The 2/24 NY Times Poll

The polls show that Obama enjoys roughly a 63% favorable rating, which he is quickly looking to leverage to maximum political advantage. Hence, the rapidfire succession this week of his first Congressional address, his plan for financing the national debt, and the new proposed Obama budget. It is clear, from the financial markets, a salient constituency, that they are finding no confidence in what Obama has to say; the markets seem to anticipate recovery by six months or so (as bottomfishers drive up stock volumes). It was another volatile week on Wall Street, as the bear market again found its way to a multi-year low.

However, I'm particularly focused on two points. First, Obama's support is based more on his personal appeal than his fleshed-out liberal policies and initiatives. For example, support for the recently enacted "stimulus" plan barely has majority support, with nearly two-thirds of respondents expressing elevated concern for the escalating national debt. The public is also lukewarm about initiatives to bail out certain politically-favored industries (in particular, banks and automakers). I do not believe, however, the American public, still a center-right nation, has quite grasped with Obama is trying to do here, which is to use this economic crisis as a Trojan horse to rationalize the largest government expansion since the mid-60's.

The second thing, however, is that the Republicans are losing the public relations battle with Obama in terms of bipartisan efforts. Obama has been successful in convincing many gullible Americans that symbolic acts like nominating three Republicans to his cabinet (one, the senior New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg, whom withdrew over the stimulus bill with which he philosophically disagreed,  the incumbent Defense Department Secretary whom even Majority Leader Reid did not consider a Republican but an independent, and the third, the Transportation Secretary, whom is an Illinois Republican Obama rebuked after LaHood suggested an alternative per-mile tax) and well-publicized informal gatherings to which GOP members, including Senator McCain, his general election opponent, or certain conservative press members were invited. 

Does the public really believe that a so-called stimulus bill that Obama argued was needed, even before its details were fleshed out, was passed without full debate (in fact, even a reading before the Congress), contradicting Obama's repeated goal of transparency, an escalation of non-stimulative federal spending which even Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer termed "porky" (arguing that the American people don't really care) and Senator McCain, a bipartisan leader, looking to broker a compromise, found the Democrats unwilling to deal, feeling they had the vote count to push out a bill reflecting their fiscal priorities? Since when does peeling off the votes of the three most liberal Republicans in the Senate (Specter, Snowe, and Collins), the only three GOP votes in the entire Congress, constitute bipartisan compromise? How is this comparable to Reagan's having to work with a Democratic Speaker of the House to pass his tax cuts?

Everything with Obama is a gimmick. It's like listening to a songwriter whom accidentally writes a hit song and then tries to make a formula out of it. Make straw men out of Bush, McCain and the GOP majority since 1994 through 2006, allegedly greedy bankers,  the "unregulated"  financial services sector, and corporate law-writing lobbyists; then, with a straight face and full of hubris, proclaim that the very same party and goverment bureaucrats (whose state and local leadership in Louisiana failed to evacuate New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina approached, which stonewalled power plant development in California during the 1990's, leading to brownouts over the turn of the century, which has thrown massive amounts of money at urban public schools, resulting in no improvement in an attrition rate of 50% or more from high school graduation and other criteria (far greater than those for private and charter schools)--can somehow figure out and manage the economics of energy and health care better than industry leaders and veterans, whom have to carefully navigate through a constantly changing minefield of market-distorting government obstacles, regulations, reporting requirements and taxation. He solemnly pontificates his vision of energy independence, self-righteously promoting green technologies, largely dependent on federal subsidies and technological breakthroughs (e.g., storage capacity), while ignoring prior examples of escalated but ineffectively used public funds for the war on cancer and embryonic stem cell research (while pointedly ignoring America's own rich sources of oil, coal, and gas, which would immediately affect offset costly imports with today's technology and yield well-paying American jobs).

The very same Obama who, like all Democrats, seems to think that Bill Clinton stumbled across the holy grail of taxing the super-rich at 39.6% in achieving a prosperous 1990's and a balanced federal budget (never mind the fact that the Republicans were mostly responsible for derailing the Clinton attempt to nationalize health care and played bad cop to Clinton's spending initiatives during the last 6 years of his Presidency when the GOP controlled the House, and an easy Fed Reserve monetary policy propped up a superheated Nasdaq and its related capital gains taxes) and thinks INCREASING taxes on job creators (e.g., small business owners ) and raising investment taxes (in addition to maintaining an uncompetitive top business tax bracket) will result in higher growth and more, higher-paying jobs. The fact is that the 90's boom occurred despite counterproductive Clintonian economic policies, seeded by years of business investment under pro-growth policies of the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations and benefiting from the peace dividend.

And so the Wizard of Obamia, the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism, pontificates his radical social democratic agenda, instructing the American people to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", the inexperienced leader with no executive experience and 4 years in the Senate (much of which was spent running for the White House).

How do the Republicans and other conservatives deal with the fact that almost 70% of the American people think that their substantive criticisms are little more than political grandstanding or obstructionist in nature?

First, I think the Republicans need to demonstrate good faith in working with the President. This includes initiating and continuing high-profile meetings and appearances with the President. I think the Republicans should not respond to Obama's subtle partisan rhetoric, because it's a thing that only a few charismatically gifted politicians, like Reagan and Obama, can pull off. I think they should also find an agenda in common with Obama's own priorities. In that regard, I strongly suggest that Republicans look at areas of joint interest, evident through Obama's Senate agenda and Presidential run: e.g., immigration and ethics reform, budget and other legislative transparency, and charter and other school alternatives to failing public schools. I would suggest, in terms of the latter point, that federal aid to public schools be tied specifically to local/state commitment to choice of educational opportunity.

Second, I would like to see the Republicans coalesce around a positive, more efficient alternative to Democratic moves (especially towards a larger government footprint on health care, the auto industry, and banking). For example, we could focus on catastrophic health care, mandatory coverage requirements (like auto insurance), deductibles (to encourage cost savings behavior by patients) and guaranteed coverage through reinsured state risk pools.

Finally, I think (and the media conservatives will disagree with me) that the Republicans need to freshen up their messages and positions. I think that some of the more ideological stands are not good ones for winning over voters: I'm referring to things like the estate tax or getting involved in defense of things like torture policy and warrantless wiretaps. If the Republicans craft their message to appeal only to the top 10 percent whom pay the most tax revenue, the Democrats will take that any day. Lowering taxes is easy for voters to understand; it's less clear how government regulation affects goods and services, e.g., marketing insurance policies across states because of mandated coverages. I see mandates as the equivalent to state trade protectionism, and I would like to see increased competition between states by lowering relevant barriers and improved access of public information for consumers, e.g., prescription prices, health outcome statistics, etc.

Obama's First Presidential Press Conference: A Review

Initial Remarks. "...we need to put this recovery plan in motion as soon as possible." WRONG!

First of all, it assumes that government spending is the solution. In fact, last year's stimulus checks were mostly saved, not spent; I believe if anything there's been an overdependence on the American consumer to spend beyond his means, and it looks like Obama is trying to bolster exactly "more of the same" misguided focus on getting a tapped-out American consumer to spend (vs. others, including business spending and investment). It assumes that all increased social spending is equally stimulative and better at generating jobs than decreasing business and investment taxes, eliminating bureaucratic red tape and government barriers to new business formation (e.g., onerous reporting requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley). 

I have no problem with increased relief spending in a tough economic environment, but Obama, I think, puts the cart before the horse: government spending is a more scattershot approach to creating jobs: maybe you sell a few more widgets, but you may not expand hiring if you think the boost temporary in nature. 

Second, it assumes the plan has been efficiently designed. As a matter of fact, Obama was pitching a plan that spent almost $800B, most of which would be spent not in this fiscal year--but AFTER the fiscal year, and hence not related to any short-term stimulus, but Democratic spending priorities.  What other conclusion can you make of Obama's promise of transparency when he and the Democratic-controlled Congress pushed through a huge bill in less than a month from the get-go, with nobody quite sure of the details, the Democrats refusing to let the bill get read? This is the antithesis of transparency. It's like a sleazy used car dealer saying that the most important thing is seeing you behind the wheel of that creampuff, but it won't last long at this price. (Have your own car mechanic check it out? No need.) "Haste makes waste." 

Third, Obama makes a tacit assumption that I don't accept: that government action is better than inaction. Pro sports is full of stories of athletes coming back from injury too soon and actually worsening their condition. We haven't let the market find a bottom, and it's very possible, if not likely, Obama's actions will be counterproductive and prolong the recession.

Finally, Obama has been talking down the economy; I personally believe he is purposefully doing that to garner political support for massive social spending. The tragedy of this is that his talking down the economy is becoming a self-fulfilling policy as companies engage in a bandwagon effect shedding workers. 

"...there's no such thing as a free lunch..." Unless you're part of the 40% which pays no federal income tax but gets an Obama "tax cut"....

Questioner Julianna Goldman (question regarding sufficiency of remaining TARP funds).

"I don't want to preempt my Secretary of the Treasury; he's going to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow. " This is yet another classic Obama example of raising false expectations. Not only did Tim Geithner fail to provide "great deal", but the consensus on Wall Street was its lack of specificity, and the market tanked as a result.

Questioner Jake (question regarding metrics for success of his program)

Here Obama actually does a good job succinctly summarizing his criteria: first and foremost, stemming job losses and growing jobs; second, more bank lending; third, a stabilized housing market. One criticism I have is that his initial specification of hitting 4M new jobs is more of a long-term goal and won't happen over the coming year; Jake's question was directed more at an interim assessment allowing feedback to modify course if necessary. Second, a much clearer goal is ending the recession. Jobs follow growth. Growth goes beyond people spending and investing. Growth happens in a more stable environment, and Obama has been destabilizing the market with alarmist rhetoric; for someone focusing on job growth, he's looking more at "trickle down" consumer spending and totally ignoring business and investment taxes and related costs (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley). What he needs to do is to minimize the negative talk--lay off threats to increase the taxes of job creators, eliminate bureaucratic barriers to new business entry, make modest reforms (e.g., mark-to-market, versus the status quo which artificially understates the value of assets by assuming fire sale pricing of assets). It would also be helpful for him to ensure that Americans at least hold the line or reduce the net import of imported energy by developing all American sources of energy, including fossil fuels. Boutique energy solutions (like solar and wind) survive only because of lucrative government subsidies. Obama assumes that the American people are too stupid to realize that the same American free enterprise system which unleashed many marvelous medicial treatments and prescriptions and technology products and services has irrationally refused to address the potential profitability of green energy technology, but an inexperienced President knows the market than veteran researchers. At the same time, he could immediately increase jobs in the development and production of fossil fuels, with known, proven, profitable technology--but he refuses, wanting to pick and choose unprofitable, government-subsidized green energy, strictly for ideological reasons. "Cap and trade", massive green energy subsidies, and costly regulations and reporting requirements will sharply increase the energy bills of ordinary Americans, a cruel hoax while Obama is at the same time promising to give 95% of working Americans tax "cuts".

Ed Henry, CNN, trying to pin a withdrawal schedule from Afghanistan:

Obama did a fairly good job fending off strident liberal questions focusing on using US casualties from the Middle East for anti-war propaganda and demanding a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, an interesting turning of the tables on Obama. My principal concern here was Obama's thinly-veiled cheap shots at the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which I thought were not helpful and in sharp contrast to the spirit of international relations expressed during the Presidential campaign.

Sam Stein, Huffington Post, on Senator Leahy's witchhunt of the Bush Administration

While Obama clearly leaves the door open for prosecution if the evidence is found, noting noone is above the law, he clearly realizes that it could be counterproductive, exasperate the bitter partisan wrangling which repudiates his own "post-partisan" vision, and serves as a distraction from his own agenda for the Democrats to launch politically motivated inquisitions. On the other hand, he clearly once again uses George W. Bush as a whipping boy, saying under Obama, "we do not torture" and "we abide by the Geneva Conventions". He's really making value judgments regarding terrorist suspects in custody, whom are not party to any convention. He's also making a thinly-veiled inference of treating all terrorist suspects, including those in a position to know planned operations against innocent civilians, under rules of warfare applied to captured enemy combatants.

Mara Liasson, noting it's easy for politicians to spend money and cut taxes, but noting how the GOP was not party to the stimulus bill, asks about how he intended to proceed wih tougher issues requiring GOP support:

This is a good question that focuses on the part that Obama did not present his own plan and then hold the line on the Democratic Congress' successful attempt to pump up non-stimulative spending. Obama is defensive and nonresponsive here. He's suggesting that that in essence the Democrats made huge concessions to the GOP for which he's not being given credit. [I suspect he's really referring to here Republican Grassley's attempt to address the alternative minimum tax reform; the alternate minimum tax was established to ensure higher-income taxpayers, after various deductions, tax-advantaged income, and the like, paid their fair share--but because of tax bracket creep, was catching some middle-class Americans.] Does Obama really expect, after campaigning for a tax "cut" for 95% of American workers, that a long-overdue measure meant to address a middle-class concern is a quid pro quo for hundreds of billions in Democratic spending priorities? Obama's untruthful, polemical response to questions on his so-called bipartisanship whereby the Democrats under Pelosi and Reid in Congress systematically excluded the GOP from any substantive role in drafting legislation is to say if he had any regrets, it was because he didn't get any GOP votes for his "concession" and if he had do it all over again, he would have held out AMT reform as a bargain chip for more GOP votes.

I find it truly remarkable that voters and commentators have paid little attention to what he said, because it reveals more of the real Obama. Either he believes in middle-class tax fairness or he doesn't. But by arguing AMT reform was a GOP priority, he's tacitly admitting it wasn't his. If it was his, why would he be arguing about using it as a bargaining chip? It would have been part and parcel of the legislation from the get-go.

Obama seems to think it's enough to have a few photo-op opportunities and high-profile meetings with Republicans, and then go out and do exactly what he was going to do anyway, disingenuously implying his lip service to bipartisanship was substantive. But then Obama makes his real feelings crystal clear:

Again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Accusing the Republicans of being hypocrites for criticizing a bloated bill that is being misleadingly portrayed as primarily a short-term stimulus bill is sheer chutzpah. (Maybe that's the real "audacity" of so-called hope.)  But while Obama scapegoats government spending in the aftermath of the Nasdaq meltdown, 9/11, financial scandals, and an ongoing war, he conveniently forgets to mention that the only Congress over the past 40 years to balance the federal budget was a Republican one. Many conservatives, including myself, are angry with Bush and the GOP leadership for their complacency during the national debt run-up. 

But Obama's polemical talk goes beyond  public spending:

There have been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said no matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let's just blow up the public school systems.

This is yet another example of Obama tiresome, intellectually lazy habit of using straw man arguments.  The Republican opposition to failing urban public schools is more nuanced; there's an effective monopoly and no competition. Teacher unions oppose changes to work rules, market-based salary differentiation (e.g., more pay to math and science teachers) and merit pay, and protect ineffective teachers. As Newt Gingrich noted in Real Change , the Detroit school system has proven ineffective, despite massive government spending. Whereas Obama in this press conference did touch on things like charter schools and firing bad teachers, they don't have the backing of Democratic Congressional leadership.

I hear people just saying, oh, we don't need to do anything, this is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill -- without acknowledging that by definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending.

It is true that some conservatives think that the WRONG type of spending could actually be counterproductive and drag on the recession; in addition, we feel tax cuts (including business and investment) and faster writeoffs would be immediately stimulative. Obama is relying on primarily one aspect of growth, consumer spending, which, if anything, is overextended and tapped out at the expense of savings and investment.

Final Comments. Obama has had a penchant for long-winded responses, particularly early on during the campaign for the Democratic nomination. This performance lent credence to that reputation. Some of the questions were variations on others, and a few questions (e.g., steroid use in major league baseball) seemed to be of questionable priority given current economic challenges.

I don't think the journalists did a good job on following up on Obama's weak, general responses to their questions. I think Obama cherry picked the journalists, and I really didn't learn anything new that I didn't already know from listening to Obama. What did disappoint me were the cheap shots at Bush and the GOP in Congress. It's about time Obama starts acting on his promises of bipartisan negotiations and stops trying to compare himself with George W. Bush.

Miscellany: 2/23/09

Schwarzenegger Eager to Take Federal Funds. Over the Sunday talk shows, multiple Republican governors (Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina) announced they weren't interested in Obama-style stealth government fiscal expansionism, not unlike a drug dealer giving free samples, hoping to hook permanent customers willing to pay any price for their next hit or Lay's Potato Chips famous "betcha can't eat just one" tagline. Obama's promise of just a "temporary" increase in relief programs is intentionally misleading. Democrats are not known for their willingness to cut or rollback taxes and spending.

Governor Arnold, you once valiantly fought for reform propositions, defeated by special interests. Lately, it's been difficult to say where you stand from a conservative standpoint. California continued to live beyond its means during your tenure, gambling that corporate taxes and investment income and gains would continue to rise. The time to worry about a $42B deficit is before you find yourself in a nasty recession. Welcoming an opportunity for your state to suck even harder at the federal teat instead of taking full responsibility for the state's own lack of discipline in spending is abandoning any pretense of fiscal conservatism.

Volunteering to take federal money other GOP governors turn down because of the federal strings attached? Transferring the results of chronic Democratic-sponsored California overspending onto the backs of American children and grandchildren is nothing to be proud about, Governor. 

Sean Penn Winning "Best Actor" Oscar. I do not underestimate Sean Penn's considerable talent and versatility on a movie set. But let's get real: The real motive behind his victory playing the role of a gay rights pioneer has to do with the political correctness of the movie's cause. This has all to do with virulent liberal reaction to the passage of Proposition 8, which restored the traditional definition of marriage to the California constitution after the 2000 amendment was reversed by activist judicial fiat, despite the existence of a comparable domestic partnership law, protecting legal rights of gay partners.  You would have thought that the heavy saturation of constant propaganda from the Hollywood liberal elite portraying gays in a sympathetic light (e.g., the long-running sitcom "Will and Grace" and highly-rated cable series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", prominent gay roles on several Disney-owned ABC-TV shows (e.g., "Brothers & Sisters", "Grey's Anatomy", and "Desperate Housewives"), movies (i.e., "Brokeback Mountain"), and veteran TV hosts (Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell)) that Hollywood would be saying by now "been there, done that", never mention the repetitious grotesque caricature of traditional value Americans as bigoted simpletons. Those same self-righteous liberals who demand tolerance failed to practice the same when they personally attacked pastor Rick Warren, whom respectfully disagrees with them.

By all accounts, Mickey Rourke's compelling performance as a washed-up pro wrestler with serious health issues, trying to reconcile with his estranged daughter, coming out of retirement at risk of his life to challenge his nemesis in the ring one last time, was the heavy favorite, winning every major award (including the Golden Globe), leading up to the Oscars. Normally Hollywood loves and rewards these concepts and performances.

If there's anything worse than Sean Penn, the moral icon best known for his felony domestic assault charge with regards to his first wife, pop singer Madonna, robbing Mickey Rouke of the Best Actor Oscar, it's having to listen to his boorish liberal rants, calling traditional values people "shameful" and being "very, very proud" to live in a country "willing to elect an elegant man President". His lionizing Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and the leadership in Iran tells you everything you need to know about his priorities. Sean should stick to doing what he does best--reading lines written by other people and interpreting fictional characters; he does a far less compelling job representing himself and his fringe politics.

Miscellany: 2/22/09

Roland Burris: The Continuing Drama. This reminds me of the unconscionable witchhunt that U.S. Attorney Fitzpatrick conducted of the White House knowing from the get-go the source of the Plame leak was Richard Armitage, finally prosecuting Cheney Chief of Staff Libby over his testimony on when he learned of the Plame revelation and from whom. It's not clear that Libby was guilty of anything more than a faulty memory; he certainly wasn't attempting to impede the investigation or to protect Armitage. So now we have the case of what Roland Burris said to Blago's brother and when regarding fundraising efforts for the governor's reelection campaign. I have no doubt that Blagojevich aggressively hit up all well-connected, prominent Illinois Democrats in his perpetual fundraising efforts. As in the Libby case, it seems to be a question based more on legal technicalities than substance. What I find particularly notable is that Fitzpatrick himself, coincidentally prosecuting Blago, has not made any "pay-for-play" charge on the Burris nomination itself. In fact, Burris wasn't even Blago's initial pick (Congressman Danny Davis turned the nomination down) but as the first person of color to hold statewide office, he was an obvious candidate to succeed Obama.

It's a shame that the Democratic-controlled Illinois legislature had passed on an opportunity to mandate a special election, no doubt fearing that a voter backlash against the former governor's corruption charges could propel a Republican to the seat. It appears, though, as if Burris is beginning to buckle under the ongoing political pressure, as new Illinois Governor Quinn is calling on him to resign and the Senate Democrats and the President are distancing themselves. The Illinois GOP, having suffered heavy casualties in the aftermath of the George Ryan scandal, understandably want to hold Burris' feet to the fire. Personally, I disagree with Roland Burris' liberal views, but I consider him a legitimate and honorable successor to Barack Obama in the Senate. Roland Burris has established his own record and viewpoints and should be judged on his Senate performance. I find it unseemly that his public service career should come to an end as a scapegoat for Blagojevich's sins; there was no quid pro quo. Illinois has serious funding issues and other problems; it's time that the political parties let go of this obsession with Blago. I suspect Burris realizes that his reelection to the Senate next year would be an uphill battle

Obama's Home Mortgage "Solution"

Obama has this irritating tendency to pay lip service to what he regards as the principal opposing arguments to proposed legislation and then argue that these objections really aren't applicable.  The devil is in the details, and once again, you have to pay attention not to what Obama says but what he does.

There are multiple ways to evaluate the proposed legislation, but let me provide some relevant context. Obama wants you to think that none of this money is going to be used to shore up irresponsible homeowners whom bought houses too big for their budget, with gimmick interest terms that assumed historically low rates would continue (but would reset if they rose) and that housing prices in a bubble would hold indefinitely.

The point is that the Democrats are partially responsible for mess because there was political pressure for lenders to underwrite loans to lower-income households without a conventional 20% down payment. The end result was more competition on the housing market, pushing up prices. It was like a game of musical chairs where all the players were confident they would cash out before the bubble burst. There is no doubt that lenders were irresponsible when they didn't even verify income, and no doubt some brokers wanted to cash out for short-term profits, not worried about loan defaults down the line.

The Wall Street Journal printed an opinion last Wednesday entitled "The Dukes of Moral Hazard". The gist of the article is that the federal government under Obama's plan  is planning to subsidize certain homebuyers whom bought into the peak of the housing market, while today's renters, whom responsibly saved during the bubble towards the conventional down payment, won't see a penny. Second, the Journal argues that a significant percentage of homeowners eligible to receive assistance will default anyway, essentially throwing good taxpayer money after bad. Third, the Journal suggests that Obama and his cronies are intentionally downplaying the legislation's long-term costs. The basic argument is that Obama is simply postponing the day of reckoning and should let the market find its way to the bottom and stabilize. That, of course, means foreclosures.

The usual suspects came out on the Sunday morning talk shows, implicitly threatening existing homeowners they should support the legislation, because foreclosures in their neighborhoods will have an adverse effect on their own equity.  Of course, at the same time they're arguing they aren't going to temporarily rescue homebuyers whom lied about their sources of income, etc.; let's get this straight: foreclosures are foreclosures. Whatever the good faith intentions of the homebuyer, you are still going to get a negative impact; as a neighboring homeowner, I was not party to the mortgage contract. If you are a homeowner in good faith, you should not be unduly influenced by occasional market corrections during the life of, say, a 30-year loan. These scare tactics are morally reprehensible. I'm getting sick and tired of Obamaians trying to manipulate voters by talking down the economy or the housing market and trying to impede full and honest debate of ill-considered, immature legislation, like the recent "stimulus" bill which places the burden of government politically popular socialistic giveaways on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is critical that the Congress quash this poorly-conceived initiative which de facto calls for American families paying off their mortgages responsibly or renters saving towards their down payment to subsidize the mortgages of their less responsible neighbors.

Say 'No' to Cramdowns

You would think that Obama should be able to read the writing on the stock market scoreboard: Every time he opens his mouth, the market seems to have an allergic reaction. For example, during his first press conference Obama unduly hyped and raised false expectations regarding the following day's presentation of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.  The market did not perceive the Geithner plan as adequately fleshed out and quickly tanked. If that wasn't bad enough, the rumors about nationalizing banks and enabling cramdowns on mortgages are decimating stocks in the financial services sector, with bellwether Citibank's stock reduced to a penny stock (under  $2 a share).

Bankruptcy judges will assure you that they are up to the task of converting paper losses on mortgages into real ones for banks, wiping out their capital. They will tell you that they are doing this for the benefit of the banks (bless the judges' hearts!) because now the banks won't have to go through the out-of-pocket costs associated with eviction. After all, judges already can cramdown other types of  loans (e.g., auto): why should home mortgages be any different?

Well, how about this, judges? What about the principle that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game when lenders priced in a rate not taking into account the risk of cramdowns? What do you think the fact of cramdowns is going to mean to prospective homeowners in the markets? What about moral hazards? If my neighbor acted irresponsibly and got rewarded with a writedown of his housing principal, why am I the sucker paying off a mortgage living up to my terms of the mortgage loan despite suffering similar paper losses on my equity position?

I'm sick and tired of Obama cherrypicking his targets. Many, if not most of us, suffered massive corrections in our investment accounts last year; there's a current news story about a 90-year-old man being forced back to work at $10/hour because of investment Ponzi schemes (Madoff et al.); and many former Enron employees lost their retirement savings. We all realize that the market doesn't always go up and there is a risk of loss. None of these things involved factors within our control. But judges want the power to write down mortgages, knowing that all homeowners are aware that property values can fluctuate during the term of the loan.

Let me make it clear that I am sympathetic to the fact that families whom can't pay their mortgages face a very real problem of eviction, and I don't wish that on anyone. What I think we should look at is more flexible means of refinancing loans (e.g., extending the term of the loan) and if cramdowns do occur, the homeowner should not profit from any future sale up to the amount of the cramdown.

Obama's Rebuke of LaHood's Proposal for Per-Mile Gas Tax

Former GOP Congressman and current Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, looking for a long-term plan for meeting infrastructure operational costs (i.e., highways, bridges, etc.), has suggested moving towards a per-mile gas tax. LaHood's idea is hardly a new one, but that doesn't detract from its legitimacy. The basic question is the inherent fairness of taxes; is it fair for people with higher-mileage vehicles to be subsidized per mile by people owning older or less efficient autos? The fact is that hybrid/electric vehicles are unaffordable for many lower-income people, and there isn't enough production supply. How do we allocate the costs of infrastructure that owners of electric cars are also using but not contributing to because they are not consuming? This is all in step with Obama's notion of "spreading the wealth around": if you can give people who don't pay taxes a tax "rebate", why aren't owners of politically-correct vehicles entitled to have "the other guy" pay their own fair share of infrastructure operational costs? It's unconscionable, just like taxing tobacco users for some general purpose government program. It creates a perverse situation where you are dependent on people continuing to engage in unhealthy habits. Similarly, the continuing move towards more mileage-efficient vehicles simply postpones the day of reckoning when there aren't enough drivers of less-efficient vehicles to fully fund the costs of maintaining infrastructure. 

The radical environmentalists, of course, oppose the concept of passing along operational costs on a more equitable basis because they fear that people who pay full list price (or above) for more fuel-efficient vehicles will be turned off by losing their tax break of maybe pennies a gallon when they fill up. Never mind the fact that the savings they receive from lower pretax fuel costs more than cover the amount of taxes they would pay under a more equitable arrangement. 

Obama, of course, is tolerant of no dissent in furthering his heavily-subsidized green energy agenda, which he disingenuously portrays as being a source of economic and job growth--including doing away with a modest tax subsidy at the expense of owners of lower-mileage or older vehicles.

Daydreaming Being President

I suspect any American child grows up wondering what it would be like to be President and what he or she would do as President. We, of course, don't think about dealing with thorny economics issues and rogue nations,  or the real world of making national laws, which some would compare to the infamous practice of sausage making featured in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. We think in terms of symbols and ideals, e.g., eliminating poverty and peace in the world. 

There are several distinctly American archetypes, among them the frontier, the Horatio Alger ideal of the self-made success story from humble origins, and a diverse nation built by immigrants and their descendants. In particular, I was inspired by Emma Lazarus' immortal lines from "The New Colossus":

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I knew early on that I was different: my parents also spoke French, and we sometimes ate different dishes, especially cretons and tourtierre.

In my daydream, I see myself swearing in a diverse group of new citizens on Ellis Island, assuring them that the American ideal of liberty and opportunity is just as alive and relevant today as it was generations ago when my ancestors immigrated from Quebec looking for a better life. I want them to know I'm excited for them but also excited for America. Today we are one: we are all Americans, and we share a common destiny. I work, not for the sake of my own vanity or glory, but for the sake of our ambitions and the future of our children and grandchldren.

In Silicon Valley this week, Rahul Naik became a US citizen. I wish I had been there, because it's been also my dream for him since we first met in 1999. 

I had accepted a subcontract position, commuting from Chicago as a temp corporate DBA at Advantest. The incumbent DBA had just given notice, accepting a position as a consultant in a robust DBA job market. What I remember most my first day was hearing in my first minute of meeting my client boss, the comptroller, that his first priority was replacing me.  (I later discovered the contractor was marking up my rate over 100%; I was annoyed because they had earlier walked away from the table demanding I cut my own rate by 15%--plus I was more interested in a longer-term engagement, and their exploitive rate worked against that.)

Rahul, who worked as a perm for the same contractor, was away for the training; I would later learn that he had reviewed resumes for the position and had recommended me. In the meanwhile, the incumbent DBA and his crony in the accounting department, among other things, bad-mouthed Rahul to me. It would later turn out that the DBA (Vince) had had ambitions for the vacant IT manager's slot and had been turned down. One of the things he had promised accounting manager Susan was that once he was selected, he would bring her on his team as a systems analyst, a position Rahul was then holding.

When Vince left, Susan was unhappy with both Rahul and myself, even more when the comptroller chose a former Tyco IT manager as our new boss. Rumor has it Vince was fired on his second day of work for the consulting company, and Susan applied political pressure to get Vince rehired. My boss used another colleague's trip home to India to justify extending my original 5-week contract and had me continue as lead for the company's ERP production database, much to Vince's chagrin. Vince started spreading a rumor that the new manager had made me an offer, which was totally false. My boss was upset at me because he was convinced I had started the rumor; he had been dropping subtle hints about going perm, but I wasn't interested and did nothing to encourage him. In fact, I had specifically told Vince that my contract had a no-compete clause, and I expected to leave by the end of the month. Vince resigned for the second time in less than 3 months, getting an offer with stock options from a prior employer. Susan, of course, held me responsible for her crony leaving.

Rahul and I immediately hit it off, and we were the lynchpins of the new boss' aggressive IT agenda. Among other things, our manager cancelled an unproductive Clarify implementation contract, headed by a former Advantest manager whom had refused to move in a corporate headquarter relocation, and named Rahul project manager. (We got limited functionality in production in less than 2 months, after several months of the contractor being unable to do the same in a test environment.)

I fondly remember those days, a number of times capped off by dinner together at a nearby Sunnyvale Indian buffet restaurant with a slow-serve mango ice cream machine. (I had developed a taste for mango during my business trips to Brazil.) Rahul introduced me (and still tutors me) to the wonders of Indian culture, including Bollywood and Indian music videos. As a man with four beautiful sisters, I am especially enchanted with the observance of Raksha Bandhan (re: raksha-bandhan.com):

"Rakhi or Raksha is a sacred thread embellished with sister's love and affection for her brother. On the day of Raksha Bandhan sisters tie Rakhi on their brother's wrist and express their love for him. By accepting a Rakhi from a sister a brother gladly takes on the responsibility of protecting [his] sister. In Indian tradition the frail thread of Rakhi is considered stronger than iron chains as it binds brothers and sisters in an inseparable bond of love and trust."

Rahul proudly wore his Rakhi (which had piqued my curiosity) and joyfully spoke of his baby niece, something I can relate to having 9 wonderful nieces and 6 precious grand-nieces. I remembered that after I learned of his subsequent marriage and the birth of their first-born daughter.

I loved the synergy at work between us; I had (and continue to have) utter faith in his professional competence, integrity, intellect, judgment and ability to deliver. I sometimes called us the Lennon/McCartney of Oracle-based applications; but I think, with Rahul's considerable interpersonal skills, he has enjoyed synergistic relationships throughout his professional career.

I also saw, through Rahul's experience, the dark side of the H1B program. He mentioned to me how his start as an Advantest subcontractor had come from his own initiative to find a follow-up assignment, and the company didn't like the lower rate and punished him in a number of ways, including canceling promised bonuses. Our boss, in fact, had tried in a couple of ways to meddle in Rahul's affairs that risked his being sent back to India before the requisite 7 years to a green card: once he offered the contractor to increase Rahul's rate if they would give Rahul a raise (the company took the rate increase, but Rahul did not see a dime); later, after the contractor went through a merger (my boss hoped that Rahul's contract would go unnoticed), they reassigned Rahul to a project with a better rate near San Francisco, and my boss was seriously thinking of going to court to block, on least on a temporary basis, Rahul's leaving. I had to jawbone my boss, because he was playing Russian roulette with Rahul's life. (To this day, I don't understand why Rahul went back to Advantest after getting his green card.) 

I, of course, didn't want Rahul to leave. I think Rahul had a moderating effect on my boss, whom had a penchant for impetuous decisions. For instance, my boss had, without notice, postponed an email account migration for managers (affecting our web expense setups) and arbitrarily moved up go-live 3 weeks (not even checking, for instance, whether the sofware was installed on the production server). I overheard him telling an engineering manager, a direct report to the CEO, to go ahead and submit an expense report with the new software, and I had to race to my cubicle to change the CEO's stored email address. I developed a chronic stress-induced cough and my voice would fade out trying to sing, symptoms which disappeared soon after I resigned from Advantest.

After Rahul left, I made up my mind to leave Advantest and had scheduled an in-person interview with an Austin-based real estate portal. My boss unexpectedly suffered a heart attack on a business trip to Vermont. To the chagrin of the recruiter, I canceled my visit, more out of a sense of professional and moral responsibility to Advantest than on behalf of my boss. I think he suspected something was up and gave me a significant pay raise after my May review, but almost half of it was in the form of bonus payments to be distributed over the next 6 months. I left two months later.

Rahul and I have kept in touch after my leaving Advantest. For instance, he once spontaneously wrote to rave about a concurrent program I had written in his absence which essentially empowered a sales manager to implement Japanese parent company price list changes in a fraction of the time it had taken before. Our former boss committed political suicide, and Rahul was named his successor.

Like all good friends, we have our share of disagreements on political and other matters. For example, during the past election cycle, Rahul completely lost confidence and respect for John McCain's judgment over the selection of Sarah Palin (especially after the Couric interviews). Faithful readers of my blog know that I have been a consistent critic of Sarah Palin, with doubts stemming from her reusing debunked lines from her first two addresses in stump speeches (e.g., she misleadingly and deliberately implied that she had offered to give Congress its money back for the Bridge to Nowhere), when in fact the bridge funds were used for other projects, she had run for governor pushing for the relevant Gravina Island bridge, and she canceled the project only after 8 months after finding out estimated bridge costs had doubled and only after McCain himself revisited the controversy after the Minnesota bridge collapse).  I do not get Fox News' "slobbering love affair" with all things Sarah Palin, including the revisionist and disingenuous rationalizations of Palin's being torpedoed by a softball question over what newspapers and magazines she reads. Palin's attempts to scapegoat the McCain campaign for continuing with the Couric interviews are particularly pathetic and self-serving; it's not like the Wasilla Queen of Pork Barrel Spending has accepted responsibility for her unsatisfactory performance. Seriously, if you have to filibuster a question over reading materials, how can you deal with complex economics issues and international crises? There's more to economics than promoting oil and gas development in Alaska.

My point to Rahul was that the onus was on Sarah Palin to withdraw, which her own political ambitions would never let her do. I did think Sarah Palin was better than Rahul's judgment of her; after all, she took out better-known and funded politicians, two of whom had won prior  gubernatorial elections in Alaska, on her way to becoming governor, and she has a certain charisma. But I still felt uncomfortable on my side of the argument, because I know he had a legitimate reason for questioning McCain's executive judgment.

I jokingly told Rahul that now he has an opportunity to cancel out my vote. He laughed, saying, "Don't count on it."

Rahul Naik today is a real-life example of an immigrant success story. He has been a founder and executive officer for two Internet ventures, XpenseTracker.com and transactionexchange.com. I have also worked with a number of other Indians, also highly competent, hard-working and exceptionally professional over the past 15 years. Of course, India is but one source of outstanding talent; I have also worked with conscientious immigrants from Russia, the Philippines and Eastern Europe. All of these people have in common leaving the emotional security of their native homeland and their extended families to start a new life in America, to live their dream, wanting what we Americans have and all too often take for granted.

The other day I listened to a Polish colleague happy with having obtained one of the coveted immigration slots but sad for a fellow countrywoman, whom excelled in her studies at Princeton but was forced to return to Poland, unable to find an H1B sponsor. 

This brings out a crying need for us to revisit immigration reform, including revamping country-based quotas, ending chained immigration, fixing a broken-down foreign worker system, and putting more emphasis on merit (including education, fluency in English and professional skills). I do not underestimate misguided opposition based on job protectionism and darker, more xenophobic reasons. As a descendant of immigrants, I celebrate the contributions and synergies of immigrant workers and the diversity of cultures in America.

A Comparison of Education Between Two Cultures

I recently had a conversation with an Indian immigrant colleague about differences in our educational system. I recalled a conversation I had with a computer programmer from Bangladesh when I worked as a NASA-Clear Lake City contractor years ago. He sheepishly admitted to being the black sheep of his family, having stopped his education with an M.S. degree, the only one not to hold a PhD or an M.D.

My current colleague admitted this esteem for education is common among all the countries in the region. He explained that respect for educators is culturally ingrained from the start. Students rise to their feet when a teacher calls on them. I related some of the arrogance I witnessed during my years of college teaching: an undergraduate student calling me by my first name, ignoring my repeated insistance on Dr. or Professor Guillemette; another whom used me as a reference without asking me; a group of students whom threatened me when I rejected their advance demand for an assignment extension (I had given them 3 weeks to do something I had personally coded in less than half an hour); a student whom I politely questioned after a group project presentation saying he thought my suggestion was rather stupid; one student responding to an assignment specification of a maximum of 2 pages, double-spaced, with inch margins with his effort: 5 pages, single-spaced, no margins; and the coup de grace: a computer output submitted with a thick muddy tire track across the top.

Even employers can be unenthusiastic. My first IT job was a programmer/analyst position in the property casualty division of a well-regarded insurance company; my supervisor (hired to his position after me), without a college degree (not uncommon a few years back), felt threatened by the fact I already held a Master's degree. After I left, he placed into my position a guy still working on his undergraduate degree in evening classes. When I left academia in a bad job market, I found recruiters dismissive of "ivory-towered academics whom can't function in the real world" and willing to consider only paid DP experience during my years as a professor. It got to the point that to this day, I have buried my education credentials on the last page of my resume, and most co-workers are unaware I hold an earned doctorate.

I did recognize that other cultures value education. Art Jago, an organizational behavior professor back at the University of Houston, told his colleagues he had been treated like a king in Europe. I mentioned in a post I wrote around Christmas that in my experience, Asian and Mexican students were noticeably more polite and attentive with a good work ethic.

I asked my Indian friend how he regarded American education; I asked this question in particular because his oldest daughter is approaching school age. He was tactful but firm that the general opinion of many Indian immigrants is that American teachers give out simplistic, trivial assignments. I didn't get a direct answer on whether he plans to send his daughter to a private school, pay for supplemental classes, etc.

I was curious: why is it we see so much more emphasis on education outside the US? Why do American students routinely fall in the middle of the pack, despite huge resources for public education? My friend laughed. He noticed that things have changed somewhat over the past few years with the booming outsourcing market, but for the most part students are in training from the get-go in a high-stakes meritocracy for a limited number of slots in India's top universities. For parents and their children, making the right university can mean the difference between a comfortable life--and, as he termed, "no life", a dismal day-to-day existence. Hence the parents will do whatever it takes to give their children a shot at a better life. 

I do hope that Americans start anticipating what it means for their children to succeed in a globally competitive economy. I do not deny there are some good high schools and colleges out there; some of my nephews and nieces have had access to advanced courses not offered when I went to high school. But low-cost computers and the Internet can bring quality education beyond our shores. The idea that you can muddle your way through school with mediocre grades and below-par communication and math/science skills and live a comfortable life is increasingly unlikely. It's insane that we're still running on an agrarian school calendar. Parents need to insist on rigorous schools and standards and high expectations for their kids.

Obama "Stimulus" Bill: A Review

Obama, in less than a month as President, has pushed through the Congress a $787B "stimulus" bill, which is impressive given the fact that he had to get some GOP support to get to the major 60 vote number in the Senate. 

I do not support the bill (as prior posts have made clear), and I think Obama made a strategic error. By a "strategic error", I'm going beyond partisan talking points. 

First, I think Obama should have presented his own plan vs. letting the Congressional Democratic leadership fashion a bill heavily weighted towards their own spending agenda, which did not necessarily and legitimately correlate with the concept of stimulus spending. 

Second, Obama had an opportunity to co-opt the GOP with even modest concessions, but he ended up with less opposition support than Reagan. McCain and others wanted an opportunity to work with Obama on a bill but found themselves essentially shut out of the process. From a political standpoint, Obama could have "divided-and-conquered" the GOP by offering some concessions (more tax relief, particularly business/investment, and more limited spending, i.e., relief funding (e.g., unemployment extensions) and rigorously selected infrastructure projects), but if anything, the GOP actually coalesced in opposition to the bill heavily promoted by a popular President.  

Third, Obama was arguing for a bill before it had even been reconciled by Congress, essentially steamrolling the opposition by arguing speed was a necessity and serious debate of a nearly $800B was not an option. Obama has set high, perhaps unrealistic expectations about the stimulative effects of this bill. Obama could find himself under attack if, as I suspect, the  stimulative effect is less than the multiplier effect Obama himself has been promoting. Some could argue Obama didn't push for a large enough bill when he had the opportunity; if the spending is too high, if foreign investors do not flock to the new T-bills, we could see interest rates rise and/or the Treasury crowding out investment dollars for the private sector, hence limiting job recovery.

There are so many things wrong with this bill, it's difficult to know where to start. A relatively late emerging issue, the so-called "Buy American" provision, a form of trade protectionism, a misguided attempt to reserve infrastructure materials for the domestic steel market. A trade war would cause problems for many of our exporting companies, which worsens our trade imbalance. A second major point is a revisited example via Joe the Plumber during the general campaign--the concept of tax credits for workers whom, in fact, pay no federal income tax (also known as "spreading the wealth around"). But basically, as even the nonpartisan CBO has pointed out, only a very modest amount of the $787B is going to be spent in the short term which can have any legitimate stimulative effect. Even shutting out higher-income people from tax cuts is questionable because they have more discretionary income to spend and invest.

Some of the proponents' arguments are particularly annoying. First, the Democrats always talk about cutbacks in spending as laying off a policeman on the beat, a teacher in the classroom, etc.--never in terms of trimming a bloated bureaucracy or shuttering suspect programs or projects. Second, the Democrats talk about not taking any criticism on spending from a GOP President or Congress which vastly grew domestic spending. This is so disingenuous because Democrats did not bash federal domestic spending during the Bush administration. Third, Democrats are talking about "saving" local or state government jobs as a stimulus (the distinction between private and public sector workers in this regard is arbitrary).

I think that most people realize that Obama's rhetoric of post-partisan politics was idealistic, but some writers have enjoyed reviewing relevant passages in The Audacity of Hope, written when the Dems were not in control, where Obama talks about real bipartisanship. The GOP has been particularly effective at pointing out the pettiness of Pelosi and others refusing even to read the bill on the floor on which members were to vote. After talking down the economy, pronouncing the potpourri partisan stimulus bill as "the answer" to the global recession, and the stock market continuing to tank under the new President and the poorly received briefing by Treasury Secretary Geithner, Obama instinctively seems to realize his credibility is at stake and has been cautiously trying to play down the unrealistic expectations; he should realize that an emboldened opposition resisting a President still in his honeymoon, politically very risky for the GOP, is not a good omen. It's also as if he's trying to emulate Lincoln and/or FDR instead of trying to find his own voice.

I am convinced there will be a recovery sooner than most people expect, and I fully expect that Obama and his Democratic Congressional leadership will attempt to claim credit. But make no mistake--they have written a huge check on the backs of America's children and grandchildren, and the growth of government spending as a percentage of GNP has to be paid for. If and when we have to raise government revenues--i.e., taxes, it will be very painful for future growth--and jobs. Obama should know this, but he wants to grow the deficit to pay tax credits to people whom don't pay taxes. It's ideological and it's irresponsible. Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

Miscellany: 2/12/09

Judd Gregg's Withdrawal as Commerce Secretary. I was mystified by how a Republican senator from New Hampshire could be in an administration which pulls a "bait-and-switched" so-called "stimulus" bill, little more than conventional Democratic spending bill of wishlist priorities, and also looked to effectively strip his control over the Census Bureau, which, of course, the Obama Post-Partisan Administration wants to control for its own political ambitions.

It is bad enough that Senator Gregg had his unquestionable integrity impugned by a hyperpolitical operative like Rahm Emanuel, ignoring the pleas of the last several directors of the Census Bureau for independent status. The move essentially transformed the Cabinet post into little more than a figurehead role, bereft of meaningful managerial authority.

Obama's attempts to portray his so-called "stimulus" bill as "bipartisan" (managing to peel away only 3 Republican votes in the entire Congress) lack any serious credibility. Similarly, trying to present 3 Republican Cabinet choices (holdover Robert Gates at Defense (not even a Republican, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid), fellow Illinois Congressman LaHood and Judd Gregg, a replacement for Democrat Governor Bill Richardson) as an unprecedented bipartisan unity government is sheer chutzpah, nothing even close, say, to Lincoln's selection of a Democrat running mate for the 1864 election. Once again, Obama believes that the American taxpayer will continue to confuse symbolism or vacuous speeches with substance, not to mention his rhetorical nonsense of post-partisan politics and "turning the page": His very choice of Emanuel as chief of staff essentially brought old school Chicago politics to the White House. Unrepentant Chicago politics is not "change we need"; it's simply "more of the same".

Helen Thomas and "So-Called Terrorists"

It's bad enough Helen Thomas impugned the integrity of journalism by suggesting any good journalist must be liberal: "I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, I'll be one 'til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?" Let me get this straight, Ms. Thomas: you see the truth of failing public schools in places like Detroit, under generous funding by a liberal government; you see the truth of the  liberal-governed local and state Louisiana government failure to execute on an evacuation plan before and during Hurricane Katrina, leaving school buses to flood out unattended in low areas; you see a deterioration of the percentage of two-parent households in urban areas, even referenced by liberals such as Obama and Bill Cosby, despite massive social welfare net spending: with all these truths and others, able to verify the same first-hand, you remain convinced that of the righteousness of your political convictions and the effectiveness of liberal governance? Talk about a state of denial and inconvenient truths...

We had the following exchange between Obama and Helen Thomas during Obama's first press conference as President on Feb. 9:

OBAMA: All right, Helen. This is my inaugural moment here. (Laughter.) I'm really excited. 

THOMAS: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists?

There is no way to sugarcoat such an incompetently-asked question. Pakistan troops are not in Afghanistan. Most journalists are aware of the fact that Pakistan forces are not in control of autonomous regions along the western frontier bordering Afghanistan. Also, it is widely suspected that there are Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathizers  in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and among the lower ranks of military officers. If Helen was seeking what feeds these radical elements, she might address of if and when Pakistan is going to crack down on the destabilizing presence of religious Madrassas (schools).

I have Indian friends whom are quite indignant about the fact that the US has been a silent ally to Pakistan for years while the Pakistan military and these radical elements have been playing a game of "good cop/bad cop", leaving in their wake Indian civilian casualties.

But the knee-jerk responses of most objective listeners to Ms. Thomas, including conservatives like myself, deal with Ms. Thomas' deliberate phrasing "so-called terrorists". This is a sensitive topic to most conservatives because certain liberal news media consider the term 'terrorist' to be subjective, e.g., Stephen Jukes, head of Reuter's global news: "Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our  long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words  'terrorist' or   'freedom  fighter'." This is, of course, pretentious self-serving nonsense: when we had nearly 3000 civilian casualties on 9/11, we didn't refer to them as "alleged civilian casualties" or "so-called victims" (despite the inflammatory rhetoric of people like Ward Churchill and Obama's own mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright). I don't need some convened world court's imprimatur to validate what we already know from the preponderance of salient facts.

Ms. Thomas, I don't want to hear anymore about your so-called objectivity or alleged professionalism. You made that quite clear when you admit that your born liberal perspective has filtered and shaped what you report.

Nadya Suleman and Her Octuplets

I am not sure why, with 6 young children already, unemployed, unmarried and living with her parents, why Nadya Suleman consulted with a fertility specialist and allegedly had multiple embryos implanted, recently becoming the mother of the world's first set of surviving octuplets. It is an extraordinary challenge, from both a financial and logistics perspective, to care for 14 young children, never mind the fact that 3 of the oldest 6 are disabled (one with autism) and chances are that some or all of the octuplets are at risk for developmental disorders which may take years to surface.

Bill O'Reilly, the prominent conservative host of the leading cable TV (Fox News) O'Reilly Factor and fellow Roman Catholic, styles himself as a leading advocate against child abuse, most explicitly in support (across all 50 states) of Jessica's Law, which mandates tough sentences for convicted child sex abusers. He has been outraged against both Suleman and her fertility clinic director, Dr. Michael Kamrava, considering the circumstances child abuse, implying the mother and clinic were partially motivated by publicity, with a number of media outlets eager to cooperate with them, and alleging that Suleman was writing a check on the back of California taxpayers.

O'Reilly is not alone with his hostile reaction. Nadya Suleman and even her former publicist received death threats.

Let me make my position clear. First of all, praise be to God for what appears to be a healthy birth and the fact that Nadya Suleman is also in good health. Second, I see each of the children as a blessing from God. Third, I refuse to judge Nadya's motives, I believe that Nadya is a good, loving mother, and I never underestimate what a mother is capable of doing on behalf of her children. There are heartwarming stories of people reaching out to the young family, offering help, even a place to stay; this is a true testament to the generosity of the American spirit.

Fourth, and I want to be quite blunt to Bill O'Reilly and others: I do not want the government getting involved with regulating the number of children a family can have. If and when Ms. Suleman is shown unable to properly care for her family, with whatever assistance from friends and family she solicits, the public has an interest on behalf of the child. The presumptuous nature of Mr. O'Reilly and others passing judgment before the babies have even been released by the hospital is, in my opinion, unconscionable.

Finally, I do think we need to look at this example, among others, where technology has outstripped the ability of our laws and/or the medical profession to keep up. This concept of a numbers game, of implanting multiple embryos with the expectation that some won't take or if they do, selective abortion--not to mention the fact that embryonic stem cell researchers have a vested interest in a surplus supply of embryos--is unacceptable. I am convinced that embryos are human life, and we should make any such implantation procedures as efficient as possible, and any implantation procedure should explicitly consider the possibility that all embryos will take and procedures putting the lives of the mother and her babies at risk should undergo a medical review.

Obama's Inaugural Address: A Review

• "... all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness"  For those readers without an Obama-to-plain English dictionary, this is code for the concept of "positive rights". Social liberals believe that Jefferson's reference to an unalienable right, the "pursuit of happiness", isn't possible in the sense not everyone was born into a family with means, can afford a first-class education, the best health care, etc. "Positive" rights refer to an obligation to action, e.g., the right to a court-appointed attorney if a suspect cannot afford one on his own, free public education, police protection, unemployment compensation, emergency medical care, a "living wage", an old-age pension, etc. In short, this is language consistent with an explicit tax-and-spend agenda, in particular, high levels of domestic social spending.
• "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some..." Scapegoating 101 (the usual straw men: President Bush, lobbyists, deregulators, greedy mortgage lenders, etc.) and Obama's politically convenient and intellectually dishonest oversimplification of the economic tsunami. There are plenty of culprits to go around: the Federal Reserve flooded the system with easy money and didn't act to regulate certain lending practices under its jurisdiction, there was political pressure by Democrats to open the housing market to lower-income people (without a conventional down payment), consumers were outspending their income, voters weren't holding both parties accountable for the need to address solvency problems with social security and Medicare and escalating federal and trade deficits, credit rating agencies and accountants didn't flag the risks in the system, and (yes) homebuyers were buying houses they couldn't really afford.
• "There...is...a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights." No, there's not, but Obama does a fairly good job running down the economy. I do think we are in a much tougher global economy, we have to get our fiscal house in order, we need to improve our infrastructure, and we have to streamline our foreign entanglements.
• "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord...We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...the time has come to set aside childish things." Apparently Obama is trying to say if voters voted for McCain or Bush, they were voting on the basis of fear, conflict, and discord. He's also implicitly condemning the consistent Republican message on low federal taxes and spending, minimizing unnecessary federal regulations and paperwork, and protecting traditional values under assault by activist judges imposing their liberal opinions on the Constitution. [There were other reasons, besides a strong national defense, that 46% of American voters chose McCain, including his strong experience, opposition to high government spending, support for traditional values and solid bipartisan credentials over an unqualified opponent with no credible track record or expertise.] The "recriminations" seems to be references to the frivolous allegation that the Bush Administration outed Valerie Plame as a covert spy in retribution for her husband's critical op-ed comments about the Niger/Hussein/yellowcake connection, and purported political nature of certain US Attorney firings under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. What I don't like here is the self-superior tone; who is this guy to talk? He was running on the same failed policies as other liberal Democrats over the past 40 years. He not only refused to be part of the bipartisan Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over Democratic threats to filibuster qualified nominees but, in fact, was ready to filibuster the pick of Sam Alito; he submitted a poison-pill amendment to the 2007 immigration bill and voted for others; he attacked Sarah Palin during the campaign for her Wasilla mayor efforts for earmarks and her gubernatorial campaign support for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere (although Obama himself requested hundreds of nillions in earmarks and specifically voted against stripping funds for the Bridge to Nowhere). When dealing with a narcissist like Obama, you have to pay attention not to what they say, but to what they do, e.g., when Obama reneged on his early campaign pledge to accept public funds for the general campaign.
• "The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth." Wait--does this mean Obama has FINALLY figured out that if you're trying to ignite growth, you need to cut business and investment taxes and stop threatening to punitively tax the job creators, including the small business owners? Let's look at Obama's "brilliant" job creation theory in action; we have proven, untapped oil and gas reserves (including offshore), not to mention among the largest coal reserves in the world. All of these provide IMMEDIATE good-paying jobs with today's ecologically-friendly exploration and production technology and keep more of our energy dollars at home.  On the other hand, renewable energy, which has been aggressively pushed by environmentalists over the past four decades, other than hydropower, which has been in production for decades, accounts for less than 3% of consumed energy. Obama see himself as a visionary JFK, whom had successfully challenged the space program to get a man on the moon over the coming decade; he feels if he simply repeats his unrealistic expectations, it will happen. Tell me, when Obama joined his fellow Democrats in politically exploiting embryonic stem cell research back in 2004, cruelly raising the hopes and expectations of desperately ill people, whatever happened to the imminent miracle cures? Good luck trying to sell the American people that a huge spending "stimulus" of partisan Democratic spending priorities will turnaround the economy. When the economy improves, it wil be despite the Democratic Congress and President's best efforts; the Democrats are like a child picking at a scab versus leaving it alone to heal naturally. You don't solve problems like we currently have by throwing money at them or trying to micromanage the economy. Taxes are a business cost; you stimulate business growth organically by doing things like a permanent cut in taxes: that was how WalMart grew to dominate retailers with a consistent discount pricing strategy. Obama and his fellow Democrats are like supermarkets whom heavily promote loss leaders (i.e., tax gimmicks) instead of everyday low prices (taxes), hoping to make up the difference in higher taxes on other things (or people).
• "Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions...has surely passed." This is a slap at Bush's inability to resolve things like social security and Medicare solvency, the straw man of unfettered business interests, etc. This seems politically convenient since the Democrats refused to negotiate in good faith on social security and immigration reform during Bush's second term. The question of the 2008 election was not over "change" per se--because both candidates had multiple differences with Bush on issues and style--but what kind of change. (Obama offers class warfare "solutions" to resolving tough issues; class warfare solutions effectively kill the geese laying the golden eggs.) Keep in mind Bush had presided over an expansion of entitlement spending (Medicare drug coverage) and a vast, disproportionate expansion of government spending and regulations (something Obama deliberately misrepresented during the campaign, asserting Bush and McCain opposed government regulations). One could easily assert that Obama's expansionist government spending is "more of the same".
• "The question we ask today is...whether our...government...works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." No, it's not. We do not need an expensive, incompetent Big Brother limiting or micromanaging the economic decisions of businesses or American workers and their families, trying to impose elitist, socialistic criteria on just what constitutes a "decent" wage, "affordable" health care, or a "dignified" retirement. For example, politicians have distorted health care decisions by artifically tying favorable tax treatment to employment benefits, limiting competition of policies over individual state-mandated gold-plated benefit coverages, failing to enact legal reforms regarding dubious, frivolous medicial malpractice suits, and mandating no-cost treatment of uninsured or indigent patients, the government-unfunded costs of which must be passed along to other patients and/or their employers. I will also note here that Obama's economic targets are rather arbitrary: which living costs do governments cover? Food, shelter, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc.? It's not just the intrinsic costs, but the bureaucratic overhead and an explosion of government regulations--e.g., what food, how much, methods of preparation, etc. Contrary to Obama's implicit assertion, the issue of health care affordability is not a market-based one, but one deliberately distorted by government intervention into the marketplace. In fact, there are legitimate functions of government in support of the common good, e.g., the national defense, public law enforcement, environment and fire protection, public health safety, infrastructure development, operation and maintenance, and the guarantee of fair contract conditions and enforcement. Before Big Government liberals like Obama seek to expand the role of government in our lives, we must first insist on government fulfilling competently its existing agenda, e.g., no more Hurricane Katrina-type failures of government, no more political pressure on lenders to make risky loans, no more botched post-Iraqi liberation occupations, etc.
• "A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Let me get this straight--a small percentage of high-income individuals and businesses assumes the overwhelming percentage of government cost burden, and it favors "only" the prosperous? If it favors the prosperous, why haven't the prosperous been able to lower their cost burden? Are the prosperous benefiting from food stamps, Medicaid, welfare and public housing? Are the contributions of charities and philanthropies, largely funded by the prosperous, making a difference to lower-income Americans? Do the prosperous get more national defense or infrastructure support than the 40% of American workers whom don't pay a penny in federal taxes (not including payroll "taxes", which are really benefits in which many will receive more than they pay into the system)?
• "Earlier generations...understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please." This is yet another thinly-veiled cheap shot at the Bush administration. The fact of the matter is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein violated the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War and had refused to honor some 17 UN resolutions; furthermore, Hussein had cut sweetheart deals with nations on the Security Council. Obama ignores the fact that the Bush administration had, in fact, sought international cooperation, not only in dealing with Iraq, but the other members of the "Axis of Evil", i.e., Iran and North Korea. Obama also conveniently disregards important side-effects, e.g., the decision of Libya to renounce its own WMD program, more elections in the Middle East, etc. More seriously, Obama seems dangerously naive about the natural inertia of international cooperation and diplomacy and underestimates the requirement for our nation to assert leadership. The last thing we need is a President raising unrealistic expectations over diplomatic efforts.
• "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world." No, it's not. We Americans have always perceived our responsibilities, domestically and internationally, the latter not just in terms of last century's interventions in the world wars, but, for instance, the Peace Corps, our responses to natural disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and former President Bush's qualitative leap forward in aid to Africa. So it is clear we don't need a lecture from Obama on our moral values and duties. What Obama is really trying to do here is to expand the nature and scope of those duties and in particular the government footprint. There are vital questions to be asked here about what Obama really means--whether, for instance, Obama is prepared to deal away American sovereignty to the arbitrary whims of international courts. In addition, we have to seriously look at the question of moral hazards resulting from government meddling; for example, has a social safety net undermined the stability of the American family if a father feels that his family's economic well-being would be better off by his abandoning it?
• "This is the meaning of our liberty...why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration...why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath." This is the best line of the speech; if there's one thing Obama understands, it's symbolism. The slavery compromise founding our country is an ugly thing, undermining the simplicity of its very ideals of liberty and equal protection. I cannot imagine living in a free country and not being able to fully participate, being judged on different, arbitrary criteria, beyond one's control. I cannot conceive of being asked to serve my country risking all that I have--my very life--and not being able to eat in the restaurants, attend the universities, given a fair chance to work in the best companies that I helped protect, not being able to promise my children a better life, to have to resign myself to the fact of inferior schools, police services, and reluctance of supermarkets and banks to establish a presence in my community. The election of Barack Obama required votes beyond the percentage of people of color in the general population. It constituted a validation of a paradigm shift (as Thomas Kuhn might say) in our political ideals, as an unsustainable patchwork of unconscionable race-based laws and policies collapsed under its own weight. I simply wish that this breaking of the artificial ceiling of opportunity had been achieved by a worthier, more experienced citizen, such as former General Colin Powell or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Final Comments

Personally, I expected Obama to give a more inspirational speech with soaring rhetoric, expressing confidence in our ability to prevail in a tough economy, just as we rose up to face the challenge of fascism during WWII, the spread of Communism and the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, reassuring us, as did FDR, against economic fear, and calling us, as did JFK, to make hard decisions for the sake of our country instead of ourselves, to fix entitlement funding and our fiscal and trade deficits.

I also expected a more affective, intimate speech; this one seemed almost professorial and abstract. Whereas Obama expressed initial thanks for Bush's generous and graceful handling of the transition, he took several swipes at his predecessor during the speech, which I considered unnecessary and boorish on his part. At points, he comes across as self-righteous, judgmental and condescending, and some passages, e.g., the trials of the colonist army in the winter of 1776, seem remote, forced and out of place.  It also seemed to meander and lacked a certain cohesiveness. It also appeared to be oddly inconsistent at points; for example, Obama in one breath pays lip service to traditional values, like courage, hard work, and fair play, but at the same time argues they are not enough. He asserts that we will not apologize for being the strongest, most prosperous nation on earth but then argues self-restraint and international coalitions. He notes that we have seen failure in the public sector (e.g., public schools), but then unconvincingly argues we must expand the government footprint. He praises the productivity and successes of our private economy but then insists that government can do what profit-seeking veteran private industry and investors haven't or won't, build a vibrant, profitable, job-creating green power industry.

Finally, it seems as if he is attempting to emulate the substance or style of others (e.g., Abraham Lincoln) rather than trying to find his own voice. While he asserts the inevitability of our success, it's almost as if he's trying to convince himself as much as the average American citizen. I don't believe he succeeds. 

Where's Waldo?....Searching for Leadership at the White House

James Taranto, the WSJ "Best of the Web" editor, has a recurring bit where he gives inspiring quotations from past Democratic Presidents--and then quotes the latest bit of lunacy from Congressional Democrats. I begin this post with a relevant contrast:

Recall FDR said in his first inaugural address that the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Obama, in his oxymoronic essay titled "The Action Americans Need", wrote:

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

His tone and words were even more strident and hyperbolic during Thursday comments at the Energy Department and echoed in his Saturday address:

If we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care. Millions more will have to put their dreams on hold.

Obama's panic-stricken "Chicken Little" rhetoric is irresponsible and unworthy of American leadership. Contrast this to George Bush's attempt to reassure consumers in the aftermath of 9/11 when the airline and hospitality industries were devastated by a paralysis of travel fear and the world economy teetered on the edge of global deflation and depression. This attempt by the inexperienced, unknowledgeable President to pay little more than lip service to legitimate bipartisan negotiation and to intimidate debate on wasteful, non-stimulative government spending in a "bait-and-switch" so-called stimulus package is a disservice to the American taxpayer, including future generations of citizens on whose backs a check is being written.

We need a serious discussion of what exactly is meant to be a stimulus. Socialistic nonsense, such as Obama's reference to giving 95% of American workers "tax cuts" (when 40% or so of those pay only payroll tax, which is really a mandatory retirement plan from which they'll reap direct benefit), is the exact opposite of what we need: evidence that last year's stimulus bill went mostly towards savings or retiring debt shows it really wasn't all that stimulative. On the other hand, investment and business tax cuts would attract capital back into the markets. There is no doubt that some infrastructure spending could be conducive to future growth, in particular, investments in the electrical power grid, broadband initiatives, and road and bridge repairs. But Obama's attempts to sell green power initiatives as "job creators", profitable only because of federal funding, while stonewalling attempts to develop proven oil and gas reserves, and hence keeping energy dollars in America than feeding the treasuries of autocratic regimes, profitable and job growth stimulative with today's technology, are also disingenuous.

Obama's pretentious, indignant campaign-style message has grown stale. Insisting that government, not business, knows better how to create jobs, that general Democratic spending priorities, including those without short-term deployment, are a necessary, sufficient stimulus, that high-pressure tactics are appropriate to use in spending nearly a trillion dollars which must ultimately be repaid by future taxpayers, without asking the federal government to show the same type of budgetary constraints faced by businesses and state/local governments which don't own a printing press: Obama is not showing the kind of leadership that we need. Talking down the economy and showing impatience because the Congress won't rubberstamp a bloated pork-laden spending bill, any spending bill is nothing short of impetuous and desperate behavior. 

Mr. President, you would do well to remember the story of the boy whom cried "wolf" one too many times. We've seen this type of high pressure tactics before in Democrats' insisting that tax cheat Tim Geithner was uniquely qualified to be Treasury Secretary. You don't seem to learn from historical experience (e.g., the failed 2008 stimulus package, the utter incompetence of the TARP management, and many economists' opinion that FDR's New Deal programs were actually counterproductive in getting us out of the Great Depression). Setting unrealistic expectations for the commercial viability of green technologies is not responsible; do you honestly believe that you can give lower/middle-income taxpayers a "tax cut" (which must be repaid by future Americans) while at the same time expect that they don't notice that utopian green technology policies will greatly increase their energy costs?