I have a fundamental problem with Obama's apparent death wish for America having a globally strong, diversified financial services industry following the 2008 economic tsunami. It seems as if he is opposed to anything being big--whether it's corporate officer compensation structures or companies: he's willing to give you tax cuts or government checks--as long as you don't earn that much; he's willing to give community banks loan incentives--but not big banks. This is an ideological, not pragmatic policy, which makes a vice of American success stories.
I understand the issue of "too big to fail"--but the problems of these organizations are not based on their size, but on the nature and extent of investment which violated principles of diversified risk. I understand there is concern that diversified conglomerates could use proceeds from regulated businesses (e.g., banking with government-guaranteed deposits) to fund unwise investments, not unlike what happened during the S&L crisis tackled by George H.W. Bush. There are things I have not researched, like why there were mortgage-backed securities heavily weighted in states clearly in a real estate bubble; it's not like we haven't seen a housing bust in California before, for instance.
Clearly there is a problem with transparency here (e.g., AIG's insufficient reserves for the credit default swaps it was writing), and there should be rules and regulations over cash flows, internal or external, involving a regulated entity. But it is frankly absurd to penalize economic success; all Obama and the Democrats will succeed in doing is making America a non-player in a vital sector of the global economy.
Parting shot: Obama didn't consider Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae too big, even though they dominated the secondary market with an implicit government guarantee. In fact, he got the second most contributions for any legislator over the last decade (through 2008), despite being on the national stage for only 5 years. Maybe the reason the real losers from the economic tsunami--AIG, GSE's, and other parties--haven't gotten Obama's attention like his favorite scapegoats, the banks, is because of their contributions to Obama's campaigns...
Sunday Talk Soup
Barbara Walters hosted ABC's This Week, leading off an interview with Scott Brown. The interview included a couple of questions where I plainly disagree with Brown. For instance, he implied support for Obama's so-called jobs bill, which I think is fundamentally flawed (tax cuts need to be broad-based and permanent), and on the question of gay marriage in Massachusetts, he simply referred to it as settled law, the people have spoken, etc. As far as I remember, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to overturn the centuries-old traditional definition of marriage by judicial fiat, and Democrats have blocked attempts to set a referendum on the issue. (In fact, the Massachusetts legislature has been rather provocative in pushing the issue, repealing a nearly century-old law which rejected barring marriages to non-residents where "gay marriage" is not recognized in their home states; this seems to set Massachusetts on a collision course with state reciprocity agreements and the Defense of Marriage Act.)
But it could be what Brown is referring to the indirect voice of the people through their legislators. The problem with that point of view is that people cast their votes for a variety of reasons and it's difficult to establish a mandate on any of them, although Brown most clearly ran on being senator #41 (to block progressives from steamrolling health care "reform"). Brown's election itself reflected a number of facts: the unpopular health care bill and its corrupt deal making; the flaws in homeland security made clear through the close call of the underwear bomber; a fundamental dissatisfaction with an unchecked tax-and-spend agenda; and the divisive progressive agenda versus a focus on the #1 issue: dealing with the economy and jobs. I suspect that Brown's considerable amiability and specific reference to a traditional New England independence on issues also appealed to voters.
The subsequent round table discussion was interesting. (Could I please go through a Sunday without having to listen to condescending, boorish Times progressive columnists like Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman?) I found Scott Brown to be rather direct and articulate; when asked about Obama's reversal of "don't ask, don't tell", Brown said that he would first like to hear from the ground commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq. The round table progressives considered that to be evasive, but I personally think it's sound management policy: it doesn't suggest or imply that the generals have a veto over public policy, but they are the ones whom will have to deal with any subsequent issues in enforcing the policy, and it's important to get their feedback on how to implement policy. I personally think that Obama is motivated primarily by political considerations. I've made my position known on this issue: gays have been discreetly serving in the military for decades. As long as behavior does not affect their performance, military discipline and cohesiveness and is compliant with existing restrictions on political and related activities, I have no problem with it. However, I am puzzled by ideological proponents whom seem to imply gay people are more gifted when it comes to learning and speaking Arabic; I would say most people speaking Arabic are not gay. (This reference is related to a high-profile case, Dan Choi; the argument is that since there aren't many linguists in DoD, and this one is gay, it hurts the military to lose him. But Mr. Choi knowingly violated policy by outing himself on a progressive cable talk show.)
Krugman also said that Scott Brown was being hypocritical because the proposed national health care reform was essentially no different than Massachusetts law. I have to say there are issues with the Massachusetts law that I have issues with and Mitt Romney will need to address if he, as expected, enters the 2012 race for President: in particular, the issue of mandatory coverage and the uncompetitive gold-plated insurance mandates. Krugman should think of better role models for the national health care plan, given the fact that Massachusetts has among the most expensive health care insurance policies in the nation. The Democrats have been playing all sorts of sham games to pretend the government putting more people into the health care system would actual "reduce" the deficit and bring down insurance costs--hardly the case in Massachusetts, with high prices and mounting program deficits; among the gimmicks: they lessen the price tag of their legislation by staggering benefits (tax now--benefits start later, raiding Medicare funding and/or soaking the rich/job creators. Even if you confiscated every penny made by high-earning Americans, it wouldn't close the Democrats' deficit. Guess what that means for the "free lunch" middle class?
This sort of Alice in Wonderland policy is shown again in Obama's shockingly bad education loan proposals, which gives students an unfair incentive to join the public versus private sector (loan forgiveness). Tuition costs have soared since my departure from academics in 1991. If students and their families weren't guaranteed funding, colleges would have to find ways, just like the private sector, to cut costs and become more competitive. (This is literally the same type of thinking beyond extending loans to higher-risk groups without traditional collateral, made possible by easy money, gimmick loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up the bad mortgage notes. This extended and aggravated the impact of the housing bubble bust, because buyers have been walking away from loans with negative equity positions.) Teaching loads can be ridiculous, and I'm speaking as someone with a decent research and publication record as a professor. I could write a series of posts on this topic, but for example, I knew professors whom taught multiple sections of the same class(es), same textbook, same lecture notes, same exams, same assignments, etc.--in a field where textbooks are virtually obsolete by the time of publication. I tended to select new textbooks or even assemble collections of various articles for classroom materials (i.e., this goes beyond typical assigned readings). Universities have become bloated with huge capital budgets, etc., not unlike an overly big federal government. It's difficult to explain the culture shock--I remember when eating at a college cafeteria was maybe a buffet line (with a yogurt/salad bar) (in fact, I worked at my college cafeteria my first year or two). When I did work for a software publisher a couple of years ago, university clients sometimes wanted me to eat on campus (versus expense a lunch elsewhere). At one school, I saw a dedicated pizza line, another for more organic food offerings, a station dedicated to burgers, hot dogs, fries, etc., at least 4 other buffet lines, a freshly baked desserts kiosk, etc. I think I would have had the "freshman 30", not just the freshman 15 (pound weight gain).
I would be willing to look at some fee/tax proposal, waived on electing health care insurance or some sort of medical expense escrow account, financial responsibility bond, etc. But I think the best solution would be to enact some sort of catastrophic health insurance, which would address an issue of insurers dropping policyholders whom have maxed out their benefits, and to shore up state/regional high risk pools to address the accessibility issue. I'm not holding my breath. I think Brown is exactly correct--leave health care to the states, which have traditionally regulated it (and I consider the national legislative schemes a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment). A national scheme would provide a single point of corruption. Oh, and by the way, Paul Krugman, there are substantive differences between the House and Senate plans, starting with funding. Two thousand page bills violate in fact and appearance the fundamental concept of the rule of law.
Political Cartoon
My guess is Pat Oliphant is showing the reaction of Democrats to Obama's offer to stump on their behalf: the rats are leaving a sinking ship, retiring or otherwise.
Musical Interlude: Country/Pop Sentimental Anti-War Songs
As someone who seriously considered a religious vocation (but then I went to an undergraduate school where two out of every 3 students were attractive, young women, and then on to the University of Texas: several years earlier, Farrah Fawcett had attended UT; need I say more?), I always have been troubled by war and the nature and extent of our military involvement. It never has been an ideological stand; as a realist, I understand that war criminals and aggressors must be confronted on their own terms. Negotiations and ideological protesters are instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes.
I am not an isolationist, but I believe in scaling back and simplifying our foreign commitments and choosing our battles based on political prudence and a direct, compelling interest of the United States. If I had been President, there would never have been interventions in Vietnam and the second Gulf War, at least based on the circumstances of which I'm aware. (I would have provided assistance in different, more measured ways, similar to how the French assisted us during the Revolutionary War.)
And as a military brat, I am particularly aware of what it means for a family to see a loved one off, worrying if it's the last time you'll see him. One of my favorite films, Joyeux Noël, quotes Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.” I've selected two songs I like, which really reflect on the human tragedy of war, not in a strident way but in a more subtle, poignant fashion.
The first song is from singer/songwriter Bobby Goldsboro, perhaps better known for his hits "Honey" and "Watching Scotty Grow"; I first heard "Broomstick Cowboy" on a Goldsboro anthology I had purchased. "Broomstick Cowboy" was the title track of a mid-60's album that didn't chart, but I was blown away the very first time I heard the track, which became my instant favorite.
The second song, a Jimmy Webb classic, was a #4 hit for Glenn Campbell. I remember working for a computer software services company a couple of years back; a colleague and I were at an affiliated campus of my alma mater in Houston when we decided to head to Galveston for a seafood dinner (this was before Hurricane Ike). We had double-checked the casual dining restaurant address on the web before leaving (my colleague had been there a number of times with his family on vacations), but when we got there, the pier location had been converted into a chain establishment known for chicken wings and its physically attractive waitresses, and we eventually decided on a family restaurant more inland (which, unexpectedly, had fabulous desserts). (I don't think the chain restaurant survived Hurricane Ike.) As we drove up and down the beach boulevard, double-checking the original restaurant address and watching the sea gulls swoop down, the lyrics of Jimmy Webb's song just kept looping through my mind.
Bobby Goldsboro, "Broomstick Cowboy"
Broomstick Cowboy
Dream on, little Broomstick Cowboy,
Of rocket ships and Mars;
Of sunny days,
And Willie Mays,
And chocolate candy bars.
Dream on, little Broomstick Cowboy,
Dream while you can;
Of big green frogs,
And puppy dogs,
And castles in the sand.
For, all too soon you'll awaken;
Your toys will all be gone.
Your broomstick horse will ride away,
To find another home.
And you'll have grown into a man,
With cowboys of your own.
And then you'll have to go to war,
To try and save your home.
And then you'll have to learn to hate;
You'll have to learn to kill.
It's always been that way, my son;
I guess it always will.
No broomstick gun they'll hand you;
No longer you'll pretend.
You'll call some man your enemy;
You used to call him 'friend.'
And when the rockets thunder,
You'll hear your brothers cry.
And through it all you'll wonder
Just why they had to die.
So dream on, little Broomstick Cowboy,
Dream while you can;
For soon, you'll be a dreadful thing:
My son, you'll be a man.
Glen Campbell, "Galveston"
Galveston
Galveston, oh Galveston, I still hear your sea winds blowin'
I still see her dark eyes glowin'
She was 21 when I left Galveston
Galveston, oh Galveston, I still hear your sea waves crashing
While I watch the cannons flashing
I clean my gun and dream of Galveston
I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run
Galveston, oh Galveston, I am so afraid of dying
Before I dry the tears she's crying
Before I watch your sea birds flying in the sun
At Galveston, at Galveston
