The most important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative, and the second disastrous.
Margaret Fontey
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Thumbs DOWN!
First of all, I have to remind the reader that I did write a post last spring supportive of changing the policy, whereby the military and gays agree to not discuss a soldier's sexual preference; my principal objection to changing policy is that I think it's generally a good idea in the workplace (given omnipresent sexual harassment policies) to be discreet about one's private life. It has never been an issue with gays serving in the military, but I do think that there is an integrity issue for those whom knowingly violated the policy.
But activist Federal Judge Virginia Phillips decided that the policy was "unconstitutional", dubiously and unconvincingly arguing that the current policy violates First Amendment rights and is self-defeating for the military. First, there is no such thing as "free speech" at work, and there is a risk of potential harassment issues affecting morale and military discipline. Second, the military doesn't need the opinion of some presumptuous federal judge how to staff and manage its troops. Take the famous example of a gay linguist, whom had been trained to speak Arabic but deliberately chose to out himself in the military. The fact of the matter is that the any linguist (not just gay ones) does not have to reenlist and the military would need to replace him with someone whom already speaks Arabic or another person to train. I certainly don't think, with 9.6% unemployment, that the military is falling short of its recruitment goals.
Judge Phillips is pushing on a string; the military is already readying itself for a transition. In my opinion, the issue is a moot point, and the decision is wrong, counter-productive, and unnecessary.
More Analysis of Obama's Laborfest Address
Even when I was running for this office, we knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade's worth of policies that saw a few folks prosper while the middle class kept falling behind - and it will take more time than any of us wants to dig out of the hole created by this economic crisis.First of all, enough of the stupid, overused analogy of ditches and holes. It's like listening to cranky old grandpa constantly retelling the same unfunny joke. Bush experienced two major assets busts (stocks and real estate), both of which had their origins during the sacrosanct Clinton Administration. (When I lived in California in 1999, houses were starting at around $450K in Silicon Valley.) Bush had to deal with 9/11 and the major financial scandals--and of course the financial tsunami. Unlike Obama, when Bush had to deal with these problems, he had to deal with one or both houses controlled by the opposition party.
I'm getting increasingly impatient on hearing the same excuses and fingerpointing after nearly 20 months in power with legislative majorities that Bush never had. Despite being constantly personally attacked during his 8 years in power, Bush never complained or pointed fingers. Obama is, by any objective standard, uncivil, petty and pathetic, refusing to take responsibility for his own demonstrable lack of leadership and competence.
Now as to the standard talking points, let's point out investors in general lost in the 2000's, and much investment comes from the higher-income class. Part of the problem is that we have a far more globally competitive economy, and American companies find it increasingly difficult to pass along price hikes--including compensation.That's a structural issue, beyond Bush's policies. Moreover, Obama and his fellow Democrats directly pushed for expanding home ownership to risky lower-income buyers which contributed to the real estate bubble, and they also are mostly responsible for red tape in building new power plants and for the increasing dependence on foreign suppliers of oil and gas.
Furthermore, Obama is disingenuous with his targeting the big banks. If any particular industry is regulated, it's banking. The Federal Reserve is independent of the Presidency (other than the ability to nominate candidates). State regulators are beyond the reach of the Presidency.
He just cannot cannot seem to shake himself free of class warfare and envy politics. The general impression is that the well-to-do are in a zero-sum relationship with the middle class. I can't stress this strongly enough: I DON'T CARE about how much higher-income people make. If they are selling products and services, they have a vested interest in a significant customer base. As investors routinely say, past performance is not indicative of future performance. The fact is, even if we keep tax rates ongoing, wealthy people will still be paying 35% of their income on taxes. What we need is a win-win situation, not a lose-lose one.
That's why we've given tax cuts to small business owners. Tax cuts to clean energy companies. A tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, just like I promised you on the campaign. And instead of giving tax breaks to corporations to create jobs overseas, we're cutting taxes for companies that put our people to work here at home.Where do you even begin to analyze such preposterous talking points? Let's start with small business owners. Watch what Obama does, not what he says. First, some small businesses are taxed at the owner's tax rate, so any retro Clinton tax hike hurts them. Second, taxes aren't the only government cost to small businesses: there's also paperwork and Sarbanes-Oxley, and have we forgotten the prospective health care tax penalties?
The less than 25% of Bush tax cuts going to higher-income people is considered to be a budget issue, but the 75% going to lower/middle-income people--after all, they've been beaten up by rich people over the past decade, and by gosh, they deserve their tax cuts, fiscal discipline be damned.
Tax cuts for clean energy companies? Why is Obama trying to pick winners and losers? What we need is GENERAL tax and regulatory relief...
Finally, what Obama repeatedly does is try to reduce complex matters to straw men. One example is how he misrepresents private sector involvement in educational loans. There were issues with certain vendors which really reflected poor oversight by the government. But let's take the phony tax breaks abroad. The basic issue involves Washington's failure to adjust tax rates to be globally-competitive.
Political Humor
"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer stopped speaking during an interview and stared blankly at the camera for 30 seconds. The good news is, she's now eligible to be governor of Alaska." –Jay Leno
[Jay, she misunderstood the question. She thought she was asked: can you think of one positive thing the Obama Administration has done to help the people of Arizona?]
"President Obama will be laying out a new economic plan. Apparently, we had an old economic plan." –Jay Leno
[Obama got the idea at one of those Hollywood fundraisers. They told him sequels were an easy way to make money. Just like in Hollywood, it's little more than a rehash of the original: sequels come with big budgets and don't live up to expectations.]
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Red Skelton/Betty Garret*, "Baby, It's Cold Outside"
(* The original was by Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban, but I wasn't able to find a copy I could embed.)
