law? An old high school teacher (God bless those Jesuits) once told us that "Privilege entails responsibility". IN other words, you EARN privileges. If the media can't be trusted to fairly report on the two major party candidates (and, could you imagine either the New York Times or any other paper doing such an article about Michelle Obama? Few outlets even covered some of her more controversial statements from the primary campaign), how can they be trusted with making sound judgements on what should and shouldn't be made public when it comes to issues like national security? The Times ran an article revealing the existence of the SWIFT banking system used to track terrorist funding- a tool later described by the paper's ombudsman as a legitimate tool. They haven't earned the privilege , as they haven't shown themselves to be responsible.

The idea of bias brings me to another topic- the tracking polls. A look at the daily tracking polls and their averages (as listed at RealClearPolitics.com) has shown a wide variance in each result. For instance, the polls as of today (10/18) show a range of 2 points in Gallup to 7 points (in both the Hotline/FD and IBD/TIPP polls). The media polls show an even bigger spread- the CBS/NYT poll as of 10/13 has a 14 point spread, and the LA Times/Bloomberg poll has a +9 for Obama. How to account for this? I think there's a couple of things. For the daily polls, I think that there is some uncertainty over potential turnout. This has led to some polls to over- represent or under-represent party affiliations. However, I think some have used this to abuse this to obtain certain results (I'm looking at you, Hotline/FD). On 10/17, Hotline has a lead of +10 for Obama. A look at the voter affiliations for the poll showed that 41% were Democrats. Even assuming an uptick in Democrat registration, are we to believe that 41% of the voters on November 4th are going to be Democrats? And, I believe the media is using polls to create stories. The NYT/CBS, the LA Times, and others I believe manipulate their internals to over- represent Democrats in order to be able to run stories about how far ahead Obama is, when in fact this race is likely much closer. Obama may be ahead at this point, but it's likely to be by only a few points. It's the embodiment of the concept that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.". Create numbers that then allow you to make certain claims. For the record, both polls had bigger Obama leads than any of the other polling organizations. If there was a sincere interest in being balanced, this alone should have given them pause about their findings.

To me, the obvious answer is that there is no interest in either accuracy or balance. The MSM has invested itself in electing Obama, and that means ignoring stories like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and ACORN. It also means impugning anyone who gets in the way, be it Sarah Palin, Cindy McCain, or a citizen concerned about his tax bill under an Obama Presidency. Quite frankly, the media's naked partisanship has become a national embarrassment. And, I would love to see nothing more that to hear them wonder how another election got away come November 5th- it would be the final move toward their irrelevancy. Nothing would relegate them to the dustbin quicker than to have their full-court press end in another second-place finish. That alone should give one motivation to vote.

"I won!? Do they know that?"

2008-10-16T19:29:00.005-04:00

Last night's debate was the one most McCain supporters have been waiting for- where McCain looked to be in better grasp of the subject material, and Obama was fumbling for answers. It was a little ironic that it came in policy areas that were supposed to be Obama's strength against McCain, domestic and economic policy. And, in a bizarre turn, Obama seemed to get a pass from most pundits in the post-debate analysis (more on that later). I've decided to go topic by topic and take a look at last night's debate, along with my thoughts. This might be a bit of a long post, so please bear with me.

First topic was on the economy, and this is where "Joe the plumber" took center stage. For those who might be unaware, "Joe" is Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from the Toledo, OH area. On Sunday, Mr Wurzelbacher told Obama of his desire to purchase his employer's plumbing business and run it as his own. He further expressed concern that an Obama administration was going to raise his taxes, as the business would exceed the $250,000 mark. Obama's response was something straight from the Communist Manifesto- he told Joe that he wanted to "spread the wealth". It was no surprise then, that Joe would take his star turn last night. McCain referenced Joe when he discussed his ideas for lowering taxes. Obama's response was to repeat his claim that 95% of taxpayers would receive a tax cut- a myth, given that his "cuts" are really tax credits (I discussed this in an earlier post, and it can be read here: http://http//rustbeltconservative.blogspot.com/2008/10/dont-pull-back-curtain-great-obama-is.html). Obama then went on to tell two whoppers: first, he said that he told Joe that he needed the tax cut five years ago. A review of the clip indicates that Obama never said any such thing to Joe. Second, he claimed that 98% of small businesses make less than $250,000. Considering that 3 of 4 filers in the top 5% are small businesses (according to IRS data), this is a suspect claim, to say the least. McCain smartly countered by asking why we should be raising anyone's taxes. Obama also said that he didn't mind paying more in taxes- let him. The IRS does not decline funds from individuals who wish to pay more than their stated tax bill. If Obama thinks that the Treasury is underfunded, he's free to write a bigger check. However, given the Obama's somewhat stingy record on charitable donations, as indicated by their tax returns, I hope Treasury isn't holding its breath. First round, McCain.

Bob Schieffer's next question was centered around the deficit. He asked both candidates what spending plans they would reduce or eliminate as a result of the current US deficit. Obama went first, and he cited his belief in pay-as-you-go budget rules, or "paygo". Paygo rules have been a farce. The idea is that any spending increases will be matched by spending cuts elsewhere, and that any revenue cuts (i.e. tax cuts) also have a corresponding spending cut. However, paygo only applies to new spending, not items already in the budget. Those can grow as much as legislators like. And, we've already seen that the current Congress doesn't have much use for paygo, despite campaigning on a promise to implement paygo rules. Obama then cited a list of "investment" priorities that he has. In two Presidential debates, as well as one Vice-Presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket has yet to name ONE program that they would either reduce or eliminate. They will not commit to ANY spending decreases. How again do they think that they're not going to raise taxes, with almost a trillion dollars in new spending proposals? McCain's response was to enact an across-the-board spending freeze. He also wanted to do away with marketing assistance and ethanol subsidies, as well as eliminate sugar tariffs. Obama opposed a spending freeze, saying that some programs were underfunded. He's asked what he would trim as a result of a budget deficit, and he discusses INCREASING some spending? Obama has tried to resist the "tax-and-spend liberal" tag, but how is he not? Here was a chance to show he had some fiscal discipline, and he talked about spending more, not less. He then criticized the "failed Bush policies" for squandering the budget surplus. My issue here is that no such surplus ever existed- never mind that he has yet to name which policies specifically have been failures. Joe Wright, Jr, former OMB director from 1982-89, wrote back in 2003 that the very idea of a surplus was fake. Budget projections are just that- 10-year outlooks, based on various assumptions. Mr Wright noted that the 2000 budget projections- the last of the Clinton years, and the root of this myth- were based on forecasts that weer impossible. Mr Clinton claimed a surplus by estimating that annual economic growth would be 3-4% over a decade; that defense spending would be cut; that spending growth for Medicare would grow at half its historic rate- despite that fact that Baby Boomers would begin to retire during the decade and expand the program's growth; that spending on domestic programs would be reduced; and that Congress would hold the line and not create any new spending. Mr Wright correctly points out that these were not realistic projections (in the last two years alone, Congress has sought $24 billion above the President's budget requests), and that most of them would never even come close to fruition. Yet, Mr Clinton used them to claim a surplus, and every Democrat since has done the same. Given this impossible scenario, perhaps that's why Obama can't point out which Bush policies have created the current economic situation, nor describe where this "surplus" went. McCain also criticized the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the mortgage meltdown, and also blamed their Democrat enablers. Mr Obama could only criticize McCain's tax plan as for the wealthy (an aside here- Obama has discussed his vote for the $700 billion bailout plan, and said in the last debate that the benefit to Main Street was that by putting money in the hands of banks and businesses, those institutions would use the money to help create jobs and loans for Main Street- in essence, he endorsed "trickle-down" economics. If it was a good idea for the bailout, is it not a good idea for tax policy?). Given that the question was on budget cuts, and Mr Obama was unable to name even one potential cut, the round would have to go to McCain.

Mr Schieffer's next question dealt with the conduct of the campaign, and the increasingly negative tone. For the most part, this was a waste of a question and debate time. However, it did lead to an exchange on former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and Obama's ties to the domestic terrorist. Sen McCain stated that the public deserved to know the extent of Obama's ties to both Ayers and ACORN, a group currently under federal investigation in 13 states for potential voter registration fraud. Obama tried dismissing the Ayers connection by saying that he committed a despicable act when Mr Obama was 8 years old, and that the two have since merely served on a school board together, spending Walter Annenberg's money. Problem is, the ties go MUCH deeper. Obama tried splitting hairs here, saying that this campaign was not launched at Ayers' Chicago home. However, his first campaign was. Mr Obama also neglected to detail HOW he'd obtained his position at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He was a rather nondescript Chicago attorney and community organizer. How does someone with such a pedestrian resume ascend to such a position, where they are charged with dispersing millions of dollars? Ayers was the obvious connection. Obama also "blurbed" Ayers 2001 book "Fugitive Days", about Ayers' radical past. For a bit more on the Ayers-Obama connection, Dr Jack Cashill at Purdue questions whether or not Ayers had a significant hand in writing Obama's first memoir (you can read that at the American Thinker here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
As for the ACORN connection, Obama tried downplaying the voter fraud issue, writing it off as a few rogue individuals. Senator, a few rogue individuals won't get you a 13 state investigation, headed by the FBI. That is what most people would view as a systemic problem. As for his connection to the group, he said that he only served as an attorney for them back in Illinois in a motor-voter case. He neglected to mention that he also served as their attorney in a 1994 case against Citibank, where the group was trying to pressure the bank to increase its subprime lending. I'm sure he didn't want to draw attention to his role in the mortgage crisis. He also left out the fact that Madeline Talbot, an ACORN director in Chicago, hired him to help train her staff (Stanley Kurtz has done a yeoman's work on these connections, and you can read some of that here: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

Obama also had no answer for the $230,000 he directed toward the group as a board member of the Chicago Woods charity, nor the $800,000 his campaign gave to ACORN for voter efforts- which have turned out to be fraudulent.

The debate moved on to the candidate's VP choices. Sen Obama discussed Sen Biden's resume, and the fact that he's "never forgotten where he came from". If that's the case, then he might try and schedule some time there. In the VP debate, Sen Biden talked about going down to Kate's Diner in Wilmington, DE to hang out and talk with the locals. One problem- Kate's closed in the 1980's. Who has he been visiting? As for McCain, he spoke of Gov Palin's record in Alaska. Here is where I thought that McCain made his first gaffe- he referred to Palin's bond with autism families. Palin's son is a Down Syndrome's child, and this is a mistake McCain would repeat in the debate later. McCain also used the topic to criticize Biden's foreign policy mistakes (in McCain's eyes), which included a vote against the first Gulf War and a call to partition Iraq into three sections. In my opinion, another unnecessary question.

Schieffer then moved to energy, and asked each to discuss plans to reduce foreign oil dependence in the next four years. McCain spoke about reducing dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil by using all available energy options- drilling, alternative, clean coal. Obama gave a meandering answer, first talking about a 10-year plan (the question was four, not 10) and talked about forcing the oil companies to drill on their existing leases. First, estimates show that about 1 in 4 leases actually yield oil. Second, the 'use or lose" mechanism for the leases already exists. McCain also wisely chided Obama on his previous comments to unilaterally rewrite NAFTA, and the trade pact stipulates that the US is to be Canada's primary oil market. He also criticized Obama for abandoning Columbian President Alvaro Uribe- a US ally- by voting against the Columbian Free Trade Agreement (while saying he's meet with Hugo Chavez without precondition). Obama tried saying that his vote was due to labor issues, namely that fact that labor leaders are targeted for violence without government protection. Another fact issue here- the Uribe administration has worked to reduce violence against labor leaders, and has reduced the rate of violence as compared to the previous Columbian government. Obama's vote was in fealty to the US labor unions, which oppose all free trade agreements. Obama's vote helped keep in place tariffs on US imports to Columbia, but keep US markets tariff-free for Columbian goods. Had the pact passed, US imports would have entered Columbia tariff-free. The increase in jobs here would have come in handy about now, too. In my opinion, Obama had struggled to this point in the debate. He spent the night on his heels, as McCain seemed to have been prepared both factually and in his demeanor. Obama couldn't speak past his prepared talking points. In one exchange on energy, Obama veered off to talk about a bailout for US automakers. I was left wondering where he was going, before mentioning something about more fuel-efficient cars. It's not as if Detroit isn't already trying to respond to the public's demand for more fuel efficiency. This was another round to McCain.

The next topic was health care, and whether to control costs or expand coverage. Obama talked of essentially forming a government buying group for insurance, and called for negotiating with drug companies, despite the fact that federal law already mandates that the government get best price. McCain discussed his plan, and pointed out Obama's idea for fining those who fail to offer health insurance. Obama denied the presence of such a punishment, despite proudly saying in the last debate that he would fine companies that didn't offer health insurance. Then he said that he would only seek to punish large companies- what defines a large company? Number of employees? Gross receipts? After-tax revenue? And who establishes these limits? Obama then criticized the McCain plan, in particular the idea of giving individuals the same tx treatment for their health care plans that companies now get. McCain's plan would give individuals the same tax treatment as companies, thus assigning the plans to the patient and not the employer. It would allow for portability, meaning a individual could take it with them from job to job. Obama's criticisms were a little hard to take, as one of Obama's chief economic advisors, Jason Furman, made many of the same arguments two years ago, when he pushed for a health care plan similar to McCain's.

The debate shifted to judicial politics, as the candidates were asked if they could nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagreed with their views on Roe v. Wade. McCain said he had no ideological litmus test. Obama said he didn't either. He then made the assertion that the case had been rightly decided (a number of liberal constitutional lawyers, who were pleased with the outcome, have said over the years that the case was wrongly decided. Liberal lawyer Laurence Tribe was among them). He also asserted a Constitutional right to privacy- a little embarrassing for a former constitutional professor to not know which rights were and were not in the Constitution. McCain scored here by highlighting Obama's opposition to an Illinois bill that would have protected the life of an infant born during a botched abortion, as well as his "present" vote on the law. Obama tried saying that such a law already existed (it didn't, otherwise hospitals wouldn't have been leaving infants to die, necessitating the law). Obama called for finding common ground on abortion, a call a little difficult to find credible, as Obama has routinely sided with some of the most extreme positions on the matter. Where exactly did he hope to find common ground? The Illinois bill could have been a good start, but he declined.

The final topic of the evening was on education. Schieffer asked about the candidate's views on the fact that the US spends more per capita on student spending, but often lags behind other countries' in testing. Despite the education spending figures, Obama called for more "investment"= spending. He wants to spend more on teacher recruitment and salary, a sop to the teachers' unions. McCain called for more school choice, via charter schools and vouchers. During this discussion, Obama sought to buttress his claim of support for charter schools by saying he doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois. Blogger Illinois Review uncovered the bill's history- in 2003, a bill in the Illinois legislature called for doubling the number of charter schools in the state- from 15 to 30. Obama did none of the work on the bill, and attached his name after the bill passed the Education committee. It passed on a 55-0 vote. Obama also said that there was no evidence that vouchers worked. Had Obama looked into the matter, he would have found papers like the one published by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters for the Manhattan Institute earlier this year, which showed that not only did students receiving the vouchers in Florida's McKay program improve academically, the public schools nearby also improved their quality. This mirrors results seen in places like Milwaukee, WI, which was one of the first cities to offer a voucher program. Obama should try telling parents in places like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, or Washington, D.C. that school choice doesn't work. He might find that they disagree.

All in all, I thought that McCain won each round of the debate. He seemed prepared, well-versed on the subjects, and prepared to highlight the differences. Obama spent the night on the defensive, reacting to McCain on a variety of topics, which brings me to the post-debate analyses offered by most networks. The conclusions were similar- the debate was a draw, a draw went to Obama, therefore Obama won. The groupthink was that McCain needed to score a "knockout". This has been the idea for all three debates. However, going into the debate season, the thinking was that this debate would favor Obama, since it was subject material he was supposed to be more comfortable discussing. Wouldn't a draw go to McCain? And why didn't the same "draw" theory hold in the VP debate? Didn't Palin need a "draw" to beat Biden? That being said, last night was no draw. Obama looked over his head. He struggled for answers at times. He looked lost at times. McCain was setting the debate agenda, and Obama failed to wrest control. We'll have to keep an eye on the polls, but today's round showed the race tightening a bit. If The "talking heads" had seen the same debate that the rest of us had seen, perhaps we wouldn't have been subjected to this "draw" theory. And, maybe the American public will demonstrate that it knows more than the pundits on last night's victor. Maybe that will make the media ask more questions of Obama's claims. Would McCain have been able to get away with claiming that he'd doubled the number of charter schools without verification? Would McCain get away with having ties to people with backgrounds like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers (relationships that would cost Obama to fail an FBI or Secret Service background check if he were to apply for a field agent job)? Would McCain be able to claim that he sent a letter in 2005 to the Treasury Secretary warning of a subprime crisis, despite being a new Senator? Would he still be able to get away with it if he was on record as saying he was OK with subprime lending just a year ago? Would he get away with fabricating comments made to a voter just 72 hours before (there is no record he ever told "Joe the plumber" he needed a tax cut at any time.)? Given the media's love affair with Obama, we shouldn't be surprised at the post-debate analysis, and told who's now ahead. Remember, though- we, the voters get last say on November 4th.

Don't Pull Back the Curtain- the Great Obama is Nothing but a Myth!

2008-10-13T10:53:00.005-04:00

Some areas of the media have really begun to put the Obama tax plan under some well-deserved scrutiny (thank you, Wall Street Journal). We have to wonder when John McCain will do the same thing. He's promised to be tougher in tomorrow night's debate, but I will believe it when I see it. Since McCain seems to be either unwilling or unable to press the case on this and other issues, it will fall to others to do the work and hope that enough doubt exists about the Democratic flagbearer.

Obama's tax plan is, quite simply, redistributionist income. It's welfare. Candidates in prior elections have paid a dear price for such plans, and yet Obama has gotten away with labeling tax credits as tax cuts. Tax cuts are when your tax rates are reduced. Tax credits are applied when you conform to certain behaviors (government-approved, at that). A look at the tax "cuts" for 95% of us reveals a $7000 credit for buying a "clean" car. Two thoughts- first, if we are sliding into a recession, who's likely to go out and make a major purchase? Second, what if there are no "clean' cars that fit your family's needs? By the way, what defines which cars make the cut? Of the cuts/credits delineated by Obama, this is the single largest, and yet most people likely won't avail themselves of it for reasons either economic or practical. His next largest is a $6000 child care credit- again, no kids, no credit. And, the credit phases out at 17, so even if you have children living at home through college, no credit for you. Then there's the $4000 college credit. Same as before, no one in college, no one claiming the credit. Obama also offers a significant expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), taking it from $175 for single filers to $555, and increases it to $1110 for those paying child support. This is a tax credit most likely to benefit those not paying taxes, so now the redistributionist part of the plan begins to phase in. There is a "savings" credit of up to $1000, and a "make work pay" credit of the same for couples ($500 for single filers). First, what does he mean, "make work pay"? And, that particular credit phases out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples. Obama promises all of this and claims that the ones left paying for this are those who earn over $250,000. Never mind that 75% of those filers are actually small businesses, filing as subchapter "S" corporations and paying the personal rate. At what point did success become a bad thing? When did it become wrong to work hard and earn a comfortable living. And, why should those individuals have money taken from them to be given to others in the form of credits, forcing those people to conform to Obama's ideas of good behavior? Finally, for the love of God, why hasn't McCain made more of an issue of this economic myth? For good measure, Messrs. Alex Brill and Alan Viard at the American Enterprise Institute looked at Obama's tax plan to measure the effects on marginal tax rates and compared them to the current rates (the ones that Obama has repeatedly decried). For their analysis, they assumed a two-earner family of four, one child in college and one receiving child care. What they found was that those earning less that $45,000 will see a marked INCREASE in their personal tax rates under an Obama administration. Those making $45,000 to $50,000 will also see a steep rise, as the have been some of the largest beneficiaries of the current tax structure. From there to $85,000, earners will have a less dramatic increase, but a hike nonetheless. The only group the pair found to not be impacted were those making between $85,000 and $100,000. From there, the Obama plan continues to be higher than the current rates. Since a vast majority of filers will fall in these income ranges, how does Obama figure that 95% will see a tax cut? He likely figures that most people will receive at least one of the credits- presto, a tax cut. The other ominous part of the plan is that most of the credits phase out as income rises, setting up a sharp increase in marginal tax rates as individuals earn more. In fact, once someone reaches $40,000, the credits begin vanishing to the tune of 40 cents for each extra dollar earned. That means that a waitress picking up an extra shift, or a factory worker staying for some overtime, will start with a net gain of 60 cents for their effort, before the government collects its share, additional child care costs increase, and other additional costs kick in. It might end up costing a worker to stay and work late. This will have a deleterious effect on the economy, as Obama will strip out any incentive to be more productive. Combine that with his tax hikes on small businesses, and you are creating a recipe not for a recession, but a depression(for anyone doubting this, take a look back at the Great Depression. Amity Shlaes wrote an excellent book, The Forgotten Man, which examines the effect of similar steps taken in the 1930's. ). In short, the man is economically illiterate.

When you examine the tax and economic policies of Obama, and you place them with his leftist social policies (neither Obama nor Biden could name one spending priority that they would table in the current climate), and you have the potential for disaster. I'm not one usually given to the hype of "This is the most important election of your lifetime" rhetoric- it seems politicians think that EVERY election is the most important, most likely because they're in it. However, when you consider the damage that an Obama administration could do- his tax "cut" plan will cost $1.054 trillion over ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center. That's right- trillion. Add that to the trillions in new spending he's proposed, and you understand the folly of any tax cuts (real or imagined) under Obama. Your taxes will go up. Further, one has to assume at least two seats on the Supreme Court becoming vacant. It's likely that an Obama administration will seat two extreme liberals to the bench. Given the comments Obama made at Saddleback about Justice Thomas' qualifications, one has to wonder if Obama will even be able to identify candidates who are even qualified, never mind their leanings. And, when you take in to account Obama's past associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, there are serious judgement questions- all the more damning, since he's run on the idea that he has sound (and superior) judgement when compared to his opponents. Obama sat in a church fro 20 years and listened to a bigoted pastor. Before you buy his excuse about not "knowing' Wright, consider that in his first book, Dreams of My Father, he discussed the first sermon he ever heard Wright give- it centered around white greed. Having heard this, he came back for 20 years. He had Wright conduct his marriage, and baptize his kids. As for Ayers, Obama's latest excuse, offered on Friday, was that he thought that Ayers was rehabilitated. Never mind the op-ed he penned for the New York Times on September 11, 2001, saying that he didn't think he'd gone far enough. I doubt that John Murtagh, son of one of Ayers' fire-bombing targets, thinks Ayers is rehabilitated. Ayers' work in Chicago hasn't given any indication of that. If Obama can't correctly judge those in his neighborhood, how will he ever have the correct judgement to keep the country safe? Does he care to do so? It was recently told to me that if Obama were to post for a job as an FBI field agent, or a Secret Service agent, he'd fail the background check. That's a very important consideration- a man who likely couldn't work as an FBI field agent could end up with access to our nation's most sensitive security information, and be in a position to make decisions. His judgement is suspect. His grasp on issues is weak- at best. Placing this man in charge could be the single greatest mistake we make as a nation.

I went to see the movie An American Carol this past weekend. For those of you unaware, it's a movie by David Zucker and stars the likes of Kelsey Grammar, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Leslie Nielsen, Kevin Farley, and others. It's an adaptation of Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The movie takes Farley's character (a spoof of Michael Moore) on a journey of American history if it had subscribed to the ideas Moore holds dear- such as appeasement, surrender, "talking"- the sort of ideas Obama wants to implement. As I watched the movie, I began to think what our founding fathers would think of a populace that seemed willing to elect a man who would strip away all of the principles they held dear- principles like freedom, taxation (remember, a large reason for the Revolutionary War was over the idea of taxes), property rights, rights to bear arms. Obama's shown a willingness to disregard a number of these- recall his campaign's efforts to quiet Stanley Kurtz when he appeared on WGN last month. He even tried to involve the Department of Justice, a chilling thought for freedom of speech. I think our founding fathers would be appalled to see that we've willingly traded freedom for security. We've given away our ability to become successful in order to guarantee another "right" created by the government, thus subject to governmental rules. We would have given away our ability to work hard and become wealthy, because someone arbitrarily thinks it's "too much". When you read the works of our nation's founders, you found that they held a profound distrust of government. Wealth wasn't something to be scorned- it was a goal for all to attain. Wealth didn't flow from the government to the populace, it came from the people. Public office wasn't a career, it was a duty one did, an obligation. At its completion, one then returned home to their farm, or their shop. The election of someone like Barack Obama is a vote to abandon the very ideas that our forefathers sacrificed life and treasure to obtain. They gave up a great deal to give us this gift- this privilege- to be able to call ourselves Americans. We are both the envy and the hope of the world. Electing a man like Obama would be a betrayal to those who have sacrificed to found, build, and protect this great experiment. John McCain is certainly not a perfect candidate. However, I do think he appreciates the ideas and sacrifices that helped to make this nation great, which is much more than can be said for his opponent. By his own admission, Obama sought out those professors in college who saw this nation as wrong, as something evil. Those are the people who helped shape his mindset and his political philosophies. An electoral victory for him would serve as vindication for all of those radicals who see the US as what's wrong with the world, not what's right. I ask that you consider that when voting November 4th.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, I'm excited to announce the first advertiser on the blog, Evan Coyne Maloney. For those of you unfamiliar with Maloney, he's an aspiring conservative documentarian. He's recently made his first film, Indoctrinate U, which takes a look at the thought police on so many college campuses across the country. It's a very revealing look at what occurs on campus. Parents of college-age children may want to see what their hard-earned dollars are funding. Click on the link either on the left side or the banner at the bottom to receive a deal on the DVD!

Revisiting a Candidate's Lack of Understanding

2008-09-30T12:45:00.003-04:00

I think it's important that I revisit a topic I brought up a couple of weeks ago, given the current economic climate. At the time, I suggested that Barack Obama had no real idea as to how we've arrived at the economic slowdown. That slowdown has deepened into a potential crisis and, given his comments in the media and in last Friday's debate, it is now clear that Barack Obama has no idea of how we got here or how to fix the problem. For the Presidential candidate of a major political party to not fully understand a problem (and yet somehow be viewed as the more knowledgeable of the candidates on the matter) is a very frighteneing prospect.

First, a review of how we got here. Congress had an overreaction to the practice called "redlining", a lender practice of supposedly placing more stringent lending restrictions on minority borrowers versus their white counterparts. This stems from a 1992 study done by the Boston branch of the Federal Reserve that claimed to find evidence of racial bias in the home lending market. This set Congress off to loosen the credit markets for minorities, whether by amending the Community Reinvestment Act or by browbeating lenders into issuing more subprime mortgages. The problem was, there were some serious flaws in the study. Peter Brimelow at Forbes examined the study and found that while the study authors acknowledged that minority applicants had, on average, "poorer objective qualifications", and stated that "a systematic bias in mortgage lending is very difficult to document.". The study also failed to look at default rates- white and black default rates were similar, which would prove that the system was functioning as it should. The supposed "piece de resistance" was the study's claim that a black man with $10 million in assets was denied a $60,000 loan. One problem- the man didn't claim $10 million, he claimed $1000- a SIGNIFICANT difference, to say the least. Despite some very real questions with the study, Congress plunged ahead with solutions in search of a problem. The Community Reinvestment Act now allowed community groups to halt bank or mortgage lenders's business if they felt that they were not issuing enough minority home loans- I guess we now know what a community organizer does. They cause mortgage market meltdowns (for more on this, I sugegst reading Stanley Kurtz' excellent article in the September 29th New York Post describing Barack Obama's ties to ACORN's Madeline Talbot. She helped lead the drive for ACORN to force banks to make more subprime loans, and she turned to Obama to help train her minions).

The sum total of this was to have banks and other mortgage lenders make questionable loans, and this is where Fannie and Freddie came in. Fan and Fred encouraged banks to make the loans based on the promise that they'd buy them up. Seeing this as riskless, the banks issued the loans. Fan and Fred then repackaged them as mortgage backed securities (MBS) and sold them in the secondary market. Here investors were given the implicit guarantee of the US government (read:taxpayers). So, these MBS's were seen as low-risk investments. As we now know, they were anything but. In the interim, Fan and Fred ran around with impunity, knowing that they had protection in Congress, mainly in the form of Congressional Democrats. "Bordello" Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chck Schumer, Chris Dodd, and others blocked repeated efforts to rein in Fan and Fred via tighter regulation. Maxine Waters even went so far in 2004 as to call for an investigation- but not into Franklin Raines and Fan, but into the OFFHEO inspector charged with overseeing the mortgages behemoths. Raines, as you may recall, later was found to have cooked the books in order to pay out millions in bonuses to company executives.

So, where does Barack Obama fit in all of this? First point would be to reference Kurtz' column and look at Obama's involvement with ACORN in the 1990's. We should also start asking how a junior Senator with less that 4 years service in the US Senate becomes the 2nd largest recipient of Fan and Fred largesse, taking in over $126,000 since taking office. The Center for Responsive Politics posted to their website (www.opensecrets.org) what Fan and Fred had doled out over a 10 year period and found Obama to rank #2 in that time span, despite 6 years less time that most of the other names on the list. What exactly did Fan and Fred think they were getting for their money?

Looking at Obama's comments on the current situation, it's clear he has no idea of how we got here. At Friday's debate, he claimed that it was the "failed economic policies" of the Bush administration as well as a failure of deregulation. If it's a failure of deregulation, which laws should be (re)impleneted? He's right on one point- better regulation of Fan and Fred could have prevented this. However, I suspect that's not what he was saying. Obama has failed to cite either one Bush economic policy or one law that could have prevented this and didn't. He has put forth zero policy prescriptions in an effort to fix the crisis. He has attempted to blame the derivatives market- for starters, I would like to hear him attempt to explain how the derivatives market works before he starts assigning blame. If a candidate can't display competence in understanding the root cause of a problem, how can he be trusted to fix it?

Now Serving Presidential Politics, Chicago-Style

2008-09-18T12:34:00.002-04:00

All throughout the campaign, everyone from Barack Obama on down told us that this would be a new type of campaign. Post-racial, post partisan. Change was coming, not just in terms of governing ideas, but in terms of the way the campaign would be conducted. Now we have learned that just as Obama's policy positions can change in a naked attempt to curry favor and win votes, now his style of campaigning can change. Or, maybe more honestly, the "change" mantra was the fake, and this is now the real Obama coming forward.

When considering the latest round of Obama ads, a look back at recent events must first be considered. Prior to the party conventions, Obama enjoyed a small but solid lead in the polls. But that's when things began to change for him, and not for the better. The addition of Joe Biden to the ticket generated little enthusiasm and only highlighted one of Obama's biggest drawbacks- his foreign policy experience. After a lackluster campaign, the ticket got a negligible poll bounce, and any momentum was quickly extinguished when John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate. GOP enthusiasm dramatically increased, and voters were, at a minimum, curious about the VP nominee. The rather vicious attacks by the media only seemed to strengthen support for Palin and adversely impact Obama's poll numbers. The Republican Convention ended up drawing a larger TV audience than the Democratic, despite having 4 fewer cable networks covering their convention. A serious roadblock had been erected on the way to Obama's coronation, and he wasn't going to take it sitting down.

As Obama's poll numbers floundered, and he seemed unable to set the campaign agenda, we began to be treated to news reports that Obama was going to sharpen his attacks. That he was going to get more personal (a quick search will find stories on this at the Politico, CBS, Yahoo, and a number of local US papers, in case you were wondering). So, where would that lead us, ad-wise? We now know.

It has become apparent that Obama was well-schooled in Chicago-style politics- so much so that none other than Saul Alinsky's son felt the need to compliment Obama as having learned the lessons of Saul well. And we now know what those were. Obama has gone well beyond the pale with his ads. He criticized McCain for not using a keyboard and not having sent an email, despite the fact that McCain can't use a keyboard due to injuries he'd suffered as a POW- a fact that had been previously documented. He;s called McCain "dishonorable" and called the GOP ticket "liars"- ironic for a candidate who has struggled to tell the truth, and who fabricated large portions of his first memoir. He clipped a quote from Carly Fiorina for use in an ad. When Fiorina was asked if McCain could run a company like Hewlett-Packard, she said no- and continued to say that neither could Obama, Biden, or Palin. Obama deceitfully clipped the quote after McCain's name and claimed that his own advisor said that he's incapable to run a company. He left out that Fiorina included him in that same sound bite. He's now running Spanish-language ads in the Southwest and Florida in which he blatantly distorts comments made by Rush Limbaugh and tries to link them to McCain. In the ad, he claims that Limbaugh says that "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and that they should "Shut your mouth or get out". A full reading of the show transcript shows that Limbaugh was discussing the difference between Mexican immigration laws and the US' laws. Outlets ranging from ABC News and the Politico have called the ads inaccurate. What makes the ad worse is that McCain has been supporter of comprehensive immigration (called amnesty by some).

What does this tell us about Obama? It reveals plenty. It's said that trying times can reveal character, and crunch time in a Presidential campaign can qualify as trying time. It can also be seen that Obama lacks character. It shows his campaign slogan as nothing more than a fraud. Couple the ads with the Obama campaign's efforts to shout down people like Stanley Kurtz and David Freddosso, and you see exactly what Obama is. It should be a little frightening to average citizens that Obama wanted to use the Justice Department to silence Kurtz, who was exploring Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member William Ayers via the Chicago Annenberg Challenge documents. He had his supporters flood the phone lines when Kurtz appeared on WGN, and then did the same thing when Freddosso was invited on. In both cases, Obama was offered the opportunity to appear or send a surrogate to appear on the show to offer a counterpoint, and he declined. We now see a candidate so nakedly ambitious to ascend to the White House that he'll say and do anything to get elected. Voters are going to have to ask themselves if this is the type of person they want as head of their nation and leading the free world. What might Obama do to US interests abroad? Would he sell out his own nation in order to advance his own interests? What type of behavior can we expect in a crucial situation when an individual has no core principles and lacks character? The blatantly dishonest ads tell us what type of person Obama is, and gives us a glimpse of what type of "leader" he's be. Given the issues facing our nation- a global war on terror, Wall Street concerns, a possible mortgage meltdown- what can we expect from Obama? A glimpse at his ads tell us not to expect too much.

Add Another Item to the List of Things Obama Doesn't Know

2008-09-16T19:21:00.004-04:00

Certainly there has been much anxiety over the struggles of Wall Street. And, with the problems come a cornucopia of solutions, some plausible and some not so. However, it's embarrassing to have a candidate for President (A) not understand a problem, (B) gloat over its arrival, and (C) not know how to fix it. It's a rare hat trick for a candidate, and yet Obama managed to pull it off. If I could have scored so easily while playing hockey, I might still be playing.

First, in order to solve a problem, you have to first understand its origins. A bad mix of easy money and an overwillingness to loan, combined with unrestrained growth of Fannie and Freddie, created a mortgage mess waiting to happen. Robert Reich aptly describes the problem on MSNBC (two sources I NEVER thought I'd ever cite, by the way) when he says:

" In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed."

And who helped all of this along? Congress, specifically Congressional Democrats. We've seen in recent weeks where Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has gone to any length possible to protect Fan and Fred. Congress called mortgage lenders up to Capitol Hill in 2001 and 2002 to essentially berate them for not lending to more lower income earners (read: minority). If Congress rakes you over the coals for not doing something, are you going to continue to engage in that behavior? Lenders were encouraged to throw out lending standards and, as Reich says, lend to anyone who could stand up. Couple this with Fan and Fred's increasing presence in the subprime market, where they functioned with an implicit government backing, and a perfect storm brewed. What's now occurring is a situation more or less created by the same Congress that now wants to try and fix the problem.

Which brings me to the solution portion. Obama spent the day ridiculing McCain for not wanting to increase regulationas a way to fix the problem. So, we're supposed to allow the same clowns who created to problem to try and solve it? Isn't this like asking an alcoholic to find ways to curtail public drinking? McCain has exactly the right solution- let the markets sort the mess out. The weaker firms will either go out of business or will be bought up by stronger firms. If Congress wants to do something, they should break up Fan and Fred and yank their implicit government backing. Criticizing deregulation, blaming the Bush administration (by the way, exactly WHAT action/inaction undertaken by Bush led to this?), or calling for Congress that caused the problem to step in and increase regulation are all bad ideas- not that anyone who's spent five minutes listening to Obama should be surprised.

This leads me to the last part of today's trifecta. I haven't seen Obama so gleeful as he was as when he was talking about Wall Street's struggles on the stump. There is no small segment of the population that has suspected that liberals root for bad news as an entree to expand government's reach and enact yet another bad idea. Obama's criticism of McCain's position on regulation seemed to be just that type of moment. McCain was right to say that there is still a strong economic foundation. A free market will have its business cycles, and this is one of them, albeit aided by government. Obama has been reaching in his attempts to paint McCain as out of touch (his ad criticizing McCain over email was beyond the pale- McCain doesn't use a keyboard due to war injuries sustained in a POW camp. Perhaps a little more research into the matter would have been warranted before launching such an ad). Now, he not only reaches again, he's wrong on the economy. The Consumer Price Index dropped for the first time in two years. The price of a barrel of crude has been declining, and second quarter growth was 3.3%. It goes without saying that the economy isn't perfect. There are certainly parts of the economy that have been shaky, such as the increase in unemployment. However, the economy can best be described as fitful, and an increase in government regulation would be more than harmful. People are right to expect that a presidential candidate understands problems before proposing solutions- after all, hasn't this been the rationale for Obama's campaign? That he possesses good judgement? Any candidate so impetuous to propose solutions (and bad ones at that) before fully understanding a problem quite possibly can't be trusted to exercise sound judgement when faced by the likes of Iran and North Korea.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On an unrelated note (somewhat unrelated, as it still goes to Obama's judgement) is the story that Obama prodded the Iraqi government to hold off on any troop agreements with the US until after the election. Where to begin on this? First was the Obama campaign's denial- which actually confirmed the New York Post's Amir Taheri's report. Obama national security spokeperson Wendy Morigi said in a statement, "..Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office..". This is merely a semantic difference with Taheri's report. Obama basically involved himself in official US policy, a clear violation of the Logan Act which bars unauthorized US citizens from negotiating US policy. Obama placed his own interests ahead of his government's, not to mention above that of the troops. He is more concerned with being able to say he ended the war in Iraq than ensuring that Iraq is secure and the troops are brought home on a timetable negotiated between the US and Iraqi governments. Once again, what type of judgement does this man have? Where he places his own political interests over those of his governmenta and its troops- the same government he hopes to head, and the same troops he hopes to oversee as Commander-in-Chief? The more we see of this man, the less fit he is to become President.

If they're inexperienced, then that makes you...?

2008-08-29T17:48:00.003-04:00

As I first heard of the addition of Gov. Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket, my first reaction was to think it a good choice. A pro-tax cut, anti-waste, pro-life conservative. The more time I had to digest the pick, and the more I learned of Palin, the better I found the selection. Palin has served on the PTA, as mayor, and as governor. She's served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. She also has served on the Ethics Committee. She comes from a grounded, middle class upbringing, meaning she can appreciate what people go through in terms of family budgets. She also might give disaffected Hillary voters a place to go in November.

And then I heard the Obama camp's thoughts on the news- Obama spokesman Bill Burton pointed out that Palin has no foreign policy experience. And what exactly is Barack's experience? A trip to Europe and the Middle East earlier this year? Consider this another slip-up by the Obama camp- calling attention to the perceived shortcoming of someone else, when their own shortcoming is even more glaring. Obama first made this mistake at Saddleback, when he said he wouldn't have nominated Clarence Thomas due to his lack of experience. Both Thomas and Palin bring more experience to their respective posts than does Obama. And, mind you, Palin isn't running for the top of the ticket. Obama's primary reason for his candidacy is his judgement, and yet he's shown a complete lack of judgement in questioning the credentials of both Palin and Thomas, as this will only hightlight his paper-thin resume.

Looking at Obama's overeall experience, you would think he would want to avoid this discussion. Obama is Ivy educated (Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law). As editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama failed to publish even one piece that he'd written. I would think that an editor (especially one seemingly as ambitious as he is) would find the space to publish something. After law school Obama failed to either hold a clerkship or significant law position. He then met up with one William Ayers (still unrepentant over his Pentagon bombing), which led to his position on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a position he obtained with little, um, experience (of course, this is a period that Obama has vehemently sought to supress as Stanley Kurtz has learned). After an unremarkable stint in the Illinois legislature, where his major accomplishment was to vote "present" over 130 times (and, admittedly pressed the wrong button on a vote at least a half-dozen times. There are three buttons- "yes", "no", and "present". You are elected to vote, meaning you are elected to press a button. How hard is this?), Obama moved on to the US Senate, where his major accomplishment has been... not knowing which committee he sits on? Obama, as some of you may recall, told a group of reporters in Sderot, Israel, that "his" Senate Banking Committee placed sanctions on Iran- except that he doesn't sit on that committee, let alone chair it. Meanwhile, his running mate wanted to cut a $200 million check to the Iranians in the wake of 9/11, as a "no hard feelings" gesture.

All of this calls into question Obama's judgement. Just how did he think it was a good idea to question someone else's experience, be it Palin's or Thomas', when his is scant? Much has been made of Obama's questionable judgement in terms of his associations, his legislative work, his issues with the truth (like the Illinois bill protecting those born as a result of a botched abortion). All of these have shown poor judgement. Now, Obama goes for a two-fer- calling attention to his poor judgement by questioning the requsite experience of those more qualified than he is. McCain has not only named a solid conservative to his ticket, but someone who can competently debate the Democratic ticket on ANWR. Personally, I think the Obama camp has to be a bit panicked. McCain clearly has more experience than Obama. Now, McCain has added a capable woman to his ticket, someone who could possibly help close the much-discussed "gender gap". Meanwhile, Obama highlighted his lack of experience by naming Biden as his VP, someone who will keep shoe companies in business due to his constant foot-in-mouth. If voters are asked whom they prefer between the tickets, it's quite possible (I would argue likely) that they'll choose the experienced McCain and the down-to-earth Palin over the inexperienced (and issue-ignorant) Obama and arrogant Biden. The selection of Palin will only serve to highlight these differences, and that won't be a good development for Obama.

Deflating the Rationale of a Campaign

2008-08-18T19:21:00.003-04:00

I've listened to the ridiculousness of Barack Obama for about as long as I can stomach. I chuckled when he talked of campigning in 57 states (with one more to go). I shook my head while he fumbled through questions on issues like the capital gains tax, realizing he had no idea when it came to economics (and a column by his two economic advisors in last week's Wall Street Journal makes me think no one involved in his camp understands the topic). I sat in disbelief while he defended and danced around his relationships with questionable individuals, such as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. However, I never thought it would be Obama himself who would give a strong reason as to why he should only see the inside of the Oval Office as a visitor.

During Rick Warren's candidate forum this past weekend, Warren asked both candidates which of the current justices they would not have nominated, and why. Obama chose Clarence Thomas. He didn't select him because of differences in philosophy, however. He chose him due to, in Obama's words, "...I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation...". Let me see if I have this straight- someone who declared for the White House with a scant 143 days of federal experience, someone who's most notable accomplishment as a state legislator was to vote "present" over 130 times, and who's most significant job prior to politics was as a community organizer is questioning the resume of a judge who had served as Assistant Secretary of Education, had worked in the Missouri AG's office, ran the EEOC, and spent a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? In sum, are you kidding me? It was too bad that Warren had agreed not to ask follow up questions. I would love to have asked the following- "If Clarence Thomas lacked the requisite experience to be a Supreme Court Justice with that resume, how are you qualified to run for President with a considerably thinner resume?" I mean, Obama has NO legislative accomplishments to speak of. On his recent trip to Europe and the Middle East, he couldn't even remember which Senate committees he's on, telling a group of journalists that he is on the Senate Banking Committee, and insinuating that he chairs it (he's not even on it). Meanwhile, the Subcommmittee he does chair has yet to conduct any hearings. I've long thought that Obama was little more than an empty suit. I'm glad that Obama now acknowledges that experience for such important jobs does matter. However, I don't suppose I should hold my breath waiting for him to withdraw his candidacy. Let's just hope that the voters have the good sense to deliver that message in November.

Badly Missing the Mark

2008-03-18T16:43:00.002-04:00

No doubt much will be made of Sen. Obama's speech regarding his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Much has already been made. However, I think it's safe to say that Obama did little to quell the controversy surrounding either his candidacy or his pastor.

First, Obama granted moral equivalence to Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white rants with the private prejudices held by people. While both are odious, there are some striking differences. Obama held up his white grandmother as someone who has used racial epithets and expressed fear of blacks as someone holding equally noxious viewpoints. Certainly his grandmother's comments are to be considered wrong. However, there is a significant difference between expressing such views in private and espousing them as a philosophy for the public. As a pastor of a large church, Rev. Wright has been looked to as a role model. His parishoners no doubt thake their cues on a wide range of topics from him. Therefore, he has a bigger responsibility to those people in terms of what he says. For someone to repeatedly place such views out for public consumption is clearly a problem. That Obama sat and listened for 20 years also tells us something about him- that he is buying into something that Rev. Wright is saying (as an aside, did we all notice how he slipped in an admission to being aware that Rev. Wright held such views? It was only late last week that he'd said that he had never heard such things and was unaware that Rev. Wright had said such things). This offers an insight into Obama's (and his wife's) mindset and beliefs. It's also troubling that he drew this comparison for another reason. While he may have been troubled by his grandmother's comments, she obviously fits the image that Obama gave last week, about the uncle who says wacky things but is still part of the family. Obama didn't choose his grandmother. But he definitely chose his pastor, and he chose to stay with this church. Questions about his judgement should be asked.

The second issue I have with the speech is his equating the hateful rhetoric of Rev. Wright with those who have policy disagreements- namely, those who oppose affirmative action and set-aside programs. It is not necessarily a prerequisite for someone to be a bigot or hateful in order to oppose those ideas. However, Obama likened those individuals to the Rev. Wtight. Again, a deeply flawed analogy, and should call into question his ablility to work with others and reach across the aisle. You can't name-call and slander people with whom you have policy disagreements. Should Obama ascend to the White House, how does he plan to work with those who he just calle rascist and hateful?

Obama has constructed a campaign that has attempted to portray him as representative of a post-partisan, post-political, post-racial type of leader. He has promised change. He has promised a different tone. He has traded on the fact that despite a political resume short on experience, he had the necessary judgement to be a leader. This incident exposes all of that as false. First, he lied about his knowledge of these types of comments by Rev. Wright. He showed extraordiarily bad judgement in selecting and retaining the Rev. Wright as his pastor. He has previewed the fact that he will be unable to work well with those whom he might disagree (the slander thing). He has shown himself to be partisan, to be racial. His inability to distance himself from an individual like Rev. Wright offers significant cause for concern- what type of judgement will he have as President? If he's OK with this type of rhetoric, how exactly does he plan on being a change agent? It's too early to tell how this campaign will end, but there are some telling signs that this is becoming a problem that won't soon end. Obama has lost 5 points in the Rasmussen tracking polls since Rev. Wright's comments became public. And, poll averages now show him to be trailing Sen. McCain (albeit by a razor-thin margin). If Obama finds himself in the crowd instead of on stage next year on Inauguration Day, he can thank Rev. Wright for his place. And, a question for those so swept up by Obama- if you'd known about these comments (and the now-exposed character flaws of Obama) three months ago, would you still be ga-ga over him? My guess is that more than a few supporters may be getting buyer's remorse over Obama.

Of Books and Bumper Stickers

2007-05-24T20:12:00.000-04:00

Poor John Edwards. Despite his enormous wealth, he just can't seem to buy a break in his bid to capture the Democratic bid for the White House in 2008. A day after he decried the term "Global War on Terror" nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan (a slogan he has used himself, by the way), the Pentagon releases a captured Al-Qaeda torture training manual. The manual visually depicts various methods of torture to be used by Al-Qaeda members to extract infomation from those they capture. Before you think that the manual teaches how to place women's underwear on men's heads, or have naked men lie on top of each other, I suggest you have a look. The manual shows how to burn skin with a blowtorch, sever limbs with a cleaver, gouge out eyeballs, and drag people behind moving cars, among other tactics. It makes waterboarding look amateurish. However, it also reveals a deeper problem for not only John Edwards, but the Democratic Party as a whole.

Since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party has been hung with an image of being soft on defense and security issues. It has, for the most part, been a label the party has been unable to shake. Now, with the US engaged in Iraq and fighting Al-Qaeda all over the globe, the Democratic Party has chosen this moment to make itself look the weakest. In addition to Edwards' comments, the Democrats in both the House and Senate are in a race to see who can call for withdrawl from Iraq the quickest, and effect that plan. Most of the Democratic contenders for the party's Presidential nomination have called for withdrawl (I say most because Hillary Clinton has vacillated on her position so many times she makes John Kerry look like a decisive leader. What exactly is her position?). John Edwards looks the worst. He's either someone willing to say whatever he needs to in order to secure the nomination, or he's seriously unfit to be entrusted with overseeing this nation's security. Meanwhile, none of the others bidding for the spot have distinguished themselves as someone who can be trusted with defending the nation. This position may play well with the nutroots, but it will be an albatross come genreal election time. it also has the effect of making Rudy Giuliani look prescient when he criticizes the Democratic Party's ineffectiveness on security and defense issues. Should such issues be important in the 2008 election (and I can't see how they won't be at or near the top of the list), every candidate vying for the Democratic bid will look weak.

If I were to fashion an ad for the Republican Party for the 2008 election, I would make it simple. I would show the illustrations from the manual, and then I would show the Democratic nominee and have voters ask themselves a basic question- "Do you trust this individual to protect and defend the country from terrorists like this?". Between Edwards' comments, the Democratic Party's insistence on telling terrorists when we will be leaving Iraq, the House Democrats trying to strike the Global War on Terror phrase from the House, it would be an easy choice. Do you choose the candidate who refuses to even acknowledge the struggle we're in, or the one who pledges to win the struggle? If the Democrats don't soon realize that their shameful behavior will only enhance their reputation as weak, they'll soon have to adjust to life in the minority. Worse, they may just have to explain why they were unable to stop such monsters.

The Problems of a Short Memory

2007-05-19T19:35:00.000-04:00

I suppose no one should be surprised by Jimmy Carter's most recent outburst (I now lack enough respect for him to stop referring to him as a former president), but after reading Carter's remarks, I figure now is as good a time as any to remind Carter about just how bad his presidency was, and how he has managed to consistenly line up on the wrong side of history.

Carter's tenure will forever be remembered for gas lines, loss of international respect for the US, Carter's remarks on accepting the former USSR as a permanent equal, his malaise speech, and the Iran hostage crisis. I could also toss in high unemployment and high inflation, just to pile on. It hasn't been enough for Carter to just be the worst occupant of the White House. He has sought to be the worst ex-President as well. He criticized Ronald Reagan for his remarks toward the Soviet Union, as well as his positions toward the former socialist nation. Reagan turned out to be right. He undermined former President Clinton during that administration's dealings with North Korea in 1994. Carter is responsible for the Agreed Framework deal with North Korea, and "agreement" that the North Koreans began violating while Carter was on his way to the airport. During the first Gulf War in 1991, Carter lobbied other nations to vote AGAINST the US. I normally don't agree with questioning the patriotism of people based solely on differing positions. However, Carter has so often worked against the US position on international matters, I do think he has a disdain for this nation, if not utter contempt.

Now we have Carter's most recent comments, criticisms of the current admnistration that are completely unprecedented by a former President. Carter calls Bush the "worst in history" in the arena of international relations (conveniently ignoring his litany of international failure). Never mind his opinions on issues such as Bush's faith-based initiative programs. for someone who will be remembered so harshly by history for his own shortcomings, it's stunning to hear such talk. Add in the fact that Carter so badly breaks with decorum for former Presidents, and his comments are breathtaking. For the record, Carter couldn't resist a shot at outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling his "..apparently subservient". If you ever wanted a good example of the Peter Prinicple (for those unsure of what it is, it refrs to someone who has ascended to a position which exceeds their skills), Carter is a textbook case.

I kow that the office of the Presidency confers a unique status, even after one's service there is complete. But, I have an idea- let's just ignore Carter alltogether. Jimmy Carter has shown he's incapable of rational thought. So, why should the public give him any sort of platform? And, for any future officeholder of the Presidency- revoke his passport. That way, he won't be able to meddle in your foreign policy matters, as he has with 2 former Presidents as well as the current one. Let's just leave him alone at home in the South. Perhaps he'll actually learn some of those Southern mannes he's failed to demonstrate so far. In the interim, he'll have no one but Roslyn to listen to his bitter comments and recall his miserable tenure in Washington- the worst Presidency in US history.

The Representatives from Oz

2007-02-16T18:54:00.000-05:00

In L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, each of the characters in the forest had a significant deficiency- the Scarecrow had no brain; the tin man, no heart; the lion lacked courage. Today, we saw 246 members of the House of Representatives manage to roll all three traits into each of one person. Democrats stuck their fingers in the wind and passed a non-binding resolution claiming to back the troops while denouncing the planned troop surge. It is rightly viewed as the Democrats first step in defunding the Iraq War.

Democrats are fond of comparing this war to Vietnam. It would seem the only lesson they have learned is how to lose a war. When Gen. Petraeus testified at his Senate confirmation hearings last month, he noted that such a resolution would have a detrtimental effect on the troops while encouraging the insurgents combating the troops. He also voiced support for the troop increase (he should- he helped author it). Meanwhile, Democrats longg criticized the President for staying the course while having sent too few troops into Iraq. Recall how often the-Presidential candidate Sen. Kerry cited retired Gen. Eric Shinseki's belief that more, not fewer, troops were needed to win. It became a theme- Bush hadn't sent enough troops to win, thus bogging down the effort. He was blindly staying the course. So, the President shakes up his leadership team in Iraq and announces plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The Democrats response to the news that Bush had finally listened to them- they bring resolutions opposing the plan (while sending Gen. Petraeus to Iraq with best wishes. kind of like wishing a surgeon best of luck while you empty the operating room of its equipment.).

It would seem that the Democrats have overplayed their hand on this- while polls show most Americans haven't been pleased with the progress in Iraq, most Americans do not favor defeat. A defeat in Iraq would have disastrous consequences here and around the world. It would show the terrorists that the US military, the finest in the world, could be beaten in a war of attrition. It is in this area where Rep. Henry Waxman's words will haunt the Democratic Party- labeling a military engagement a "defeat" won't sit well with either the troops themselves nor the American public at large. It would also send a message that we lack the resolve to finish the global fight on terrorism. It would invite terror attacks around the globe- after all, the Americans are reticent to fight. The Democrats claim that the November elections signaled the national desire for a new course in Iraq (a couple of thoughts on this: first, I don't recall the Democrats actually campaigning on a plan for the war, merely critiquing its current course. Secondly, I could argue that the Republicans did more to lose in November that the Democrats did to win. the Democrats didn't seem to really have a plan for anything, a point artiulated by Senator Schumer in an inteview during the campaign when he declined to outline the Democrats platform. finally, I find it ironic that Democrats believe that elections send signals about the electorate's thoughts and feelings on policy when they spent six years ignoring that same concept. But those are topics for another day.). Democrats only win on this if the US military loses- is that the side that the Democrats wish to be on? Some would argue that the anti-military sentiment on the Left would be happy about such a scenario. However, it is not a prescription for electoral victory, nor is it solid governing policy. Should a Democrat win the White House in 2008 or a subsequent election, I doubt that the victor would be well-served by overseeing a weakened military.

For those who doubt that this is the first step in the Democrats' plan to end the war, look no further than the recent plans laid out by Rep. Murtha. He plans to bring resolutions to the House floor that would severely restrict the number of troops available for combat as well as limit the resources available for troops. The idea is to squeeze Republicans to part with the White House and recall troops rather than leave them short-handed and lacking in equipment. There are serious Constitutional questions as to whether Congress can dictate military policy to the Commander-in-Chief. Also, if this can't be described as cut-and-run, then I'm not sure how to describe it. The Democrats want to hang the troops out to dry and insert the language in appropriations bills set for late March or early April. Stranding the troops can't be a good strategy- never mind the fact that Democrats assured the voting public that they'd never do such a thing. If the Democrats do this, then the outcome in Iraq becomes their responsibility, not the White House's nor the Congressional GOP's.- and to think that anything positive will come from such a maneuver is pure fantasy.

The irony of the timing of the vote is that there appear to be signs that the surge is working. The Iraqi government stated that violence in Baghdad has decreased. Insurgent groups have quieted down, hopefully a permanent quiet and not a temporary blip. Muqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq and is hiding in Iran, urging his militia to follow suit. I've already discussed what happens if we fail in Iraq, as well as the issues with investing in failure. Should the surge end up succeeding, then the Democratic resolution looks silly. It will make the party appear even weaker and confused on defense and foreign policy issues. In short, it will make them appear to have no intellect in evaluating the outcomes of policy decisions, no courage to win, and no heart to engage the fight.

A Lesson on the Constitution is Sorely Needed....

2007-01-29T20:46:00.000-05:00

Debate has been growing in the halls of Congress as to how far Congress can go in shaping policy in the war in Iraq. This really shouldn't be a long debate- the Constitution is quite clear on the demarcation of war powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Atricle I, Section 8 clearly states that Congress has the authority to "... delare War, grant Letters or Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies...". Meanwhile, Article II, Section 2 states "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States...". Simply put, Congress is charged with funding the Armes Services, and the President directs them. So, I find it interesting to hear Sen. Barbara Boxer (not one cursed with a burden of high intellect) say that her colleagues need to read the Constitution. If she's clamoring for a more active Congressional role, then she needs a refresher course on Constitutional Law. If she wants to defund the war, then go ahead a propose just that.

A number of Representatives and Senators (mostly Democrats, but Chuck Hagel hasn't exactly been a pillar of leadership on this) have called for caps on troop levels, conditions on war funding, etc.. The fact of the matter is, they can't. Sen. Russ Feingold has called for Congress to defund the war entirely. Apparently, Feingold and others haven't learned their history. Democrats defunded the war effort in Vietnam in 1974, leading to millions of Vietnamese refugees, "re-education" camp prisoners, and slain citizens in the region. Domestically, it created an image of weakness for the Democratic Party in the area of military and foreign affairs. Should Feingold (and possibly Boxer) get his way, disaster would ensue in Iraq. In all likelihood, the country would descend into all -out civil war, with its neighbors spilling in to influence the outcome. Control of the nation (and its oil supplies would) would literally be up for grabs. We would have a repeat of the type of government that we have spent life and treasure to depose. In short, we would have failed. Who knows how many Iraqis would end up dead in the resulting chaos?

Meanwhile, Democrats would ensure a permanent legacy of weakness. Given the tumult that would come to the Mideast, we couldn't guarantee that such violence would never again visit our shores. The American people, faced with such a threat, wouldn't be likely to vote for a party that has now cut-and-run in the face of adversity. And, it would make most hollow the favorite refrian from those on the Left - "We support the troops, but not the mission"- as if that's even possible. Democrats, I believe, have taken away the wrong lessons from November. Most of their candidates ran on thin platforms. It wasn't the promise of any bold legislative agenda that swept them into office. Rather, it was the fact that Republicans had become complacent with power and addicted to spending. Democrats didn't win as much as Republicans lost. Should democrats move to cut off funding for the troops, it would be a disastrous move for our military and our nation (showing we lack the necessary resolve to combat the terrorists). It would also plunge the democrats into a more permanent minority (and they thought 12 years was a long time!). In the meantime, for those Democrats hell-bent on dictating war policy to the White House, I suggest a reading of the Consitiution. It will explain their role in this.

This is progress??

2007-01-20T01:00:00.000-05:00

New Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently posted an entry to the Huffington Post touting the accomplishments of the House's first 100 hours (and don't be fooled by the reports that the House completed the task in under 100 hours. Only in Washington can time be suspended. The Democrats only counted the hours actually spent on the flawed legislation toward the 100 hour mark. Cutting off debate and barring any amendments were just a couple of ways that the Dems sped through their time committment. So much for the campaign promise of minority rights). But, a look at each of the six bills passed shows that the new majority was more interested in being judged on intent rather than outcome. Each of these is merely a hurried piece of bad legislation.

Let's start with H.R. 1, fully implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission's recommendations. There was no House discussion as to whether all (or any) of these were a good idea. And, they left out one notable recommendation- the Commission stressed the need for more nimble intelligence agencies. The Dems instead added more layers by adding in oversight steps to intelligence. Not to say that oversight is bad, we saw the negative effects of the infamous "wall" placed by former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. The Dems merely moved us back in that direction.

Next is her excitement over H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill. Forgive me for not sharing in her excitement. This was quickly passed without thought as to how it might affect both workers and employers. We know that small businesses can be volatile employers, both hiring and laying off in larger numbers (as a percentage of staff) than larger companies. Raising the cost of doing business will either (A) cause these businesses to raise prices, negating the wage hike, or (B) cause these employers to lay off workers. Historical data suggests option B. Very few economists dispute that those at the lower end of the pay scale will be adversely affected (wasn't this the group we most often heard about needing the raise?). The Dems claim that millions of other workers will enjoy a pay raise. Really? If a business sees a raise in its payroll, they are then forced to move to either cut costs or raise revenue. I'm sure that they'll try to increase revenue, but it doesn't always work out, considering that that option often comes with a price increase. Also, onsider where the pay raiase goes. Many union contracts stipluate that pay grades are to be set at X dollars above minimum wage. Therefore, if the minimum wage goes up, so do all of the other pay grades. And since most contracts stipulate that layoffs are done on a last in, first out basis, the people for whom we were told this would benefit end up out of a job- and with highter prices at the register to boot. For a party supposedly concerned with outsourcing, this is a great way to force jobs overseas and make American companies less able to compete.

Next on the list of bad ideas is H.R. 3, calling for extended stem cell research. This should have been titled honestly, referring to embryonic stem cell research. While the benefits of stem cell research aren't completely known, we see that there may be the potential for medical hope in such research. Just not in embryonic stem cells. The potential for cures have been seen in areas such as adult fat stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and placenta stem cells. We have yet to see anything result from the stem cells from embryos. Might it be that this is a ruse to help protect abortion on demand? If the Democrats were sincerely interested in finding cures, then it would seem that following the promising research in this area would be most logical. Instead, they insist on spending money in the most controversial and least promising of these areas. And yet it's the President who ignores science.

H.R. 4 is just a disaster waiting to happen. It calls for direct negotiation by Medicare for prescription drug prices. Democrats have cited the Veteran's Administration as an example. A quick look at the VA should make us all hope that this bill fails in the Senate, or meets its demise by veto pen. The VA (for all of the good effort put in by health care providers at the VA facilities) essentially delivers substandard care to its patients. Its drug formulary is approximately one quarter the size of the typical forlularies offerred by the plans under the current Medicare Part D. It restricts patients to generics and places ornerous authorization restrictions on providers and patients to obtain brand-name drugs (even where no generic exists). Additionally, the Medicare prescription plan has been delivering lower than estimated premiums and lower drug costs than originally thought. Why this needs to be fixed, I don't know. Should this bill somehow succeed, we can all look forward to substandard care in our golden years- thanks to the Democrats.

H.R. 5 cuts interst rates on student loans. for a party that hust imposed paygo rules ( a bad idea unto itself, and one that requires its own post), details are skimpy as to how to pay for this. Dems have proposed raising fees and cutting payments to lenders as a financing means. Those of us who operate in the real world know that when you raise the cost of a product and reduce its benefit, it becomes less attractive. I'm not sure how they plan to keep lenders fully incentivized to continue such lending when higher costs and lower returns are put in place.

Finally, H.R. 6 calls for eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas exploration. Democrats have repeatedly called for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. One way to do so would be to expand domestic supplies. Penalizing companies for taking exploration risks is NOT the way to increase supply. we have seen time and again that Dems don't understand that oil is a commodity, subject to the rules of supply and demand. More supply, lower price, and vice versa. If you do nothing to increase supply, you do nothing to lower prices. Additionally, you can't create alternative sources by fiat. For some reason, democrats get to Washington and think that the time-honored laws of economics cease to exist when it comes to their ideas. Eliminating incentives to risk-taking will only serve to drive oil and gas prices up.

I could go on about her criticism of the President's troop surge in Iraq (something she called for in 2004), the lack of any Iraq alternative, her foolish new committee on global warming. The science on this is far from consensus. All she has served to do is create another committee that will waste more government (read- taxpayer) dollars on trips to learn...what?

Having majorities in both houses gave Democrats an opportunity to show the American public that they were up to the task of governing. It gave them two years to prep the US for their eventual Presidential nominee and the platform that he/she would bring. If the "first" 100 hours in the House is any indication of how Democrats plan to use their new power, then their majority will be short lived. Unless Dems start thinking about the ramifications of their governing decisions, the American people will then show them how those votes have affected them- by returning them to the minority.

Kofi Annan's Disconnect

2006-12-11T19:16:00.000-05:00

Kofi Annan gave his last speech before an American audience today, and his tenure as Secretary General can't end soon enough. Annan used the occassion to slam US foreign policy, saying that the US has fought a war without international backing and has committed human rights bauses, among others. My first thought is, "Is he kidding?!" Who is Kofi Annan to be lecturing ANYONE?! Annan has overseen one of the worst periods in the UN's history, and he has the temerity to lecture?

A look back at his tenure will see unenforced UN resolutions against nations such as Iraq and North Korea. It will see the largest scandal (dollar-wise) in history- the infamous Oil-for-Food program. UN peacekeepers in Africca trading food for sex to starving women (and children, for that matter). A full-blown genocide in Darfur (to go along with genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia). Annan is on shaky ground to be potntificating to anyone. And yet, there he was, scolding the Bush Administration. I'm not sure if I should be irritated or if I should laugh. I could go on about the UN's ineffectiveness, particularly under Annan. I could also talk about how his son Kojo profited personally from his father's position. But, I'll just look forward to the day when he's no longer in charge of the UN.

Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson warned about the dangers of placing one's foreign policy aims in the hands of a collective body. Eleanor Roosevelt pushed for US involvement (proving that liberals only want credit for intent and not results). Acheson has been proven right. The fact that the UN claims to be the final arbiter of foreign policy issues (and has shown itself to be incapable) bears that out. The UN is in need of much larger reform than what Annan has advocated. Further, he's been weak in effecting any meaningful change. So Annan can bluster on all he wants about the need for the world body to legitimize action. It's been decisive leaders like Bush that have kept the UN from looking completely weak. Annan may have talked tough today, but he'll be remembered for being financially corrupt and morally bankrupt.

Bubba's Tantrum

2006-09-25T21:09:00.000-04:00

By now, I'm sure everyone has had a chance to see or hear former President Bill Clinton's tirade on Fox News Sunday. Clinton blew a gasket over host Chris Wallace's questioning over his administration's handling of Osama bin Laden. In a scene reminsicent of his famous "I did not hae sex with that woman" bit, Clinton attempted a bit of revisionist history on his lamentable efforts (or lack thereof) to kill or capture bin Laden.

Clinton claimed to have been obsessed with bin Laden. However, there is little to support that assertion. Richard Clarke seems to be the only one who makes this claim. Noel Sheppard chronicles GOP criticism for doing too little in an article for the American Thinker. In his final State of the Union address, Clinton was so preoccupied with bin Laden that he forgot to mention him. In a report for his successor that totaled hundreds of pages, there were exactly four references to bin Laden. It seems that the obsession didn't run as deep as he thought.

There is also the matter of what efforts Clinton took to remove the threat. It isn't just the 9/11 Commission that was critical of Clinton's efforts. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, claims that Clinton had 8-10 chances to kill bin Laden. Scheuer also blames Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke (the man on whom Clinton rests his defense) for failure to kill or capture bin Laden. We know that the the Sudanese government offerred bin Laden to the US four times, and were rebuffed each time. Clinton treated terrorism as a criminal matter instead of a war matter. So, instead of removing the threat, he fretted over a potential conviction. Since Clinton repeatedly invoked Richard Clarke, let's review what Clarke had to say. In his book, Clarke references at least four occasions where Clinton was unable to marshall the CIA to action, a clear lack of leadership. If you are the commander-in-chief, chief executive of the USA, there should be times when you give an order and have it followed, particularly when dealing with the object of your obsession. One has to question how obsessed Clinton really was. In another book, Dereliction of Duty by Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, details a failed attempt in the fall of 1998 (pp. 128-131). Told he had a two-hour window to strike, Clinton discussed and dithered away the time, failing to even launch missiles. If you are obsessed with someone, and you have a chance to strike, do you act or do you wait? This would seem to line up with Scheuer's comments on CBS on September 25th. Truth be told (not a Clinton strong suit), there was little obsession. The only obsession is legacy.

Clinton's tantrum and attacks on conservatives and on Fox News are merely his concerns as to his legacy on terrorism. The 9/11 Commission was critical of his performance (by the way, one really has to wonder what was contained in the documents stolen and destroyed by Sandy Berger), as have a number of other sources. It took six years for someone in the media to ask Clinton about his failures regarding bin Laden, and he pouts like a child. Fact is, Clinton never treated the matter of bin Laden or terrorism with the proper degree of seriousness which it deserved. From the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, to Clinton's failure in Somalia, to the emabssy bombings in 1998, to the USS Cole bombing in 2000, Clinton could only muster a weak response- the 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (which, we were told at the time, had traces of WMD material in the soil). We know that when Clinton was supposed to be prodding the Saudis to aid in capturing bin Laden, he instead was asking for donations for his library. On another occasion, he sent missles but told the Pakistani government they were in the air (who then turned around and told bin Laden). We know of the missed opportunities, but we see little of the so-called obsession. Clinton may believe he did all he could, but the historical record shows his lack of leadership and lack of effort to end the threat known as Osama bin Laden. His only obsession is with his legacy, and that's a shame for the 3000 people who perished on 9/11- that their former President was more concerned with how he'd be remembered than whether they lived.

A Disappointing Lack of Surprise at the UN

2006-09-20T20:32:00.000-04:00

The UN General Assembly has now heard from a number of world leaders, among them French President Jacques Chirac, US President George Bush, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Secretary General Kofi Annan opened the session with the last year of his tenure now upon us (hold down the applause...). It has become quite clear by now that the UN is a failed institution that is beyond reform. When Chavez can take to the podium in Turtle Bay and make such ridiculous comments about another world leader (calling Bush "Satan")- in that leader's home country, no less, and not draw any outrage, it's time to dismantle that organization.

Back in the post-World War II days, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson warned of the pitfalls of membership in such a body. Acheson didn't like the idea of those with no stake in an issue having decisive votes on the matter. Acheson campaigned as vigorously against it as Eleanor Roosevelt did for it. As has been said beore, liberals like credit for the intent, not the result. The intent here was to create an arena to settle international disputes. What has evolved (if one can use that word) is a directionless body that exists to enjoy the trappings of its very being.

The UN was ostensibly created to protect democracy and human rights around the globe. Yet, it has ignored human rights in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. It has remained mute while despots in places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba disregard human rights and deny the populace any opportunity for freedom- and that's just in the last decade. The UN has even managed to richen its members via the Oil-for-Food program. That's the program that was designed to allow Iraq to sell its oil in return for purchasing food, medical supplies, and other necessities for its population. Only it never managed to buy those items. Instead, Iraq built elaborate palaces and purchased munitions, all while the UN looked the other way in exchange for its cut. Meanwhile, the UN has been utterly unable to enforce its own resolutions, rendering them meaningless.

This brings me to today (and yesterday). Chirac took the podium and called for more negotiation with Iran, refusing to back sanctions (looking very much like his stance on Iraq. Have to wonder how much France is profiting in Iran). This coming from someone who promised far more than he delivered in Lebanon last month. Chavez ranted about "Satan". Ahmadinejad defended Iran's nuclear program, more than a bit disconcerting given his prior statements about wanting to "wipe Israel from the map". Meanwhile, Kofi Annan finds the most pressing issue is... Israel (anyone surprised?). He also squeezed in a rebuke of the Pope, neglecting the fact that Muslims reacted to his comments with.... violence. I can't speak for everyone, but it seems that destroying churches and killing nuns is a violent reaction to words. However, Annan couldn't be bothered with such reaction, just the Pope's speech.

Given this circus, it's small wonder that a majority of US citizens have doubts about the UN. Earlier this year, the UN supposedly "reformed" its Human Rights Commission. Instead, it ended up witha weighted-representation system that grants even more seats to the most egregious violators of human rights. This farce could only muster 4 "no" votes. Now, Venezuela is lobbying for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. This is worth $5 billion a year to the US? The UN was given a test run for reform with the Human Rights Commission. It failed. It has become clear that the US needs to rethink the utility of the UN. International bodies, if constructed properly, can be very useful in mediating world crises. However, the UN struggles to pass resolutions, and then has no enforcement mechanisms. It has repeatedly ignored genocide all over the globe. It has provided a platform to the world's despots to rant and rave, and then applauds them for it. It saves its harshest criticisms for Israel and the US (its biggest donor, not just with money, but with prime NYC real estate) while ignoring others, including terror organizations. It is utterly incapable of reforming itself. It may be time to recall our representative, cancel our donations, and begin to seek out other world democracies who wish to form an orgaization focused on promoting human rights, freedom, and democracy around the world. Because the UN is clearly not that body. In the meantime, let the developers have at the land in New York City. I'm sure Donald Trump or any other savvy developer could make far better use of it than the UN has. And at a much smaller price tag to the US taxpayer.

History as a Useful Guide

2006-09-13T08:13:00.000-04:00

As I watched the images of 9/11 replayed on the 5-year anniversary, I couldn't help but reflect on how our world has changed since that fateful day. I started out by thinking about where I was on 9/11 and what my immediate thoughts and actions were. I then thought about how our world had forever changed, recognizing that we were engaged in a battle with a shadowy enemy- quite unlike any previous war we'd fought. This time, there would be no clear battlefield, no formal surrender. There would be no equivalent of V-E Day or V-J Day. In short, this was no defined conflict. As I mulled these thoughts over, I also realized one other crucial point- not everyone was as clear on this. And, quite unfortunately, a number of those people reside in positions of power- as influential scholars, policy-makers, and elected officials. To my dismay, some have not learned the lessons of Islamic terrorism.

"...I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate."
Ned Lamont, 4/25/06

"...Feingold said since fighting in Iraq, the United States is in a weaker military and diplomatic position. He said the U.S. should respond by persuading Iran to "back off on nuclear weapons" rather than with military threats."
Sen. Russ Feingold, as quoted by the Des Moines Register, 9/1/06

"...But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior."
former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski speaking to Der Spiegel, 9/11/06

I could go on with quotes, but these seem to sum up the idea nicely. Brzezinski's comments are among the most troubling. It was bad enough for Brzezinski, as NSA, to vastly underestimate Islamic radicalism back in 1979 (and shortly before the US Embassy in Tehran was seized, no less). But it appears he has not learned his lesson in the intervening 27 years. During that time, Islamic radicalism has only grown more dangerous, seeking to make bigger statements via larger death tolls. Terrorists cannnot be treated the same as drug dealers, prostitutes, and the like (which is also what Sen. John Kerry said during the 2004 election). And the notion, ever growing on the Left, that terrorists and terrorist states can be dealt with more diplomatically is also a folly. As I've said before, diplomacy and negotiation should be first resort. However, they cannot be the only option. The idea that Iran will back off nuclear weapons because we ask is patently ridiculous (sorry, Sen. Feingold). Dangling more carrots and wielding fewer sticks doesn't work when your opponent seeks your destruction and that of your allies, Israel generally topping that list. 9/11 didn't necessarily show that all these rogues and states are always working in concert, per se. Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.. didn't help in planning or funding 9/11. However, when confronted with the dangers of Islamic terrorism, we must seek a new mindset when dealing with these nations. At the least, they have allowed terrorists to carry on unmolested within their borders. At worst, they have aided these thugs. To view terrorism as a nuisance, to think we can address it through diplomacy is to make a grave mistake. Former President Clinton took that view, and refused to take Osama bin Laden unless he could make a case in court. The World Trade Centers bombers in 1993 were tried in court instead of being treated as terrorists. In both instances, we paid a great price. The trial for the first WTC bombers revealed that the buildings could withstand a hit from a 757 plane, and put that fact on public record. Hence, the hijacking of 767's on 9/11. Because bin Laden was treated as a criminal and not a terrorist, he lived to participate in 9/11. If we do not change our mindset as to how terrorists and terrorist states operate, we are doomed to have repeat 9/11's.

While he was locked in prison, Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf. In his book, Hitler detailed how he planned to conquer Europe, and the the world. He also pointed his finger at the Jews, viewing them as the problem. As Hitler advanced his plan throughout the 1930's many refused to believe that he would move exactly as he'd stated. They didn't believe he would first detail his plan in print and then stick to it. They believed he could be reasoned with, talked to. Hitler made a deal with Neville Chamberlain and then violated it six months later, eventually plunging the world into its second global war. I recount this for a reason. Saddam Hussein made deals with the UN. He accepted resolution after resolution. He violated each one. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Al Qaeda and other terrorists have vowed to destroy the US and Israel. We refused to listen to the words of a dictatorial madman in the 20th century, and millions lost their lives, both civilian and military. If we ignore the words and threats of the dictators of the 21st century, if we believe that just more dialogue will solve the problem, then we are positioning ourselves to be hit again and again. The thoughts expressed by many on the Left (Murtha, Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter) serve only to embolden terrorists. History can be a useful guide, but only if you learn from it. Carter and Brzezinski obviously didn't learn from their own encounter with these radicals. The glee expressed by many on the Left when the New York Times exposes the SWIFT banking program, or the NSA wiretap program is especially frightening. We're told what a threat the George Bush represents to civil liberties and freedoms by this group. Do they think that life under Islamic radicals would be better? Bret Stephens made this point quite well in yesterday's Wall Street Journal ( dated 9/12/06). The Left seemingly has no tolerance for any of the measures employed by the Bush administration when it comes to the tools used to combat terrorism. One can only wish they'd be so vigorous in combatting our enemies.

History also reminds us that power really does exist in a vacuum. No one in Europe stepped forward to take the lead in defending liberty and freedom in the years after World War I. A power void was created, and Hitler and Mussolini filled that void. If we look throughout history, we see such occurrences happening again and again. If the West (led by the US) fails to be the guardian of freedom and liberty, and neglects to defend these principles vigorously by use of diplomacy and, when required, force, then we will be doomed to repeat the harsh lessons of history. The President has grasped this reality. Let's hope that the Left soon learns the same lessons. If not, then Monday's memories will cease to be memories- they will become our new reality.

The Incurious Nature of the Media

2006-08-30T18:55:00.000-04:00

We often hear about how rigid the President is in his thinking and his beliefs, that he never budges, is stubborn, never asks questions, etc... We get this from a media that grabs hold of a mantra or thought and repeats it ad nauseum, never asking quetions to check its veracity. We saw this way back in the 2000 election and the overuse of the word "gravitas", and it has continued since (for its latest media incarnation, Eugene Robinson trooped it back out over the weekend for the Washington Post. The next intelligent thought I hear from Robinson will be his first.) However, this incuriosity was never more apparent than in the Valerie Plame leak case, where we heard, repeatedly, that this was nothing more than a Bush political hit job on a policy dissenter. One of those most aggressively pushing this line was The Nation's David Corn. The media salivated over the storyline and sought for ways to embarrass Bush (for example, asking him if he'd fire whomever leaked the identity of Plame) so much so that it failed to do any actual reporting, settling for article upon article of Beltway gossip. Then, after penning such columns, they would interview each other on the various news shows, exchanging more gossip and pointing more fingers. When the Plame fiasco came to its overdue end, we were given a respite from one of the biggest non-stories in quite some time. However, it has now reared its ugly head again.
Some of the media coverage of the non-story was insufferable. However, I have real issue with someone creating a story out of nothing and then standing to profit from the destruction he's caused. Of course, I'm referring to David Corn. Corn was one of the most vitriolic chroniclers of the entire story, and he has now published a book (with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff) revealing the true leak of Plame's identity. Predictably (although not on the Left), none of the Bush "thugs" (Corn's word, not mine) were involved with the leak. Corn and Isikoff claim that it was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who had leaked Plame's identity (and, they say, he did so non-maliciously). So, after all of the stories, the questions, and the accusations, it turns out that an opponent of the Iraq War was the original leaker?! And, this is OK? It bothers me that Corn stands to make some serious cash on his book while a number of administration officials had to spend time and money appearing before a special prosecutor- who, it seems, knew the leaker's identity all along, casting large dispersions on his conduct- and one, Scooter Libby, now faces criiminal charges. This whole affair raises some serious questions. First, if the identity of the leaker was known from the start of the investigation, then why the need to ontinue it? How long did Corn know of Armitage's actions? Why did no one come forward with this information sooner, before reputations were besmirched and money spent? And, why sould Corn make a dime after the way he threw false accusations at virtually anyone within the administration (except for the actual leaker)? Given the way Washington can't keep a secret, I would have to think that this information could have been discovered by someone in the media. However, the group that assumes itself to be smarter than the rest of us was incapable of asking questions or showing any degree of curiosity. The media was so caught up in animus toward Bush that it failed on its most basic level. It failed to do the job it's been hired to do. This can't help out the media when it comes to public trust. Moreover, it is clearly guilty of the very crime it routinely accuses of Bush- a lack of intellectual curiosity and a disturbing habit of not asking questions. My grandfather always said that as we are, we perceive others to be. Could it be that a shallow and intellectually light media has spent six years now trying to project that onto a President it abhors?
In a perfect world, Corn would have to cough up his book earnings to those whose lives he's ruined. I'm sure Scooter Libby would like to know where he can go to get his reputation back (to use an old quote). Also, the nitwits in the Washington media would be replaced by journalists who ask questions and follow the story to its end, not creating the story and interviewing each other. However, there is one good end to the Armitage revelation: it should be fun to watch the Wilsons try to sue administration officials that they've accused of disclosing Plame's identity. Because now we all know just how empty their case will be.

A Script for the Demise of a Party

2006-08-16T19:51:00.000-04:00

The Democratic Party seems to be fully invested in seeing itself into the political wilderness these days, between the vistory of Ned Lamont in Connecticut (and the Democrats' continued calls for Sen. Joe Lieberman to withdraw, despite the fact that he's currently leading in the polls), the refusal to see Islamic terrorism for what it is (and no amount of negotiating nor appealing to the UN will change terrorism), and their constant embrace of the old faces that have landed them in their current position as weak on defense. Former President Jimmy Carter seems to be on a crusade to be as bad an ex-President as he was a President, and his recent interview with Der Spiegel clearly demonstrates. It has often been said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Liberals see their heyday as the Vietnam years, forgetting what the fruit of their labor was- a reputaion for being soft when it counted, as well as being thought of as rather hostile toward the US military and, sometimes, the US itself.

Let's look at a few examples of this: first, Ned Lamont declared in his victory speech last week that we need more carrots and fewer sticks when dealing with Iran. Come again? All Iran has received have been carrots. A stick is sorely needed at this point. The US has delegated the negotiating to the EU-3 (France, Great Britain, and Germany), and all we have received is a steady march toward nuclear weapons on the part of Iran. As for the EU-3 and the UN, all we have received from them is a look of helplessness. Lamont seems intent on carrying through on a thought expressed by now DNC Chairman Howard Dean during his ill-fated Presidential campaign: while on Meet the Press (I believe), Dean stated his belief that we are not an exceptional nation, but merely one of the world's nations. This has the effeect of placing the UN at the top of the pecking order, followed equally by all of the world's nations. A cozy thought if the UN was able to act effectively. However, the UN can only seem to muster up any action when it comes to castigating Israel. How many violations of UN resolutions went unanswered before the Iraq War finally deposed Saddam Hussein? How many UN resolutions will be ignored by Iran before someone is spurred to action? If Dean, Lamont, and their followers are able to gain a governmental majority, I shudder to think of what the world will look like. For a picture of this, I think of Neville Chamberlain (Neville Chamberlain after signing an accord with Hitler: "Peace in our time! Just ignore those German tanks on their way through Europe!")

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party as a whole seems to be in denial when it comes to the threat of terrorism. When President Bush speaks on the topic, he is charged with fear-mongering and exaggeration of the threat. Many elements within the Democratic Party criticize him attempting to time the announcement of the thwarting of terror plots with what is ostensibly good news for Democrats. There were cries of this when the British announced that they'd foiled the airline terror plots two days after Ned Lamont won the primary (by the way, Democrats have called this a triumph of policework and diplomacy. I wonder what they must think now knowing that the tools that they've so loathed were employed here, and a story has surfaced that the Pakistanis tortured some of the terror suspects that they were holding to obtain vital information. So much for the idea that torture doesn't work). Bush has been criticized for using the idea of national security as a cheap election ploy. I suppose if I'd been in the Oval Office on the day that the worst domestic terror attack in our nation's history had occurred, I might be a bit obsessed with the topic as well. Meanwhile, liberals have cheered as valuable tools in the fight with terror have been weakened or rendered useless. They waged their own battle on the Patriot Act. They praised the work of the Clinton Administration and placed former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission, despite her authoring of the now infamous memo creating a wall in law enforcement that made pre-9/11 investigating nearly impossible. They cheered as the NSA wiretap program and the SWIFT banking program were each exposed to the general public. I'm left to wonder how the Democratic Party hopes to show the voters how they will make the nation more secure when this is the record they must run upon.

Then there is the matter of the "old lions" being revived. Jimmy Carter has seemed to draw some sort of reverence within the Democratic Party for his constant criticisms of the current administration (so much for the decorum of a former president not speaking publicly about his successors). It wasn't enough for Carter to be viewed as a failure while in office. He is now boldly determined to be a failure out of office as well. To wit, he has been duped by the North Koreans in 1994 and tried to blame the current administration for the Agreed Framework's unraveling, he was the lone voice certifying the last election of Hugo Chavez despite the fact that no other observing body was willing to consider it a clean election (even the EU withdrew their observers due to a lack of transparency), and accepted a Nobel Prize for nothing more that being anti-Bush. Now, Carter has decided to take his show to Germany for an interview with Der Spiegel. In it, Carter criticizes the notion of pre-emptive action as being inconsistent with the policies of all former Presidents (no other faced 9/11), criticized Israel for its "unjustified attack" on Lebanon (even the interviewer had to point out that Israel was attacked first), criticized Bush for a lack of balance in dealing with Israel and others in the area (so Bush was unwilling to be kind with those who send suicide bombers into civilian areas to detonate themselves, unlike Carter), and expressed hope for a recovery for Fidel Castro. He then says that he speaks for most Democrats. If these are the viewpoints of a majority of Democrats, it makes me wonder: Why do Jews continue to support a party that holds little regard for Israel? What is the future of global democracy when a major political party supports dictatorial thugs like Chavez and Castro? What is our hope of ever using diplomacy if those in charge get taken to the cleaners, such as Carter did in North Korea?

Fortunately, these are the topics that voters will be able to weigh before heading to the polls in November. Given the option of voting for a party that chooses to stand strong on national defense, to stand with global allies, and stand for the spread of democracy, I'm confident that they'll choose that over the party in favor of denial, the quixotic quest for diplomacy no matter the situation, and appeasement at all costs. Democrats may not see this, but hopefully it will be a post-election topic for them as they analyze another missed opportunity on Election Day.

An Unfortuate Occurrence on the Way to the Anti-War Left's Victory Party

2006-08-10T23:08:00.000-04:00

It can be amazing how some refuse to learn from history. Just 48 hours after hyperventilating about anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont's primary victory (see my previous post on how overblown), the liberals in this country are faced with a stark reminder of why they continue to wander in minority status. The arrest today of 21 would-be terrorists who had designs on blowing up several flights remind us that we are still at war with Islamic fanaticism. However, the Democrat response has crossed past the line of incoherence. Some are saying that this was a victory of good intelligence and good diplomacy, rendering the Iraq War not only wrong, but a hindrance in the larger War on Terror. Others, such as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), said that the Iraq War has essentially been a waste of time and money that has done nothing but produce more terrorists who engage in such acts. And, once again, both views are wrong, which is why the victory of the left-wing nutroots in Connecticutis really nothing more than a temporary blip in the Democrats descent into permanent minority status.
If we look at the first persective, that we should be focused on diplomacy and intelligence, the left will find themselves short of victory. Yes, diplomacy should always be the first (and hopefully only needed) path to accomplishing victory. However, not everyone in the world responds to diplomacy. Otherwise, we would have had a cessation of nuclear programs in both North Korea and Iran by now. And our intelligence agancies will no doubt continually work to avert threats before they materialize. But how are the Democrats going to show themselves to be the better steward of improved intelligence when they have done nothing but seek to undermine valuable intelligence tools? The Democratic Party has been critical of and tried to eliminate intelligence tools such as the warrantless wiretap program and the SWIFT banking program, to name two. It has been more concerned with bogus torture claims (this is not to say that there has been no torture, merely that the number of actual torture instances is far fewer than those alleged) than whether we are garnering enough information from captured suspects to save American lives. If it is so important to utilize intelligence to thwart potential attacks, thn why does the left always celebrate when its newspaper of record, the New Yrok Times, runs yet another news story that undermines the very intelligence agencies they purport to favor? If this is going to be the Democrats idea of waging the terror war, then it will be a tough November.
The other thought being peddled by the left is that the Iraq War has created these terrorists. This might hold water if we hadn't had two attacks on the World Trade Center (including 9/11), the Khobar Towers, 2 US embassies, and the USS Cole. In short, we have had radical Islamist terrorists around long before the Iraq War, and they have been committing terror acts prior to any US or coalition troops ever set foot in Iraq. The Iraq War is a piece of the larger terror war- albeit a very critical piece. Victory there is necessary. Pulling out of Iraq will only embolden those who would commit such acts (much like the pullout from Somalia did). Besides, this arguement fails to account for pre-war terrorists. Al Qaeda most rapid growth period occurred in the 1990s, a time period when the US did nothing to provoke or confront them. The idea that provocation via Iraq has created these terrorists is really laughable. Sen. Reid should be embarrassed by his comments- of course, he won't ever be made to feel stupid about them. One would have to possess the intellectual capacity to understand the flaw in logic to be embarrassed about such comments.
Neither of these viewpoints reflect a firm grasp or reality nor an understanding of what must be done to win this global conflict. As I've said before, the Republicans haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this past Congress. Domestic spending has resembled a runaway train, and the GOP elected legislators have grown comfortable with the trappings of power. If there was ever a riper group for defeat, I have not seen it. However, the Democrats will continue to stop themselves due to their failure to understand that the need for a strong national defense and aggressive confrontation of terrorism through solid intelligence and, when needed, strong and swift force is paramount to the voters of this nation. Today's arrests remind us all (well, almost all of us) that this will be a long war with defeats that potentially will be very public and victories that we may never know about. The left's head-in-the-sand approach to this issue will only continue to relegate them to minority status in the political realm. And with only one political party truly engaged in defense and security matters, while the other party treats its on memebers who possess stronger views on such matters as pariahs to be cast out, it is the American public that is the ultimate loser. Unfortunately, it also renders us just a little less secure, knowing that one party places electoral politics above our safety.

What the Connecticut Tea Leaves REALLY Say...

2006-08-09T22:00:00.000-04:00

Now that most people have had time to digest the Connecticut primary loss for Sen. Joe Lieberman, it's interesting to see the view that many liberals are taking of Lieberman's loss last night. Liberals like The Nation's John Nichols and Michael Moore seem to think that the defeat of Lieberman is a forerunner of November's elections, and that legislators who are viewed as too close to the President or his Iraq policy are doomed to defeat. To say that this perspective is premature is an understatement.
For starters, this was an intra-party election. This was not open to the general public, so it's impossible to know what the American public in general thinks of either Bush or his Iraq policy based on a single primary result (in fact, while a majority of Americans may not be happy with how the war is progressing, most polls show a majority of Americans rejecting Lamont's and the liberals position on the war). To crow about the pending doom of Bush in November's mid-term elections based on last night's race is just silly.
Secondly, despite what John Nichols and others may think, Connecticut is hardly to be considered a bellwether for the mid-terms. I don't think I have ever heard of the state (about as blue as you can get) considered to be a marker for what the nation at large may be thinking. There appears to be a great deal of giddiness on the left over Lieberman's loss and what this means for legislators who voted for the war. In my opinion, the celebrating should be done by those on the right. For as disappointing as the GOP-controlled Congress has been these last few years, it appears as though the left's descendants of McGovern are poised to keep the Republicans in control of Congress. Talk about a failure to grasp an opportunity- Lieberman was one of the few elected Democrats who can credibly and forcefully speak to what are generally considered to be GOP strengths- national security and defense, Hollywood and family values to name a couple. Instead of embracing this, the left made it a crusade to cast Lieberman aside. They may have cast any hopes of retaking one or both houses of Congress out with him.
There will no doubt be much more made of this, but don't get sucked into the national (and the Democrats') overplaying of this preimary result. While this will be played as a repudiation of Bush (in a state he never came close to carrying, mind you), the President was not on the ballot last night. What was on the ballot was the Democrats choice between a strong national security message and a McGovernite message for the fall elections. Given Connecticut Democrats vote, it seems we'll be seeing more of George in the fall- McGovern, that is, meaning that Bush will have more electoral victories come November.

A Contrast in Styles Behind a Fight for a Party

2006-07-24T17:59:00.000-04:00

While looking at the landscape of Connecticut's Senate politics, I couldn't help but see the stark difference between the state's US Senators and their foreign policy views. On the one hand, you have Sen. Joe Lieberman who is seemingly the last bastion of the old "Scoop" Jackson Democrats (those with a more hawkish view of US foreign policy) and the senior (but crtianly not brighter) Senator, Chris Dodd, who once again took to the airwaves to chastise the Bush Administration for not opening a dialogue with Damascus. The contrast serves as a proxy for the fight currently underway within the Democratic Party. And, a loss by Lieberman and his kin within the party will effectively relegate the Democratic Party into a state of distrust with the voters when the issue of defense and security appears.

Lieberman differs significantly from the other 28 Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq War- he has stood by his vote and defended US action. Sen. Lieberman has made a number of visits to Iraq and spoken honestly about the US' successes and failures there. This has placed him at odds with many within his own party, and has earned him a stiff primary fight. Lieberman has also historically and publicly defended Israel, something few Democratic politicians have done recently- this despite the strong support the party has received from Jewish voters. Given his lonely positions, should Lieberman fail in his Senate re-election bid, there wouldn't be any notable Democrat elected officials who are prone to taking supportive postions on either defense or on Israel.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dodd (again) took to the Sunday airwaves to criticize the Bush Administration's lack of discussions with Syria, joining a media cavalcade as well as the official Syrian government position. It must make Sen. Dodd feel good to be seen echoing the same sentiments as the Syrian government. Syria has been a major state supporter of terrorism in the region and abroad. It repeatedly fails to keep its word. Why would the US government reward such behavior with a visit? Why would we believe that Damascus will keep its word THIS time? Nothing in its history indicates that Syria intends to chart a new course. Syria is believeed to have been involved in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. They have maintained a presence in Lebanon despite the fact that they were to have left the country. Why Sen. Dodd believes that things will work out differently this time around escapes me. The problem is, the netroots and Democratic partisans are more inclined to think like Dodd than they are to see things the way Lieberman does. And if Democratic voters reward this type of thinking with primary wins, it will only encourage other Democrats to adopt such positions. While dialogue and diplomacy certainly have a preferred role in international relations, not every nation responds to such behavior. Syria haas not. Hezbollah and Hamas are not disposed to talks eithr. Should Dodd and the Democrats continue to advocate talks with such nations and such groups, they will only further demonstrate their weakness in the foreign policy and defense arenas. These weaknesses will have very real consequences for their party. If the Democratic Party ever hopes to viewed as leaders again, then it'd better hope for a Lieberman victory in November.

A Dodd-ering foreign policy

2006-07-18T20:30:00.000-04:00

While watching Fox News Sunday, I was a bit perplexed by the comments of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) when he was speaking on the current situation in the Middle East. Dodd accused the current administration of deviating from a diplomatic engagement strategy in the region that supposedly was in place from 1967 to 2000 and was a part of every administration's approach save for the Bush White House. He then proceeded to describe a laundry list of Bush diplomatic "failures", such as a "failure" to deal with North Korea (saying that this was a problem from Bush's first minute on office), the "failure" of the Iraq War, and the "failure" to enforce UN Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and for thr Lebanese Army to guard its border with Israel.

Some thoughts on the Senator's criticisms. First, the Bush administration has been engaged in the Middle East, just not in the manner which Dodd would like. Dodd seems to think that the former way of conducting diplomacy and US foreign policy in the region was a success. If so, then Hezbollah (and Hamas) shouldn't be a problem, since 33 years of engaged diplomacy surely would have solved the problem. Somehow, it hasn't, and perhaps a new way of conducting policy there should have been considered. Second was his critique of Bush and North Korea. In the case of North Korea (and Iran), Bush more accurately could be criticized for reliance on too much diplomacy, by way of allowing the six-party talks to be bogged down by China (and Russia at times) and allowing the EU-3 to take the lead on Iran. Of course, had the Clinton Administraion not been suckered by America's worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter, we may not be dealing with the maniacal despot Kim Jong Il once again. North Korea violated the agreed Framework of 1994 almost from the minute Carter stepped on the plane to leave. And, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright certainly didn't do any favors by going to Pyongyang in 2000 and gushing over Kimi Jong Il.

I'm going to look at criticisms three and four together, since they are related. Dodd referred to Iraq as a "war of choice" while criticizing Bush for failing to enforce UN Resolution 1559. If Dodd were smart enough to reflect back on this, he'd realize the folly of those statements. One of the reasons given by Bush for going to Iraq was Saddam Hussein's ignorance of a dozen UN Resolutions (never mind that the UN is utterly useless and hopelessly incapable of enorcing its own resolutions. That is another topic for another day). Dodd may want to think about this contrast- Bush erred by enforcing the UN Resolutions in Iraq and erred by not enforcing them in Lebanon? Is Dodd advocating the use of force in Lebanon? By saying that it would seem that he's undermined his own position. If going to war in Iraq was wrong, then consistency of thought would dictate that it's wrong in Lebanon. If force is appropriate in Lebanon over one resolution, then certainly it's called for when twelve are violated.

Dodd's position (and likely the Democrat position) is merely to blame Bush no matter the outcome, given that this is how the Democrats have operated since Bush entered the White House. Mind you, Dodd and the othr Democrats were complaining about Bush labeling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the "Axis of Evil", citing the "success" of diplomacy and sanctions with those three. Listening to Dodd speak made me think that this is a debate that the White House and the GOP in general would love to have. There was no consistent logic in any of Dodd's statements, just partisan snipings over perceived failures, never mind Dodd offerring any solutions to these issues. The only thing Dodd offerred that came close to resembling a solution was to call for more diplomacy. The problem is, the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran don't respond to diplomacy. Diplomacy works when tow civilized sides engage in discussion with intent on honoring their word. People like Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il have no intention of honoring any agreements that does not give them everything they want. And, in the case of Nasrallah, Assad, Ahmadinejad, and the thugs at Hamas, that includes the destruction of Israel. I would pay to see Sen. Dodd try and negotiate with this group. Something tells me he would end up with the same worthless scrap of paper that Jimmy Carter left with in 1994. In the meantime, this anti-Bush animus festering not only in the left-wing nuthouse of the Democratic Party but also rearing itself in elected Democrats will only continue to create an environment where the GOP can handily win foreign policy debates while painting Democrats as weak on security and defense. And that will keep the Democrats from ever retaking either house of Congress, never mind the White House. If the Democrats ever hope to win, they will need less of Senator Dodd and his kind.

Elections, Leftist-style

2006-07-15T14:03:00.000-04:00

While perusing Artvoice, a free weekly here in the Buffalo area, I noticed a pair of intersting entries on lections. The first was a letter concerning the recent Mexican elections, and the second was a column by Michael Niman, the resident know-nothing on global politics.
The letter writer claims there to have been massive fraud in an effort to deny leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador a victory out of the 41 million votes cast. This despite the blessing of virtually every observer as to the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. Of course, no leftist screed on election fraud would be complete without a tie-in to the US elections of 2000 and 2004, despite the paucity of any evidence to support such a claim. Suffice it to say that the letter writer knows little about the Mexican election and less about the US contests. Citing RFK Jr. as a source (Kennedy pointed to the 2 PM exit polls as one of his main sources for fraud. This is about as accurate as saying the halftime score of a football game indicates who the final winner will be.). The writer is celebrating Obrador's threats to hold rallies until the results of the election are overturned. The Mexicans held a vote and recounted that vote. Both times, Obrador lost. Since there have been no credible reports of fraud (one Obrador video that alleged fraud turned out to have backfired on the candidate, as the poll worker in question was sorting ballots for the proper elections).
The Niman column is even more ridiculous. Niman has developed a habit of supporting a leftist dictator who "won" an election that was riddled with fraud. The European Union pulled its observers out when they were told that they would be unable to oversee ballot counting. Of course Jimmy Carter, who is determined to be as bad an ex-president as he was while in the White House, quickly certified the election (without checking the tally sheets against the machine counts)and caught the next flight home. Niman tries to argue its elections are cleaner than ours (they're not). He also tries to say that Venezuela is a truer democracy that the US (not even worth a rebuttal- the idiocy of the comment says it all). We are talking about someone (Chavez) who hasa seized control of the media, the courts, and the legislature. He spreads around Venezuelan oil to enrich himself while Venezuelans live in poverty. There is no dissent. One rally held to protest the outcome of the laast election resulted in the military being ordered to open fire on the crowd, killing one. Typically, Niman tries to tie this into oil, claiming that President Bush is trying to enrich oil buddies and prop up the Saudis while holding down "democratic" Venezuela.
Why is it that lefties always claim to be for democracy except when authoritarianism benefits their like-minded friends? It is a ludicrous claim to say that Venezuela is a fre or prosperous country. The Heritage Foundation routinely lists it as one of the most economically repressed countries in the world, grouped with the likes of North Korea and Zimbabwe. And why is it that leftists can never accept that their positions have been defeated at the ballot box? There is always some sort of fraud or deception involved, because heaven forbid their ideas be rejected by the populace (oops, made a religious reference. Can't make the leftists happy there). Never mind that there is never any real proof, just a list of shaky allegations. I can never be too happy that I don't live in a country where these types area actually in a position of decision-making authority.

14:59 and counting...

2006-07-13T20:10:00.000-04:00

Valerie Plame must be kidding with the lawsuit she has filed against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and 10 other unnamed administration officials. She is claiming that the defndants conspired to "destroy her career". She also alleges that the disclosure of her CIA identity placed her and her family's lives in danger, which may represent the first time a desk jockey's life has been at risk. She futher claims her free speech and equal protection rights hav been violated. Let's review- Plame has her husband, Joe Wilson, (a man with absolutely no knowledge of WMD's or of the part of the world in question) sent to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African nation. Wilson files a report with the CIA that the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously finds to have heightened concerns over Hussein's activities. He then goes on to publish an op-ed in the New York Times in July 2003 to "debunk" the claim- somehow managing to skirt the confidentiality agreement usually associated with such missons. Wilson has since beenthoroughly discredited on the matter, and it should be asked how a man with no discernable qualifications for such a trip was sent in the first place. Enter Valerie Plame. Plame made herself part of the story by recommending her husband for the trip. She has enjoyed the celebrity that the Left has bestowed on her by being a bogus victim- that her identity was somehow a matter of national security (it wasn't) . She wasn't covered by the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982, so her identity wasn't classified. When her husband published his column, it was natural to wonder how he had arrived at that position. As for the Administration, it was perfectly legal for them to ask the same questions and to reveal the answers. Finally, considering she still works for the CIA, I fail to see how the revelation has harmed her career. And given she's been making the rounds in D.C. with Mr. Valerie Plame for all to see, I would gather her safety isn't much of a concern, either. This is not much more than her and her husband realizing the clock is about to toll on their 15 minutes of fame, the Fitzmas they'd waited for never arrived, and now this is the last card in their hand to play. The lawsuit likely won't go anywhere, and hopefully these two will fade back into obscurity.

Pelosi's Economic Folly

2006-07-13T17:13:00.000-04:00

House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently sat down with the Wall Street Journal to discuss the Democrats' economic agenda for the midterm election, and she shows (once again) a lack of understanding when it comes to economic basics. Ms. Pelosi has stated that the Democrats plan on campaigning for a minimum wage increase, a "rollback" (read: tax increases) of the Bush tax cuts, and higher royalties from oil companies. Each of these has a negative impact on both the taxpayer and the economy, and all three could be devastating to the economy.
First, the whole push for a minimum wage increase is really a blow to lower-wage earners and a sop to unions. We have seen a reduction in the number of jobs available to lower-wage earners every time the minimum wage is raised. This is due to the fact that employers have a price they are willing to pay. Companies do not exist merely as job-creators. They are in business to earn a profit. Raising their cost of labor will only lead them to reduce the number of people they employ. Further, they will seek a higher-skilled employee at the higher cost, shutting out people looking for entry level work. People will little skill or low education levels will be shut out of the job market. We should also be aware of who this affects most- younger workers (teens and college-age students). According to both the Census Bureau as well as the Labor Department, well over 80% of minimum wage earners are working in jobs that supplement household income. In other words, a minimum wage earner is more likely to be a teenager looking for spending cash and not supporting a household. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, more minimum wage earners live in households with an income of $80,000 or more than those living in households at or below the poverty level (this would also refute that famed economic guru Molly Ivins and her column in today's Chicago Tribune, where she cites Mother Jones magazine as if it were a respected economic journal and not a publication of the far-left. She utterly failed to look at who was working these jobs.). The unions score here bcause many union contracts havepay scales that dictate that various positions receive wages above minimum wage. For example, a contract may state that a worker at x pay level must receive an hourly rate of y dollars above minimum wage. This also works to price out the worker that the Democrats purport to care about. It also sticks it to the taxpayer when this type of contract is in effect for public employee unions. All in all, a job-killer for those most in need of work.
The next provison is easy- the "rollback" of the tax cuts. Ms. Pelosi, simply put, wants to raise taxes. This in the face of the rising tax revenues at both the federal and state levels since the tax cuts have been in place. Every 20 years or so we need to re-learn the lesson that lower tax rates bring in more revenue- in short, tax collection is a volume business. This idea becomes laughable given the pile of evidence showing how fast tax revenues are rising in Washington and in state capitals. She rationalizes this by calling the deficit (which has been shrinking) as "... the biggest drain... on the next generation". And here I was foolishly worrying about the spiraling costs associated with entitlements such as Social Security (where she helped block reform) and Medicaid/Medicare. I would like to see Democrats run on tax increases (a la Walter Mondale)- election night will be interesting.
The last idea is also a bad one- the idea of higher royalties from oil companies. First, who does Ms. Pelosi think will pay these costs? Companies will shift these costs into the price at the pump. So, we will all pay for this bad idea. Secondly, the concept of extracting more money from oil companies will retard the exploration for more oil. If it becomes more costly to seek oil, if the reward for the risk is diminished, then fewer companies will take that risk. Oil exploration is not an easy business, nor is it inexpensive. Ms. Pelosi's idea will only drive the cost of gas upward, since it will add on cost as well as decrease supply.
The Democrats have already shown incoherence in the area of foreign policy (witness the divergent opinions being voiced on Iraq, all lacking any ideas for the future save for withdrawl). The GOP will have little trouble characterizing them as cut-and-run in Iraq and tax-raising job killers at home. If the Democrats put this economic plan in tandem with their foreign policy, then Election Night will promise to be a painful evening. A very enlightening interview by Ms. Pelosi, indeed.