Miscellany: 6/30/10

The Disingenuous Posturing of Janet Napolitano and Other Progressives

As a pro-immigrant conservative, I have held my tongue, furious about the fact that reforms of an outdated immigration system have been held hostage by arguments over mostly low-skilled Latino undocumented workers entering the country illegally, both by media conservatives and open border advocates. I don't particularly care for the Mexican President, presiding over job opportunities as low as $5 daily, telling Americans how we should get down on our knees to God thanking undocumented workers for making America a successful economy; he certainly neglects to mention that said workers send back to Mexico  tens of billions of dollars in valuable currency. I don't like to hear enabler business owners illegally hiring these workers moaning about how, unlike their competitors, they can't execute a viable business plan without undocumented workers. Let's get one thing straight: At least 3 in 4 workers both in farming and in construction are not undocumented Latino immigrants. During the Great Depression, fewer foreign visitors migrated to the US to work as unemployed American workers were more willing to consider relevant work.

I, like most pro-business conservatives, want an above-board temporary visiting worker system, which can work at the margin to deal with any perceived gap in labor supply and demand. As I've mentioned in past posts, we had such a system (the Bracero system), which expired in 1964, under heavy union pressure. But at the same time, we have to understand an open border constitutes a significant vulnerability to organized criminal elements--and potentially to terrorists.

Let's get to the question of walls or fences; Homeland Secretary Napolitano and every other dim-witted progressive will solemnly assure you that fences of any kind are ineffective: you can always scale a longer ladder (or dig underneath). Why shouldn't we believe them? After all, impound lots don't work in keeping determined motorists from recovering their vehicles, and RFID tags and exit sensors can't stop the determined electronics shoplifter... (Private businesses love to throw away money on security personnel and equipment that are ineffective--yeah, right...)

Let's just say with satellite technology, motion detectors, and layered barriers (among other approaches used by secured facilities), one can significantly increase the risk, time, effort and cost of entry. In fact, some ranchers have noted that traffic was dramatically affected by the building of a fence.

The biggest threat to our security is not the desperate gardener looking for work on the American side of the border; it's from an administration in a state of denial which deliberately underestimates the nature and danger of unauthorized border infiltration in a post-9/11 age, has consciously underinvested in border infrastructure and personnel, uses the carrot of amnesty for undocumented workers to motivate political support, does not proactively adjust strategy or tactics to the clear threat sent by drug cartels in firefights with northern Mexican law enforcement, and made a questionable appointment in the integration of ICE with local law enforcement by hiring former Houston police chief Harold Hurtt, whom backed away from participating in the (immunity shielding) federal 287(g) program, even after recidivist illegal immigrants killed a fellow officer.

Obama Understands Only Political Spin, Not Real Leadership

We have seen this intellectually pretentious, unqualified, thin-skinned, unproductive excuse of an incompetent President repeat this pathetic, unsupported, oversimplistic, predictable pattern of setting up a straw man opponent, dismissing legitimate criticism as political posturing, and ridiculing his opponents as standard operating procedure. You might figure a President, whom has only one national poll of out 8 covered by Real Clear Politics reaching a high of 50% and his party essentially tied with the GOP out of 5 national polls, would actually want to take the opposition more seriously. What ever became of the charming, post-partisan leader? Instead, he tries to convince the American people whatever preposterous 2000-page sausages dreamed up by partisan Democratic reconciliation conferees dream up was his original idea from the get-go. That's because he knows very well if he put his own legislation in front of the Democratic incumbents, whose devotion for their party leader is second only to their reelection hopes, it would be picked apart. So he stands back, lets his party members fight it out among themselves, and signs onto whatever emerges... That's leadership for you--like the infamous Clintonian finger in the wind. Even Upton Sinclair would be shocked by what's inside this legislative sausage: welcome to The Jungle.

Granted, I don't think Boehner used the best analogy by comparing the financial legislative sausage "reform" to killing an ant with a nuke. I would say something like they're shooting at the wrong, smaller target with a very expensive, overly complex gun and ended up hitting the American citizen underneath the piggy bank. Or maybe instead of a sure-designed bridge over troubled waters to the shore of economic security, they found themselves on the Bridge to Nowhere with bridge design details left to underpaid, inexperienced government. bureaucrats. Obama still wants to blame unregulated derivatives and "Wall Street greed" for the crisis (or at least that's what he leads us to believe). The fact is--all of these institutions were overseen by multiple authorities--state and federal government, auditors, credit rating agencies, etc. The issue was not intrinsic to the use of innovative financial products, but in companies like AIG taking on too much risk. Businesses fail; if AIG and Lehman Brothers were improperly managed, they should pay the price and not expect a government bailout. But the core point is--if a liquidity crisis was at the core of the economic tsunami, why didn't the Federal Reserve or Congressional oversight committees foresee the problem? If companies were vulnerable to short-term financing, why didn't regulators anticipate this vulnerability to liquidity, and say, increase or modify reserve requirements? Why didn't they anticipate a sequence of internationally cascading failures? A solution is beyond the scope of this post, but there is nothing is this 2000-page bill that reassures me that the same regulators whom bumbled their way through the crisis by the seat of their pants will perform more effectively with even greater responsibilities and mandates.

But let's return to Obama's condescending remarks that Boehner just doesn't get it. In fact, Obama completely ignores Boehner's next remark: "What's most needed is more transparency and better enforcement by regulators". For example, there was already an industry move to run derivative trades through a clearinghouse. What Obama doesn't address is the intrinsic opaqueness of Congress ceding regulatory details to future decisions by questionable government bureaucrats. What Obama doesn't deal with are redundancies or inconsistencies among various regulators, an unpredictable economic environment (e.g., why was Lehman Brothers allowed to fail but not others?), the fact that two essentially bankrupt GSE's dominating about half the mortgage market, implicitly guaranteed by the federal government, putting taxpayers on the hook by snapping up high risk loans.

Boehner doesn't get it? What administration made Goldman Sach whole for its derivative contracts with an essentially bankrupt AIG? You can make all the allegations you want about predatory lending (or, more relevantly, predatory borrowing), but a bank that doesn't find a secondary market (i.e., the GSE's) to sell risky loans doesn't write risky loans, because it's then stuck with them. And Obama fails to appreciate the reason that too many people were in the market because interest rates were lower than they should have been and banks were writing gimmick low-collateral loans at the top of a bubble market to questionable credit risks, not even verifying stable income. Housing boom/bust periods are not exactly unknown phenomena; we saw an earlier down market in the early 1990's. Many people, including myself, had been arguing the housing market was unsustainable by the mid-2000's; the only issue was the timing of the burst. Now Obama can disingenuously blame greedy bankers, or "Wild West Bush Administration regulators" all he wants, but he's confusing symptoms with the disease. By the mid-2000's American savings were at historic lows, credit and home ownership at historic highs. Obama wasn't interested in lowering taxpayer exposure to the GSE's; he was fixated at the time on alleged predatory lending. Talk about being penny-wise, pound-foolish! Even assuming a house is repossessed, the bank is still left with a house with declining value in a down market that it has to valuate in accordance with accounting rules--on a possible or probable path to zombie status.

Political Cartoon

Chuck Asay shows Congress is on the job when it comes to pointing fingers at a British-run corporation spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and Congress knows how to tax banks and spend money. But when it comes to the Congress investigating itself for failing to look out for the American taxpayer in guaranteeing subprime mortgage notes purchased by the GSE's--well, we will just have to wait for that. Because everybody knows the first thing you need to do after government fails is to express your faith in the ability of government bureaucrats to perform even better with additional responsibilities.... Why worry about those pesky mortgage loans? It's not like homes are often people's biggest investments... No, sir! Sen. Durbin will tell you he knows how to set priorities, because he's looking out for your debit card fees! After all, that's the top item concerning voters, not things like jobs, Afghanistan, illegal immigration, etc.

Quote of the Day

One picture is worth a thousand words.
Fred R. Barnard

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1980

The Pretender, "Brass in Pocket"



Irena Cara, "Fame"



Elton John, "Little Jeannie"    



Benny Mardones, "Into the Night"   tweak the lyrics: 18 years old



Billy Preston & Syreeta Wright, "With You I'm Born Again"  Sigh! One of my favorite duets!

Miscellany: 6/29/10

Boehner: Muddled Message, But a Good Start: Tackling Entitlements

I find Minority Leader Boehner to be refreshingly candid, in a recent interview (see below for a relevant video clip). But anytime you start discussing constructive options for resolving entitlements, unlike the Democrats whom have shunned taking responsibility for their own Ponzi scheme entitlements (namely, social security and Medicare), you know that the Democrats, who have run 4 decades or more of elections running on a campaign based on sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) over what the "Scrooge-like" Republicans would do to the promised benefits of  cash-strapped retired senior citizens, aren't changing their message. Now one could argue that the Democrats knew they had only a limited amount of time with overwhelming majorities to ram their agenda down the minority GOP's throats. They could have used their clout to fix their entitlements under the most favorable circumstances.  They didn't--why?

I think it's because they are scared to death of publicly backtracking on Obama/their commitment not to raise taxes, except on the top 5%, and the problem can't be fixed without shared sacrifice, including spending cuts, raised co-pays or premiums, etc.--there simply aren't enough rich people to pick up everybody else's check.

In terms of social security reform, Boehner discusses things like means-testing, adjusting payment increases to reflect the cost of living (not the cost of labor),  and raising the retirement age (steps I've advocated in past posts). The Dems, of course, are already raising FUD over what Boehner said, even though means-testing is something they've been pushing. Also, Boehner really doesn't repeat the typical GOP talking point of the partial privatization of young worker contributions, something that is not really appreciated by the partisan Dems.

However, I do disagree with a few points Boehner discussed. First, he talks about repealing the $534B in Medicare cuts being used to fund the new health care entitlement. I disagree; I do agree against using the $534B being used to fund the new entitlement, but I would argue that those savings should be used to shore up a massively underfunded Medicare liability.  Second, Boehner's discussion of discussing the need for entitlement reform to ensure payment for the war needs more explanation. We have what should be a lockbox in terms of social security--pay-as-you-go. It's true entitlement spending comes out of the budget, but payroll taxes go into the budget. In most years to date payroll taxes have exceeded disbursements to senior citizens, allowing for a growing liability to the trust funds. It looks as though because of early retirements due to the tough economy, not to mention a large unemployment problem resulting in lower than expected premium collections, we are seeing the necessity of the trust fund having to redeem some of its T-bills to make up the difference. But in theory the redemption of T-bills does not crowd out the defense budget because they have different funding sources. Note that unless we do away with payroll taxes, we will always have some dedicated income to fund social security disbursements. We won't have to fund disbursements out of operations unless the trust fund runs out of T-bills--which will be years from now (presumably our Afghanistan involvement will be over long before then). It is true we need to reform social security to ensure we have a viable reserve before we find ourselves faced with the dilemma of funding out of operations and/or cutting disbursements.

Third, Boehner's discussion of pushing a fix for social security before Medicare seems dubious given the fact that the unfunded liability of Medicare is multiple times larger than social security's. Boehner needs to address the more critical and difficult Medicare issue more directly, because kicking the crisis down the line is not acceptable. We do need to fix social security, which is low-hanging fruit. But during the whole process of the Democratic Party Health Care Bill/Law, with all its disingenuous smoke-and-mirrors accounting, the Democrats, who never saw a Medicare cut they liked--until it came for paying for a new entitlement, suddenly talk about finding half a trillion dollars--but not using it to shore up a $75T unfunded liability, I'm screaming, "The emperor is wearing no clothes..." Nobody is talking about the Medicare solvency issue. I know the Democrats, with a tough mid-term straight ahead, aren't about to take some politically unpopular stands a real solution would require, but Boehner needs to talk about it now versus later...




New Favorite Website

The US Debt Clock (real-time mode) is oddly mesmerizing. There are several things in particular that I note from these numbers. For example, I'm looking at federal revenue and federal spending year-to-date, and I'm comparing government revenue to debt totals; it's fairly easy to see that state and local revenues are more closely related to their debt levels whereas the federal debt is over 6 times current revenue. By toggling the World Debt public/external switch, we can see although Japan has the worst  public debt/GDP ratio, most of Japan's debt is financed internally, whereas we owe other nations nearly as much as our $14.4T GDP. I'm also concerned about the current trade deficit, large percentages of which involve trade with China and foreign oil/gas suppliers. In terms of federal expenditures, there are the outlays for national debt interest and federal pensions (e.g., military retirement at half pay, starting as early as late 30's). Then there are the total and component parts of US unfunded liabilities.

We can easily see the folly of this fiscal year's (Democratic Party) federal deficit of $1.43T and climbing, not to mention the national agenda on health care; for example, Speaker Pelosi and her fellow progressives are anxious to hype "doughnut hole" handouts to senior citizens for coverage gaps in the relatively new prescription drug entitlement--while at the same time we are looking at nearly a $40T unfunded prescription drug liability. How does the Democratic Party exactly plan to resolve the unfunded liability? There are several steps that would need to be considered, all of which are politically unpopular: e.g., limit program participation (e.g., income- and/or age-eligibility), prune, limit or substitute eligible drugs (e.g., generics when available), and raise revenues (e.g., payroll taxes or (more preferably) consumption taxes). I can summarize the progressive Democrats' pathetic approach on this issue over the past decade to 3 basic points: (1) lift the income cap on payroll tax contributions (i.e., effectively increase the top income tax rate even more than Clinton), (2) the prescription drug plan under Bush was too stingy, and (3) import drugs from Canada.

No, the Democrats know exactly where to put their priorities in the Age of Obama: they want to emulate the social spending quagmire of Europe--after all, what's not to like about anemic economic growth, massive unfunded liabilities, and sticky high unemployment?

There are several logical reforms to public policy obvious from reflecting on these numbers. We need to understand several factors are beyond our control, e.g., growing economies that compete with the US for the oil it needs for imports. This includes, on grounds of national security, the necessity of aggressively exploring each and every viable oil/gas property (including oil shale, offshore, etc.), etc. Most of our imports with China involve various consumer products  with narrow profit margins and low wages. Labor unions need to understand in this world they can't compete where lower-skill labor is a commodity. We may need to invest in new production facilities needing fewer workers, but with specialized, value-added skills. But we need to have policies that draw investment to America, not away from America, e.g., uncompetitive business tax rates. And even if many of those commodity jobs never come back to the US, wouldn't it make more sense to diversity our suppliers (including more business with the rest of my dream of an Americas free trade zone)?

If we look at our national savings rate (granted, over the past several months, there's been a tick-up but this has more to do with economic uncertainty--you might defer vacations or purchase if you're worried about losing a family income), it's been abysmal; look at consumer debt. The problem is that this is a double-edged source; if people save too much, it might dampen demand for local goods and services, but a consumption tax, in combination with systematic spending reforms,  provides a more balanced fiscal perspective and a down payment towards a more responsible fiscal policy.

Of course, you'll hear nothing of this from progressive Democrats. They remain faithful to their preposterous talking points that somehow the well-to-do (who pay the most taxes) were in a zero-sum game with the middle class (it had nothing to do with a tough global economy, 9/11, anti-economic growth policies, and federal spending crowding out the private sector, among other things...) What have the Democrats done to pass 3 free trade pacts pending at the end of the Bush Administration? What have they done to cut the second highest business tax bracket among the developed nations, which is resulting in businesses choosing instead to invest overseas? What have they done to stop the bleeding of our enormous trade deficit of energy supplies? Instead they focus on things like a fairy-tale energy policy that over the past 40 years still accounts for less than 10% of energy consumption, despite massive public subsidies; never mind that cleaner air at extraordinary high costs, an added cost of manufacturing in the US likely to result in more jobs being shipped overseas, can be more than offset by greater pollution from developing economies (e.g., China, India, etc.).

Bonus Video: Santelli Rant Redux: "STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING!"

My 2009 Man of the Year and inspiration for the Tea Party Movement takes on a "tax-and-spend" economics reporter.



Political Cartoon

Gary Varvel introduces the 2000-page string-pushing, "let-the-bureaucrats-decide" (i.e., the antithesis of transparency), "tax-bank-success" financial reform, which does not address Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, the easy money policy of the Fed, the failures of regulators, Congressional oversight, credit raters, or "too big to fail", not to mention political pressure on the banks to lend to riskier applicants.

After all, we know the REAL priority isn't to resolve the troubled housing market dominated by the GSE duo, is it? Home ownership in the aftermath of the housing bubble burst isn't a high priority, is it? It's not as if a person's home might be his or her biggest asset....

It is wonderfully simple in the progressive world view where everything over the last 8 years can be blamed on either George W. Bush or Big Banks.

Quote of the Day

He who thinketh he leadeth and hath no one following him is only taking a walk.
Anonymous

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1979

Bee Gees, "Tragedy"    greatest Bee Gees' song ever!



Supertramp, "The Logical Song"      favorite pop philosophy song!



Kiss, "I Was Made For Loving You"     best KISS song ever!



Cheap Trick, "I Want You to Want Me"



England Dan & John Ford Coley, "Love is the Answer"

Miscellany: 6/28/10

The Passing of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)

This much I will give to Robert Byrd: he clearly had a love and knowledge of the US Senate unparalleled among his colleagues. In addition, Byrd took a principled stand against Bill Clinton's intended abuse of the budget reconciliation process using the Byrd rule in an attempt to pass the Clinton version of health care "reform".

However, there are a few things which people haven't been discussing in the rush to pay tribute to his memory. Byrd put his own political ambition above the people of West Virginia and America. Byrd unapologetically brought home more than his fair share of Congressional pork. He probably has more infrastructure (over 30 projects) named after him in West Virginia than any other politician in the country. Both Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd probably stayed on, even as their health was rapidly declining to the point they were no longer effectively serving their constituents. [I am empathetic to the concept of limited terms across the board for the 3 branches of government; I strongly believe that tenure privileges result in cronyism and corruption.] Finally, even though West Virginia has voted GOP the last 3 Presidential elections, Robert Byrd had transitioned from one of the Senate's most conservative Democrats in 1972 to a more reliable liberal vote last year, to the left of Ben Nelson (NE) and Bayh (IN).

McDonald v Chicago: Affirming Self-Protection Consistently: Thumbs Up

It was fairly clear that the 2008 Heller v District of Columbia decision, which firmly established an individual's right to own a firearm for self-protection in Washington DC, wasn't context-specific, i.e., persons in dangerous neighborhoods in DC were "more equal" than people in bad Chicago neighborhoods. But given DC's unique status, a court challenge was inevitable.

The basic issue was not whether one could reasonable restrict the right of firearms but whether a state or local government could, by arbitrary majoritarian fiat, strip away that right. Thus, for instance, I don't think you can argue that a household needs a machine gun or state-of-the-art military rifles to protect itself from violent trespassers. Of course, you can predict the next step from Chicago: it will try to test the limits of the decision by trying to regulate it to a burdensome degree--e.g., require training and certification, insurance, tax purchases, etc.

Most of us laymen don't really get into the legalese weeds. For instance, most of us think that the freedom of worship was guaranteed universally within the US. But the Bill of Rights really only protected us from abusive federal laws, not abusive state laws. The rebirth of the nation after the Civil War really eliminated a double standard between the federal and state governments in terms of recognition of basic individual rights.

One of the more interesting discussions involving this decision involve the question of due process vs. privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. There were Supreme Court rulings shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment that muted privileges and immunities justifications. I won't review the history here but there's an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal explaining how that distinction played out in today's ruling. What's notable about this decision is that Justice Clarence Thomas decided to issue a separate concurring opinion based on the privileges and immunities clause. Justice Scalia was tempted to join Thomas, but decided there was enough due process precedence to go along with the base opinion. I have my own opinion on this distinction, but I'll write a separate future post on the issue.

Those Sex-Obsessed Politicians and Media...

Well, I just can't resist. For years after distancing himself from Bill "Blue Dress" Clinton, including the creepiest public kiss ever by a married couple, "Giggling" Al "Sex-Crazed Poodle" Gore, freshly separated from Tipper, just might be embarrassing to his former boss these days. This comes after the recently much-hyped "Boobgate" scandal whereby envious flat-chested progressives accused Sarah Palin of having had breast enhancement surgery. And who can forget how the progressive Huffington Post tried to draw attention to the cleavage of well-endowed German center-right politicians whom had "more to offer" last summer? But then Hillary Clinton's cleavage got much more coverage during the summer of 2007...

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson notes that European and Japanese leaders, such as Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, as recovering Big Nanny social net spendaholics, know better than to repeat the same failed Keynesian economic mistakes Obama and the progressive Democrats are imposing on future generations of Americans.

Quote of the Day

A professional is a person who can do his best at a time when he doesn't particularly feel like it.
Alistair Cooke

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1978

Debby Boone, "You Light Up My Life"



Abba, "The Name of the Game"    (I marked for anything ABBA, before "Momma Mia")



Patti Smith Group, "Because the Night"



Boston, "Don't Look Back"   (my favorite Boston and driving songs)



The Commodores, "Three Times a Lady"

Longtime fans asked Richie on The Early Show who the woman was in his first chart-topper with The Commodores, "Three Times a Lady." Richie revealed the woman was actually his mother. Richie told the story of a speech his father gave one Thanksgiving, sentimentally thanking Richie’s mother for being an amazing lady, friend and person. Richie said the story inspired the song. Richie said, "Three times a lady -- (that’s) my mom."

Miscellany: 6/27/10

Looking at Federal Compensation

As Obama myopically pushed for more stimulus spending among the other G20 nations, the Europeans, having had a near-death experience with the Greek budget crisis, see through the preposterous assertion by progressive economists (like the NYT's Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman) that government spending is, by its very nature, stimulative. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said in the mid-1970's, "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money." Or, as libertarian CATO fellow Michael Tanner restates it in a recent op-ed: "These [European] countries are discovering a basic economic truth: eventually you run out of Peters with which to pay Paul."

In fact, Thatcher's party leadership successor and new Prime Minister, David Cameron, has already announced budget CUTS, which attempt to address a massive $133K national debt per household. (We are already better than halfway there, even with less of a social net than the British.) These budget cuts over the next 5 years are projected to accumulate about 750,000 public-sector job losses (not to mention real wage cuts). One of the reasons we have to look at that is the massive amount of government labor costs: in 2008, the civilian federal payroll of 2 million accounted for nearly a quarter trillion dollars in cost. The USA Today  survey cited above, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, did some interesting comparative analyses. First of all, the average federal worker pulled in about $66,600, over $11K more than the average  But, and hence is what makes the comparisons even more incredible is the fact that the value of benefits (insurance, pension, etc.) per federal worker amounted to roughly $40,000 per worker, over 4 times the comparable amount in the private sector. So when you look at total compensation, the average federal worker costs over $100K per year, more than $40K per year more than the average private sector worker; so pay averages about 20% more, but total compensation increases the difference to over 40%. This is on top of legendary stability of federal government employment. What we have is a growing gulf of the have's and the have not's--namely the federal government worker. (State and local government workers are very close to private sector means in terms of pay, although overly generous, unrealistic pension plans are pushing related governments to bankruptcy.)  Here is a subset of the comparable occupations where the federal worker makes proportionately a lot more than the private sector (approximately 4 out of 5 occupations do better in the federal space):

OCCUPATION	AVG FED PAY	AVG PRVT PAY	DELTA
Broadcast technician	$90,310	$49,265	$41,045
Chemist	$98,060	$72,120	$25,940
Clergy	$70,460	$39,247	$31,213
Cook	$38,400	$23,279	$15,121
Graphic designer	$70,820	$46,565	$24,255
Landscape architects	$80,830	$58,380	$22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker	$33,100	$19,945	$13,155
Public relations manager	$132,410	$88,241	$44,169
Recreation worker	$43,630	$21,671	$21,959
Secretary	$44,500	$33,829	$10,671

Not all occupations do better; optometrists, pilots, and editors make considerably less pay. Of course, federal union apologists attempt to argue that federal work is intrinsically more complex and argue other factors as well (tenure-driven increases and a relatively older worker population). [My experience is anecdotal and does not constitute statistically valid results, but my productivity and performance as a modestly-compensated contractor have vastly exceeded the federal employees I've worked with.] No doubt progressives will point at the fact BP CEO Tony Hayward made more money than President Obama. However, no one can deny BP under Hayward, over and beyond the tragic oil spill accident, has made money, while the Obama Administration (and/or the Democratic Congress) will have added $3T in deficits in the last two fiscal years ending in September. For whatever reason the Democrats will insist that the GOP is "responsible" for the explosion in spending, but the only times over the past 40 years the federal budget has been balanced was under a GOP Congress, and TARP spending was authorized by a Democratic-controlled Congress. And, fundamentally a huge part of the problem is the fact, despite federal revenues dropping by 40% or more, Obama and his Democratic majority in Congress have been on a federal hiring spree.

I have a few family members (by birth) and relatives whom are working or have worked for Civil Service and probably would disagree with me. In most cases, they had to wait a period of time before being accepted. This is a classic symptom of a labor supply/demand imbalance, i.e., artificially high compensation. In fact, employees should be willing to accept a lower wage, just in terms of all but guaranteed employment. The same rationale explains why, for instance, the Treasury can pay lower interest rates for debt than corporations or many other national governments.

Other Contrasts Between the American and Developed Countries' Budget Approach

I would like to reorganize some of the observations in the Tanner and WSJ op-ed articles cited above: [Note that some of the proposed changes have not necessarily been passed but are being supported by current leadership]

• Great Britain: Deep spending cuts and some tax increases.  Raising the retirement age. American conservative style welfare reform and cuts in payment subsidies (e.g., newborns).
• US/Progressive Dems: Deep spending increases, increased percentage of American workers not contributing to government cost burden. Counterproductive punitive tax increases on the economically successful, already paying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden, and to big banks. Increased unemployment payments, "doughnut hole" prescription drug payments to senior citizens, a vast array of generous subsidies to households contributing little, if anything, to government burden (e.g., mortgage assistance, cash for clunkers, etc.) No attempt to address over $40T in unfunded social security and Medicare liabilities.
• France: Increases in the retirement age, state sale of assets, increased co-payments for health service.
• US/Progressive Dems: Bragging over how preventive health care, even for questionably cost-effective medical tests, will be "free", not to mention lowering or eliminating co-pays. Making more federal assets off-limits for commercial uses and essentially freezing exploration on oil shale and offshore assets, making our economy even more dependent on questionably reliable foreign-produced energy supplies.
• Germany: Increases in the retirement age, a nearly 3% drop of GDP in public spending. Universities increasing tuition payments for college students. 
• US/Progressive Dems. A nearly 3% drop of our $14.6T GDP would amount to almost a $440B drop in spending. Obama bragged about a $17B cut while adding $3T to the national debt. In the meanwhile, Obama nationalized student loans, promised to prop up the college cost bubble by guaranteeing student loans (despite the fact that many such students never graduate), and furthermore offered to forgive college student loans if they take a job with the government, at compensation levels far above the private sector (see above).
• Italy: Budget cuts, crackdown on health care fraud, and a 3-year pay freeze on all government workers.
• US/Progressive Dems. Obama tried to make a watered-down version of medical malpractice tort reform a political carrot in a failing bid to attract GOP support for the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill/Law, despite of the fact that he was proposing adding millions of newly insured into a system where insurance costs are driving overutilized doctors out of business. And Obama's proposed pay freezes for federal workers applied to only a small percentage of highly-compensated Civil Service workers.
• Spain: Budget cuts, cuts in cash payments (e.g., newborns), higher retirement age.
• US/Progressive Dems. Are you kidding? At the same time Spain is cutting back on the giant budget sinkhole of alternative energy subsidies, US progressive Democrats have accelerated such "investments" and are trying to use the BP oil spill to pass tax-and-trade.

Political Cartoon

Chip Bok doesn't have to note that the claim won't be processed because the bird didn't initial the second copy of Section 2143 Item 24, he failed to leave a permanent address, and that signature was too blotchy. But on the bright side, the Dems' jobs program includes plenty of money borrowed from future generations to pay for pencil-pushers and red tape.

Quote of the Day

The last thing one discovers in writing a book is what to put first.
Blaise Pascal

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1977

Helen Reddy, "You're My World"



Andy Gibb, "I Just Want to Be Your Everything"



Queen, "Somebody to Love"



Foreigner, "Cold as Ice"



Kansas, "Carry On, My Wayward Son"

Miscellany: 6/26/10

Internet Kill Switch Plan? Thumbs down

There are some worthwhile issues underlying the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act: we have to modernize and expand our notion of common defense. Of particular concern are computer-based attacks aimed at our economy (say, for instance, utilities and financial networks) and national information and communication systems. In essence, Lieberman's legislation allows the President under emergency conditions to assert control over parts of the Internet for periods up to 120 days, an extension of which requires Congressional approval.

I have no problems with key infrastructure industry companies being required to devise, implement, test and maintain state-of-the-art computer security software and a disaster recovery plan, including ongoing server backups, replicated databases and backup networks, subject to government/industry audits. However, I would prefer the process to be more advisory, giving companies and individuals flexibility to achieve security objectives rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all, likely obsolete or incomplete checklist. We are more interested in processes, such as timely implementation of security patching, restrictions on server port access, remote access privileges, and server objects and processes, more contextual access, encrypted data flows, and internal controls.

The proof is in the pudding. First of all, I'm worried about the moral hazard of anything remotely resembling the nationalization of computer security, not to mention the potential vulnerability of a single point of failure (versus, for example, the enemy having to deal with the complexity of multiple decentralized security schemes). Second, I have more confidence in a private sector drawn from over 300 million people motivated by their own self-interest in devising defenses against cybercrime or cyberwar than in a federal bureaucracy (with all due respect to NSA and other government agencies). Third, I'm concerned over further "slippery scope" encroachments by the public over the private sectors (e.g., Andrew Napolitano's concerns over violations to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which I mentioned in a different context in yesterday's post.) I also want to ensure we have the proper Constitutional checks and balances, including any current updates to the Congress' traditional power to declare war.

Disclose Act Unconstitutional: Thumbs Down

The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v FEC, set aside an unconscionable double standard in so-called campaign finance, where for-profit corporations (and unions), unlike nonprofit groups were denied an opportunity to express their point of view, on political issues affecting their businesses, employees, and their owners. Democrats, of course, love corporate taxes but don't think if, say, a corrupt President manipulates bankruptcies to favor lower-standing unions over bondholders, or if he also attempts to declare war on banks (especially big banks) by punitively taxing them, they should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. Let's call it "taxation without representation". You see, the President and the Democratic Congress are afraid of the American people making up their own minds. Watch them cry "it's unfair" to give corporations the opportunity to pay for media time while Obama et al. use a tax-paid staff and free air time to promote their anti-business agenda.

Apparently the right to an opinion only applies to progressives; their rights are "more equal" than everyone else's rights--never mind the fact that self-professed conservatives outnumber progressives better than 2-1. In fact, Gallup shows the percentage of conservatives has increased, in the age of Obama, from 37% to 42%--it's highest point since 1994. You remember 1994: that's when the mid-term elections swept the GOP to control of the Congress for the first time since the 1952 election.

The Disclose Act attempts to do a number of blatantly unconstitutional things and is particularly notable for excluding the politically powerful NRA from consideration. It carried 219-206; if that vote count sounds familiar it's because that roughly corresponds to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill vote several weeks back. (Only 2 GOP votes for the measure: the liberal Republicans from New Orleans and Delaware.) There is no doubt that the act will not pass constitutional muster (in fact, unlike every other campaign reform since the 1940's, it bars a preliminary Supreme Court review)--for example, it arbitrarily decides to disqualify any corporation with more than 20% foreign ownership; it excludes banks that were forced to participate in the TARP bailout (under threats from Treasury Secretary Paulson) [Isn't it strange that the Dems didn't have a problem with approving federal funds to support ACORN, which almost invariably supported Dems in general elections...] It also tries to dictate the nature of a political ad (e.g., demanding company officers appear in the ad)  and discourages ads by burying the corporations in copious paperwork. The equal protection violations alone doom this proposed law.

All the partisan Dems can hope, at best, if this passes (so far the 41 Senate GOP votes are blocking the measure), is to try to mute the Constitutional rights of corporations for one or 2 election cycles. But even liberal groups like the ACLU and the Sierra Club oppose this morally bankrupt law.

Political Cartoon

Bob Gorrell implicitly notes that BHO has his own problems with the Tali-Cong. Things that make you go 'hmmm'; remember Obama's strident rhetoric that we had been fighting the 'wrong war' (in Iraq)? Be careful of what you wish for... By the way, how's next year's withdrawal looking, Obama? The Taliban are waiting to hear from you....

Quote of the Day

A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out.

Walter Winchell

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1975

Barry Manilow, "Could It Be Magic"    (my favorite Manilow song)



Styx, "Lady"



America, "Lonely People"



James Taylor, "How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You)"



Electric Light Orchestra, "Can't Get It Out Of My Head"

Miscellany: 6/25/10

Financial Reform Reconciliation? Thumbs Down

The House and Senate reconciliation committee met and approved a final bill on a party-line vote. What do you say about a 2000-page bill? Do you remember Speaker Pelosi saying this about the health care bill? "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..." Um, no, Ms. Speaker: what does that is a sunshine law, i.e., greater transparency. Now we hear this from a triumphant Chris Dodd: "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works."

The "tax-the-big-bank" philosophy is an intrinsically unfair practice that seeks to punish success in the private sector, the very success and scalability needed to compete in the international markets. The issue isn't so much size as risk, and I want to point out that banking is one of the most highly regulated and scrutinized industries, with state and federal oversight, audits, and credit ratings, etc. The partisan scapegoating of Wall Street and the banks conveniently ignores the root cause of failure, which wasn't so much the banks--after all, unlike the public sector, private sector businesses are not guaranteed survival after bad management and execution. The government itself was responsible for the debacle, contributing to the real estate bubble by essentially backing a plurality of mortgage notes, in particular, riskier loans to applicants with questionable income, collateral or credit worthiness. The Federal Reserve, in particular, maintained an easy money policy, WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE CAUSES SPECULATION. Now if the progressives are seriously interested in treating the disease rather than the symptoms, why did they, of all things, add to the Federal Reserve's empire? (After all, they performed SO WELL....)

So what we have done is add a new federal bureaucracy to deal with consumer protection (because, obviously, the federal government has done so well in handling (pick your choice: immigration, 9/11, the wars in or near the Gulf region, Katrina, the economic tsunami, reviving the economy, balancing the budget, the BP oil spill, etc.)). The Dems are swearing double-pinky that this time, for sure, the sausage put together in the wee hours of the morning between House and Senate Democrats will restore Americans' faith in Big Government. And they are sure to claim all the extra government overhead will more than pay for itself and not adversely affect the timely introduction of globally competitive, innovative financial products,  tie up your transactions, invade your privacy, or impact your ability to get loans or your banking services or costs. "Pay no attention to the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) behind the curtain; we know the real lesson from 2008 was to fix the fee on your debit card!"

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) contends that the bill will shrink credit. Fox legal contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano additionally contends the bill is blatantly unconstitutional in that it allows the government to look at the books of private corporations (Fourth Amendment) and exercise control over transactions (Fifth Amendment). The arbitrary intervention of the government in the affairs of business that should go bankrupt, to me, is inherently worrisome. I am absolutely convinced that this sausage is high-fat, not very nutritious or well-cooked, and won't satisfy the taxpayer's hunger for real reform--i.e., government reform, including streamlining the labyrinth of government regulation.

We now know the Dems' real jobs program: 2000-page bills, i.e., the Employment Act for Surplus Lawyers. I submit a conservative counter-proposal: an American version of the Henry VI Act, i.e., "Let's fire all the lawyers."

Now Here's Where We Need Regulation...

A middle-aged New Hampshire woman, Kay Phaneuf, living at home, had a medical condition requiring the use of oxygen equipment. While her husband was away from home, a utility worker came by to shut off power because the account was delinquent; he knocked on the door but didn't get a response. Her husband found her in critical condition an hour later, but she died (or was declared dead) at the hospital. Her equipment did have a backup battery supply, but it had not been engaged.

This is a heartbreaking story; no doubt liberals will scapegoat the utility, National Grid, but I argue this is more of a case of bad ergonomic design. Typically we think of ergonomics in terms of the relevant physical and cognitive fitness of a person to use the furniture, devices or systems in his or her environment. There are various criteria we set; for example, we should be able to use an object or perform a task comfortably, safely, efficiently, intuitively, and effectively. We try to design an object or a process so people are able to do something useful, with minimal instruction or intrusion of task-extraneous factors and without unnecessary effort. In particular, we should look at ways to use technology intelligently, e.g., remember to make a monthly payment, schedule a routine doctor's visit  or trigger a backup power supply on power failure.

The reason I say that National Grid wasn't necessarily at fault was that an act of  God could have easily resulted in the same situation, e.g., a violent thunderstorm while the husband is away results in a power outage. So one thing doctors, health insurers, device makers and family members need to keep in mind is the need to explicitly require and routinely test uninterrupted power supplies for life-dependent technology; we don't want the patient to have to figure out how to find and operate the backup power supply, even assuming he or she is physically able to do that. It might be useful to have some sort of automatic alerting mechanism triggered by equipment shutdown. Second, it seems that National Grid does have a process of renewable doctor-validated documents which would guard against a service cutoff, and  at least one such expired document was in the Phaneuf file. I do not know the specifics of Mrs. Phaneuf's condition, but it would have been prudent policy for National Grid to require specific proactive contact with the spouse/guardian and/or the patient's doctor and explicit management approval before shutting off the power, once an initial doctor's notification has been processed. Third, I would make the renewal of the doctor's notice automatic by default. Fourth, I'm concerned about a seriously ill person being left alone; there may be a need to consider remote technology monitoring systems, adult day care volunteer services, or other resources.

My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Phaneuf for the tragic loss of his wife.

Political Cartoon

Gary Varvel is making reference to the longest match in pro tennis history in this week's Wimbledon matches, with American John Isner beating Frenchman Nicholas Mahut in an 11-hour, 183-game contest with Isner winning the final set 70-68. In this case, we are describing in Afghanistan the longest war in American history.

Quote of the Day

A loyal friend laughs at your jokes when they're not so good, and sympathizes with your problems when they're not so bad.
Arnold H. Glasow

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1974

Olivia Newton-John, "I Honestly Love You"



John Denver, "Annie's Song"



Paul Anka, "(You're) Having My Baby"



Jim Croce, "Time in a Bottle"  (for my distant cousin Susie)



Elton John, "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me"

Miscellany: 6/24/10

Hilda Solis:  Snitch Line for Illegal Aliens



The anti-business Obama Administration has done it again. They feel sorry for "underpaid" undocumented workers. Yeah, the reason why Latino immigrants pay coyotes a small fortune to get them into the US illegally is to get jobs that pay less than their fair market value back home. By some estimates, the average daily Mexican wage is $5; on the other hand, the average 2007 unauthorized worker household income was $36,000 (versus $50K overall). Estimates of dollars sent home have ranged from $10B to $45B or more per year.

You see, when they wire money back home to their families, it's not because they've managed to save money over and beyond their expenses while living in the States. According to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Survey, 8.3 million unauthorized workers, roughly 1 out of 20 workers in the US market, is an unauthorized worker, roughly 60% of which are Mexican (and another 15% are other Latinos). Nearly 1 in 4 farm workers is unauthorized, and nearly 1 in 5 construction workers is the same. In a labor force where only 1 of 10 native workers lacks a high school diploma, nearly 1 of every 2 unauthorized workers lacks the same.

Now personally, I think the minimum wage is counterproductive economic policy. As I've explained in other posts, the minimum wage confounds the supply/demand of labor. What businesses pay for labor is constrained by prices for goods and services, net of other costs and a reasonable operating margin and by the supply and demand of labor itself; the supply is constrained by a number of factors, including skill and/or knowledge levels. Labor is also impacted by technology factors. The point here is that if two parties, e.g., the employer and an undocumented worker, come to an understanding at below an artificially inflated minimum wage, it does not reflect "unfair" wages. If the undocumented worker feels that the wage is unfair, he has the right to go home and earn that $5 a day--if he can find the work.  The unfair situation is not that the undocumented worker isn't earning more--because the job probably wouldn't exist at the minimum wage; it would be that authorized worker may not have the ability to make the same deal.

If Ms. Solis wants to go after employers for not complying with the minimum wage and/or payroll tax contributions, I want to ensure that that the IRS goes after unauthorized workers whom have evaded their share of payroll taxes and that any self-incriminating unauthorized worker in question is reported to ICE and immediately deported. You must be consistent in enforcing the law--you can't simply decide to uphold labor laws while ignoring immigration laws, and you don't solve the immigration problem by raising the expected income for unauthorized workers. You don't get more jobs out of the private sector by attempting to intimidate employers. If Ms. Solis really wants to help lower-skilled employees find work, consider waiving or lowering the minimum wage. Progressives have never been good at supply-side economics. Obama continues to push Keynesian spending economics, despite its profound failure during the Great Depression, and its rejection by other G20 nations. Maybe one day Ms. Solis will figure out is that with artificially high labor rates in the US, manufacturers find it more profitable to shift labor-intensive manufacturing operations to places like China and Mexico. You don't grow jobs with uncompetitive high business tax brackets or other business costs.

More on the Judge Feldman Kerfuffle

Megyn Kelly of Fox News mentioned on her early afternoon news report today that Judge Feldman had previously disposed of his energy holdings (in particular, Transocean and Halliburton) that progressives attempted to make an issue of, using an older disclosure report, and that his current assets were focused more on diversified stock holdings, not individual energy companies.

There are a few points I wanted to add to the discussion. The first point is the fact that some of the assumptions progressives made in questioning the alleged holdings were fundamentally wrong. For instance, a moratorium actually is a supply squeeze; this tends to support higher oil prices and profits. In other words, assuming Judge Feldman held considerable energy holdings, it would be to his advantage to SUPPORT the moratorium, not oppose it. Second, it's highly likely that in-demand American oil technology, including idled rigs in the Gulf, would be deployed elsewhere, e.g., Brazil's vast offshore oil holdings. In other words, profitable equipment/operations would simply be shifted from domestic to foreign locations. Third, there are specific technical reasons why Obama's experts supported only a moratorium on new permits, not a cessation of drilling in 500 feet of water or more; it deals with the risky capping process you need to do in stopping operations.

Finally, Judge Feldman today denied a stay of his decision until the Court of Appeals rules on Feldman's decision. In fact, it's very difficult to see the basis of the decision being overturned; the Obama Administration essentially threw the baby out with the bathwater. I think the real story is not the atrocious decision which adds to economic damages to a region dealing with many coastal businesses (fishing, tourism, etc.) This appears to be political posturing, mostly designed at trying to motivate its environmental allies for this fall's election. I think that the Obama Administration is delusional if it thinks the election this fall will be a referendum on highly unpopular BP.  I don't think the Obama Administration's handling of the crisis has been well-received, and I don't think Joe SixPack believes that Obama's massive alternate energy subsidies will fill his SUV's gas tank more cheaply.

Political Cartoon

Gary Varvel notes that Obama, frustrated in trying to find someone else to blame for the BP oil spill,  finally found an ass he could kick. McChrystal should have put his unprofessional remarks in something Obama would never read--like detailed Afghanistan battle plans. Putting them in Rolling Stone magazine? Come on, Gen. McChrystal--Obama recently met both Bono and McCartney on their White House tours...

Quote of the Day

To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue... gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.
Confucius

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1976

Barry Manilow, "I Write the Songs"



Gary Wright, "Love is Alive"



Fleetwood Mac, "Rhiannon" Stevie Nicks, a lot of lace, a great song; what more do you need?



Bee Gees, "Fanny (Be Tender With My Love)"  I mark for anything Bee Gee's; only the BeeGee's could make disco tolerable



Peter Frampton, "Show Me the Way"    from the greatest live album ever....

Miscellany: 6/23/10

Judge Martin Feldman Under Scrutiny

The judge yesterday who struck down Obama's 6-month drilling moratorium affecting over 30 existing exploratory wells has come under attack by progressives for having oil and natural gas industry investments, in particular, BP's rig partners, Transocean and Halliburton. The obvious point, by the environmentalists protesting the judge's decision, is that the judge should have recused himself from the case because he presumably had a material interest in the decision outcome. (This objection, conveniently, came out after the decision was made.)

This is clearly not a substantive response to the judge's decision itself, which essentially responded that the government hadn't supplied compelling evidence that the other 32 or so deepwater rigs issued permits by the federal government had specific issues relevant to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster; the only thing in common is that they were deepwater rigs. For example, when an airline crashes, there can be a variety of reasons--an act of God (weather-related, birds, whatever), or (say) part failure due to poor maintenance. We do not  ban flying as intrinsically dangerous just because one plane has an accident. If it is something under the airlines' control, e.g., skipping routine maintenance, we can target the specific airline's policies. We do not assume other airlines as well skip routine maintenance, raising the riskiness of flights. There have been some anecdotal allegations that BP cut some corners on costs and safety factors, but the very fact of the blanket moratorium suggests that the Obama Administration believes the risk is intrinsic to deepwater drilling and any risk is unacceptable risk. But they have been issuing these permits, and companies have invested assets and resources based on the permits. Judge Feldman is saying to the Obama Administration is, "Look, if you believe there are some safety gaps in BP's drilling protocols, you can put those on hold--but you can't revoke permits arbitrarily, to competitors which have different operating procedures and safety records."

But let's go to the investment allegation. This is clearly ludicrous for a number of reasons. First, the drilling moratorium doesn't affect all offshore drilling, just deepwater ones; we are talking about some 30-odd rigs out of thousands representing the bulk of offshore operations. Second, many investors are not traders but invest for the long run. The stock market will price things like the 6-month moratorium as a temporary blip on earnings, based on the aggregate profit of contributed by their SHARE of the 30-odd rigs, as a percentage of their overall profits. Third, energy industry companies involved in the Gulf go beyond BP, Transocean and Halliburton.

In looking at conflicts of interest, one would need to look at the directness and materiality of the decision relative to a judge's financial position. For example, if the judge's retirement consisted primarily of BP stock and  BP was being sued for billions in damages, possibly affecting its survival, I would expect Judge Feldman to recuse himself.

Now I should say that I am not an expert in the area of professional ethics for lawyers, and I know that accounting firms are anal-retentive about reporting any shares involving clients. I've worked for consulting divisions of accounting firms, and I had to review pages of publicly held company clients and report (and quickly dispose of) any relevant shares, even though I had no access to relevant auditors or materials. I think the latter is overkill. For example, I diversify my investments, so the fate of any one particular investment is not going to kill my portfolio (unlike Enron employees whom kept buying company shares during the bubble). The accountants want independence in appearance as well as fact.

But luckily we don't have to rely on environmentalists, whom oppose any and all oil drilling as a matter of principle, grasping for straws: we have Feldman's legal judgment based on the Obama Administration's arbitrary cancellations of existing permits. In fact, the White House has admitted that its expert panel did not review the issue of existing permits, and many panel members have distanced themselves from that position.

Gen. McChrystal Fired, Replaced by Petraeus 

I fully agree with Obama's decision and stated reasons to terminate General McChrystal. Fox News Channel definitely had a pro-McChrystal bent on the lead up to the decision announcement, and online posts on the issue showed something like 60-odd% in favor of retaining McChrystal, I think about 15% for the termination and the rest undecided. A lot of people dismissed it as simply one bad misstep, others didn't like McChrystal having to take responsibility for outrageous things said by his staff, and others saw it as a matter of free speech, in fact, based on valid observations of Obama and others. There was also a consistent theme that, effectively, McChrystal was "too big to fail"; he was singularly qualified, and you don't change horses in the middle of a race.

Actually, a surprising number of Fox military commentators, including Oliver North, had concluded McChrystal would be fired and/or agreed with it; as North points out, disrespectful behavior towards the chain of command is grounds for a court martial. In Monday's post, I mentioned (in the context of the oil spill) a story about how a promising admiral had his career cut short by some provocative action taken by an enlisted man during an inspection. Military officers are taught to control what they say and do and to maintain a respectful demeanor; remember the Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer kerfuffle? "Sir" and "ma'am" are part of military protocol, but the general, without skipping a beat, complied with Boxer's request. The author of the piece said that a lot of things were said that didn't make the article; the point is, the general was responsible for his staff, and he and his staff said unprofessional things in the presence of the media.

I don't believe that McChrystal was too big to fail, but I find it both ironic and predictable that Obama decided to pick Petraeus, whom Obama barely acknowledged and whose surge policy he opposed during his Presidential campaign. I'm concerned there might be unrealistic expectations that Petraeus can quickly remedy a strategy where military restraint, based on anti-insurgent "hearts-and-minds" policies, is emboldening the enemy to pick off American casualties, e.g., booby-trapped houses, etc. But I'll leave that general question to a future post.

Political Cartoon

Nate Beeler reminds us that clean energy accounts for less than 10% of national usage, despite heavy government subsidies.

Quote of the Day

I can’t write a book commensurate with Shakespeare, but I can write a book by me.
Sir Walter Raleigh

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1973

Stevie Wonder, "Superstitious"



Chicago, "Feelin' Stronger Every Day"



Paul McCartney, "My Love"



Carly Simon, "You're So Vain"



The Rolling Stones, "Angie"

Miscellany: 6/22/10

Fremont, NE: Landlord, Employers Enforcers of Immigration? Thumbs Down

If I'm a property owner, e.g., a farmer or  a landlord, I don't want the government telling me whom I can hire or to whom I can rent. (Of course, the federal government does intervene--it tells me I have to withhold income for taxes, it says that I can't choose to hire or fire for politically incorrect reasons.) But if I have a crop to harvest and I have a willing and able migrant worker, my primary responsibility is to my business and customers; I don't really care if the foreign worker program is broken. If I'm a landlord, I want tenants whom pay their bills promptly and maintain the property.

If a foreign visitor gets injured by a car, or if he or she has a contagious health condition, and if I'm a health care provider, I really don't care about a visitor's legal status; I have a moral and professional responsibility and/or a public health concern.

The ACLU plans to fight this on grounds of potential racial profiling. I think this line of argument, which may parallel how the Department of Justice handles appeal of the Arizona immigration law, is not compelling. If a landlord or employer is required to apply a rule consistently, it's inherently not discriminatory.

I would agree that the intent of the law is to identify primarily a subset of Latinos, and the net effect constitutes a hostile environment for Latinos, citizens or not. I think that American society is better served by embracing our cultural and ethnic diversity and by treating all our foreign visitors, regardless of legal status, with dignity and respect.

I understand the frustration with poorly enforced border security in a post-9/11 world. I get the dissatisfaction with an immigration system that has double standards, one for immigrants below the US border and another for other countries and continents. I appreciate the concern that most undocumented workers don't pay their fair share of the government services they use. I can empathize that each new immigration bill fix sets the stage for yet another amnesty with government and businesses making promises they never keep, continuing business as usual.

But I don't think the answer is surrendering more of our liberties to Big Government, and moreover I don't think it does any good when the Obama Administration is using ICE as a bargaining chip for "comprehensive immigration reform", i.e., amnesty (cf. yesterday's post on the Kyl kerfuffle).

The Obama Administration Loses on the 6-Month Deepwater Rig Moratorium

Judge Martin Feldman handed the White House a defeat today, although I would argue Obama shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. In effect, the federal judge said that the Obama Administration couldn't arbitrarily revoke the permits it granted. Indeed, any parallel of the Deepwater Horizon with over 30 other related rigs is speculative at best; it does not appear that any rig was stopped for any reason other than they are deepwater. The BP explosion was likely a random event, just like other industrial accidents (such as a plane crash). You might think, after the embarrassing disclosure that the President's own technical experts had not advised or supported a 6-month moratorium on existing permits, not to mention the adverse economic impact of the moratorium on the suffering Louisiana economy, that the President would accept the legal defeat in good grace, explaining to its environmentalist allies that it tried.... But never underestimate the arrogance of ideological progressives in a state of denial... Word has it that the Obama Administration is already appealing the verdict. Personally, I don't see the Court of Appeals overturning the judge based on substance; the moratorium was clearly a political act.

General McChrystal Should Be Fired

In our form of government, the military leadership serves at the discretion of the civilian Commander in Chief. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama's point person for the Afghanistan war, in an upcoming article in, of all things, Rolling Stone magazine, and/or his staff have been openly dismissive of the political powers that be (e.g., Obama, Biden, Kerry, and McCain), not to mention diplomats and others. I have no doubt that the portrayal of the other personalities ring true, e.g., Obama initially a fish out of water, Biden's simplistic drone-happy strategy and off-the-wall questioning, his rivalries with and contemptuous disdain for diplomats, his disdain for counterproductive grandstanding politicians like Kerry and McCain, etc.

This isn't about whether Gen. McChrystal is right or has a right to express his point of view. It has everything to do with military discipline, professional judgment, and knowing his role. The last thing Obama needs to do is clean up the interpersonal mess caused by a general whom should have known better. McChrystal needs the cooperation of everyone he or his staff just dissed to achieve his mission.

The Afghanistan mission is more than Gen. McChrystal. Obama shouldn't tolerate this and should accept McChrystal's likely resignation tomorrow.

Political Cartoon

Gary Varvel lampoons the Coast Guard's shutting down Jindal's oil skimmers because they didn't have enough fire extinguishers or life jackets. I'm sorry, Gary; I don't see the red tape dispenser on his desk.... I halfway expected to see Jindal (R-LA) bound to a chair by red tape, while the Coast Guard's call to Obama while on the golf course goes to voice mail... "Hello, this is Barack Hussein Obama. Press 1 to blame George W. Bush for the oil spill. Press 2 to tell me exactly what you think about reckless BP polluting the Gulf of Mexico with oil. Press 3 to connect to a live operator whom will handle your tax-deductible donation so I can pay BP back for its contributions to my campaign..."

Quote of the Day

Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody is watching.
Mark Twain

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1972.

Moody Blues, "Nights in White Satin"



Roberta Flack, "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face"   (one of my baby sister Viv's favorite songs)



Harry Nilsson, "Without You"



The Raspberries, "Go All the Way"



Looking Glass, "Brandy (You're a Fine Girl)"