Quote of the Day
The future may be made up of many factors
but where it truly lies is in the hearts and minds of men.
Your dedication should not be confined for your own gain,
but unleashes your passion for our beloved country
as well as for the integrity and humanity of mankind.
Li Ka Shing, Chinese Businessman
Blog Monthly Update
Pageviews continued an upward trend in December since bottoming out in August; this month's total was the second highest total of the year, although a half of what I saw near the mid-terms last year.
Why I am AGAINST
the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act
Make no mistake: as a blogger, I am providing original content on a daily basis; I have written about cracking down on student plagiarists as a university professor. Whenever I quote people or program transcripts (e.g., Meet the Press) or post audio clips, I attribute the efforts of others and provide links to the original content. Note (if you didn't know already), even the embedded Youtube video players will take you directly to the Youtube video webpage if you click on the "Youtube" link in the lower right corner of the player. Sometimes videos are disabled for embedding on Youtube or other sites; usually, I'll just post the link for the convenience of the reader. Moreover, I used to be one of the 2 data warehouse contractor DBA's for a federal agency that deals with intellectual property issues.
I am confident that my efforts constitute fair use; for example, my regular Political Humor feature initially started off with political cartoons, but I often wrote a relevant commentary or responded with an ad lib of my own. I also took care to sample the cartoons from a variety of sources, so even though I love Michael Rodriguez' work, you had to go to the IBD site to get most of his cartoons. I eventually decided to transition to late night political jokes (which is hard to do when all the comedians, except maybe Dennis Miller and a few others, are politically liberal). But take another example: one of my favorite videos I've used on at least 2 or 3 commentaries was from the State of Maryland Lottery; this struggling farmer's wife suddenly discovers that hen they had bought or raised had laid a golden egg, so she eagerly calls over her husband, whom just happens to be snacking on a chicken leg. Yeah, THAT chicken. I found the video and downloaded a copy of it (the website doesn't allow embedding of its videos). The intent was for me to upload it into the blog or maybe upload it to Youtube, which didn't seem to have it. But Google had this legal statement which said I had to have rights to the content. I thought as a Maryland taxpayer I should have those rights, but I went to the Maryland lottery site which didn't seem to address the issue. So I finally just decided to cite the link of where I found the video.
The lottery video process is just an example of the overhead I had to go through in trying to reference the work of others. If I was working for the State of Maryland, I would be thrilled a conservative blogger wanted to publicize an ad featuring a pitch for the Maryland lottery. I was trying to make a political point there, regarding the demagoguery that Democrats and the OWS movement were doing by targeting the economically successful--and, just like Jesus loved to teach using parables, I wanted to use that little skit to get my point across. But worrying about arcane legal concepts as to what exactly constitutes fair use discouraged me from posting like I wanted to. And there was the steep overhead of researching the issue; I could have just posted a link from the get-go. But I know that many readers aren't going to go through the effort of clicking on the link. The purpose I had was not in publishing the video for its own sake; it was really for the convenience of my reader. So all this of overhead had a chilling effect on publishing a creative commentary, even a free one.
Let me drive my point in a different way, using my knowledge of pop music. I used to listen to Casey Kasem's America's Top 40 every Saturday morning on the radio. I remember Neil Diamond had just come out with his latest album, and there was a relevant network TV special, featuring in particular one song: "You Don't Bring Me Flowers". It turned out Barbra Streisand had also covered the same song on her new album. Some DJ decided to mix the two versions together in a duet form, and the makeshift duet took off in popularity and spread like wildfire--enough for their record companies to notice; the two singers did an authentic duet, and the song became a monster hit. But imagine if the DJ had to worry about the record companies or artists coming after him: the duet probably never would have happened.
Let me give another example. I used to be a Bruce Springsteen fan (his politically progressive activism in the mid-2000's completely turned me off). He had a forgettable ballad (not the Boss' strong suit) called "Secret Garden"; then somebody at radio station Z100 (I believe) came up with a mix sprinkling key dialogue from the movie "Jerry Maguire" with the song, and it just works.
So here's the point: you have these big media companies trying, under the guise of promoting intellectual property, to bring yet another weapon to bear on illicit distributions of creative products. Keep in mind recording artists, authors and related media businesses already are covered under copyright laws (as are my dissertation, articles, book chapters and blogs, among other creative efforts); for instance, there was the notorious case of Napster, and I've seen referenced clips of copyrighted material no longer available on media websites.
The real target of the law will be media hosting sites with "deep pockets", not college students with very limited assets. If you are going to make your servers available for content contributions by the public, it's very difficult and expensive to patrol websites and review each and every contributions for undue fair use. It's gotten to the point that some videos showing some young children, even toddlers, dancing to a major pop song get zealously pursued; content makers want to strip the soundtrack, seeing the dancing baby video as a workaround depriving them of revenue from official videos (or CD sales, etc.) What exactly would be the point of watching a dancing baby video with no music at all?
Small website services, trying to provide innovative services, could find themselves saddled with having to hire lawyers and staffing that they can't afford on limited resources; the big content providers like Google and Yahoo (whom, of course, oppose the new proposed law) can. This boils down to the same issues we often see at the core, the cronyism between government and Big Business. These expenses are significant enough to stifle innovative small businesses or even discourage startups.
We are talking about some Draconian steps including tools used against WikiLeaks among the weapons being used against web hosting companies, because some contributors violate fair use guidelines. I could even see cynical attempts to conservative-leaning media hosts where, say, a progressive secretly plants copyrighted material on a website and then goes after the host for copyright infringement. The real intent, of course, is not concern over the rights of the copyright holder: it's using the government to enforce de facto censorship.
So I see this as being, at its core, a worrisome encroachment on individual economic rights: it constitutes a de facto barrier to the small businesses that lack the resources to fight the regulatory burden this new law would impose. That some conservative groups are among those advocating these laws is regrettable; after preaching in this blog for years about regulatory burden, I think I'm being quite consistent about the principles of limited government.
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
Richard Benedetto,
"Media Abet Obama's Aloofness on Tough Issues"
Thumbs UP!
Brent Bozell's Media Research Center regularly covers the vast left-wing hypocrisies. Hearing this from a respected journalist whom has been covering national politics since the early 1970's and the White House from Reagan through George W. Bush and an adjunct professor (with a doctorate from Syracuse) is another thing.
How is it possible that while the numerous GOP contenders for the Presidency have put themselves out there a baker's dozen number of times, being subjected to tough (and sometimes gotcha) questions on a variety of topics, from the huge budget deficit to tough international issues, like Iran and North Korea, the President of the United States is able to get away with a single news conference and predictable sound bites, while somehow finding room in his busy schedule to engage in fundraising (at taxpayer expense, of course), vacations and numerous games of golf, not to mention appearances on daytime TV and late night programs?
Why exactly is it that not one journalist has been able to identify specific significant steps to cut spending? These "professional" liberal journalists just nod their heads in stunned amazement at Obama's profound understanding of a "balanced approach", which, by the way, consists of NO MEANINGFUL CUTS ANYWHERE in the budget and only class warfare tax hikes--and if and when taxes or revenues are discussed, the brunt of them is in the future, past his current term in office and many of those amount to little more than tinkering with planned budgetary increases? These journalists seem to intuitively understand why we CAN AFFORD to maintain the 75% of the Bush tax cuts going to lower-income workers, but we can't afford the tax cuts to the 1% whom pay about 40% of the household income tax burden (twice the rate of their share of national income). Do you think those same journalists would ever point out that even if you could unconstitutionally strip the top 1% of all their assets and income, that would only provide a partial fix to current trillion dollar-plus deficits (Democrats Bill Gates and Warren Buffett lead and account for just under $100B (the bulk of which, of course, they'll leave to charity under their control, not the coffers of Mr. Barack Obama to fritter away); the top 10 ends at about $20B). In the meanwhile, we're spending nearly 24% of GDP versus a recent historical average of about 19.5%--2.5 years into the "Obama recovery".
At a time of record natural gas production (a result of the Great Shale Gas Rush) and diving gas prices, the EPA naturally feels that utilities won't naturally look to take advantage of plentiful natural gas in adding capacity; no, we have to tax coal plant operators more (to be passed along to customers, of course). Nothing like an American President's lack of faith in the free market system...
What can journalists say? Obama's natural eloquence is just too much to combat: "8 failed years of policies" (you think that the journalists would ever point out that Bush also added nearly $5T to the deficit and Medicare drug benefit entitlement with smoke-and-mirrors accounting, expanded domestic spending (including federal assistance to education by over 50%), didn't do anything about shoring up increasingly insolvent entitlement spending, engaged in government intervention in the economy, and expanded foreign intervention (like President "Nobel Peace Prize winner" Obama in Libya and Yemen and got a traditional ally Pakistan really, really mad at us?). It sounds to me more like 12 failed years of progressive policies..."do-nothing Congress" Um, Mr. President? Where exactly are your and the Senate Dem majority's budgets? Why is it that we still have the world's highest business income tax bracket? Do you believe foreign-based corporations think high business taxes and regulations make them want to invest more in American factories and workers?
Poor liberal journalists! They just can't get past Obama's rope-a-dope defenses...
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Auld Lang Syne"
Kenny G Freedom Mix (see reprise below) (sax/instrumental)
Reading by Chris McKiddie
Guy Lombardo. I used to bring in the New Year during my youth watching Guy Lombardo on the annual telecast...
Dan Fogelberg, "Same Old Lang Syne". RIP, Dan. Ladies, make sure the men of your lives get checked for prostate cancer.
Conclusion of "It's a Wonderful Life"
Kenny G (reprise: Millennium Mix, 2010)
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Miscellany: 12/30/11
Quote of the Day
He who is firm in will molds the world to himself.
Johann Gottlieb
My Favorite Former Judge, Andrew Napolitano, Has Something to Say:
"When Presidents Go Bad": Thumbs UP!
In yesterday's post, I argued that ICE's disingenuously rationalized backdoor amnesty, unauthorized by the Congress, is not only politically motivated, but a dereliction of duty and patently a violation of equal protection (and hence unconstitutional). Judge Napolitano points out other unconstitutional things that Obama, who allegedly "taught" constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has done in office and his hero, FDR, before him.
Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and the Pundits
Two Iowa caucus polls completed Wednesday show Romney with a 2-point lead over Paul and a second with a 5-point lead over second-place Gingrich. Romney's lead over Gingrich in the Gallup daily national poll tightened slightly to 2 points. A week ago former President George HW Bush informally endorsed Romney.
The Union Leader (NH) publisher Joe McQuaid decided to go after Romney (what else is new? He did it in 2008, too) because (gasp!) Romney decided in the unlikely event Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, Romney would support him even if he had foreign policy differences with him (e.g., over Iraq and Israel). The hypocrisy is staggering: the neo-cons like McQuaid desperately want Ron Paul to make a loyalty oath because they know he could siphon off GOP votes as an independent. (There are good reasons I don't expect that to happen; for one thing, it would put Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in a difficult position; second, Ron Paul has no chance of being elected through a third party, and there is no way that he wants his legacy to be the reelection of Barack Obama.) There are a lot of times we vote for a politician, even when we disagree with him on some issues. For example, there are a substantial number of pro-abortion choice Republicans whom vote for the almost exclusively pro-life GOP Presidential candidates since Reagan was elected nearly 32 years ago.
I've tried to stake out my own stake on the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. It would be national suicide for a rogue state to attack the United States or Israel, for that matter. Some of these neo-cons seem to be almost begging someone to attack these countries, and that's very dangerous territory. What have we learned from the fact that more Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan that the people whom died on 9/11? We have a budget with a 40% hole in it, we spend more on defense than the next few nations combined and we're spending more blood and treasure in the region than neighboring allies? We need to choose our battles better: we do not have the resources to do unrestricted nation building on all the continents; we need to be tighter with a buck across budgets, not just domestic expenditures.
Even the first and best American Idol Kelly Clarkson found herself attacked for daring to tweet her support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is also drawing some heat over certain racially-insensitive comments made by other writers in newsletters he published under his own name between his failed Presidential bid in 1988 and his return to Congress in the mid-1990's.
I am standing by my preliminary endorsement for Ron Paul in Iowa next week. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says or does, but I get tired of 5 or 6 Presidential candidates basically giving the same talking points on the same issue. Ron Paul presents a philosophically consistent critique of Big Government--including the military-industrial complex. For more than half of our history, we basically didn't get involved in the military conflicts on other continents. Paul is the the person saying that the emperor is wearing no clothes. We've got to stop costly foreign entanglements; we've got to get a fiscal mess in order. We've got to stop surrendering our constitutional rights against the ever expansive government scope creep (including the TSA and the Patriot Act). Ron Paul is the one candidate from either national party whom addresses these issues consistently. His is a voice that deserves to be listened to, and polls suggest that he is nearing a 20% support level in virtually every state leading off the path to the nomination. For other Republicans to be dismissive of what Paul has to say is to ignore the 20% of the people intending to vote for him.
Happy Birthday to the Blogger! Old Days...
Some Google Notes
I use all 5 major browsers, but I heart Google technology. (The core search engine is wonderful; I was an early adopter of Gmail and Chrome, Google Translate is a thing of beauty (you can optionally translate a foreign-language webpage at the press of a button), and of course there are the acquired brands (Blogger, which I use for this blog, and Youtube, which I use almost exclusively for my video clips). In fact, I like some of its products and services they've desupported, like the daily humor website Giglish, Notebook (folded into the awesome Docs), and Desktop/Sidebar (the Google Calendar gadget is a very attractive tile with color-coded event dates and a list of upcoming events underneath).
If you are new to Chrome, there's a new built-in toggle switch new page between most frequently used website and user-installed web apps (complementary concept to add-ons or extensions) tiles. Here are a few extensions I have used and recommend: Magic Actions for Youtube (cinema mode is amazing; among the options: full-screen, replay, not autoplay but buffer a video, etc.), 2D browsing (simple window/tab dashboard)/TooManyTabs, Lastpass (passwords)/Xmarks (bookmarks/favorites), Bookmark Sentry (scan for and optionally delete duplicate or obsolete bookmarks), iReader (or Readability bookmarklet) (strips off extraneous webpage content other than base text for say pdf-prints) , Wisestamp (configures signatures for your online Gmails), Google Dictionary (double-click on a webpage word for a popup definition) and Evernote/Metaproducts Inquiry (webpage clipping downloads: note there are corresponding freeware desktop clients). The extension icons in the address bar can also be functional; for example, some will indicate the number of emails in your Gmail account, your local area temperature, and the amount of time until your next scheduled event. Google has a second calendar extension which serves as a dropdown list of future calendar events.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"The First Noël"
The Priests
Andy Williams
Kenny G. (instrumental)
Mormon Tabernacle Choir (with Hallelujah)
He who is firm in will molds the world to himself.
Johann Gottlieb
My Favorite Former Judge, Andrew Napolitano, Has Something to Say:
"When Presidents Go Bad": Thumbs UP!
In yesterday's post, I argued that ICE's disingenuously rationalized backdoor amnesty, unauthorized by the Congress, is not only politically motivated, but a dereliction of duty and patently a violation of equal protection (and hence unconstitutional). Judge Napolitano points out other unconstitutional things that Obama, who allegedly "taught" constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has done in office and his hero, FDR, before him.
Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and the Pundits
Two Iowa caucus polls completed Wednesday show Romney with a 2-point lead over Paul and a second with a 5-point lead over second-place Gingrich. Romney's lead over Gingrich in the Gallup daily national poll tightened slightly to 2 points. A week ago former President George HW Bush informally endorsed Romney.
The Union Leader (NH) publisher Joe McQuaid decided to go after Romney (what else is new? He did it in 2008, too) because (gasp!) Romney decided in the unlikely event Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, Romney would support him even if he had foreign policy differences with him (e.g., over Iraq and Israel). The hypocrisy is staggering: the neo-cons like McQuaid desperately want Ron Paul to make a loyalty oath because they know he could siphon off GOP votes as an independent. (There are good reasons I don't expect that to happen; for one thing, it would put Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in a difficult position; second, Ron Paul has no chance of being elected through a third party, and there is no way that he wants his legacy to be the reelection of Barack Obama.) There are a lot of times we vote for a politician, even when we disagree with him on some issues. For example, there are a substantial number of pro-abortion choice Republicans whom vote for the almost exclusively pro-life GOP Presidential candidates since Reagan was elected nearly 32 years ago.
I've tried to stake out my own stake on the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. It would be national suicide for a rogue state to attack the United States or Israel, for that matter. Some of these neo-cons seem to be almost begging someone to attack these countries, and that's very dangerous territory. What have we learned from the fact that more Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan that the people whom died on 9/11? We have a budget with a 40% hole in it, we spend more on defense than the next few nations combined and we're spending more blood and treasure in the region than neighboring allies? We need to choose our battles better: we do not have the resources to do unrestricted nation building on all the continents; we need to be tighter with a buck across budgets, not just domestic expenditures.
Even the first and best American Idol Kelly Clarkson found herself attacked for daring to tweet her support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is also drawing some heat over certain racially-insensitive comments made by other writers in newsletters he published under his own name between his failed Presidential bid in 1988 and his return to Congress in the mid-1990's.
I am standing by my preliminary endorsement for Ron Paul in Iowa next week. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says or does, but I get tired of 5 or 6 Presidential candidates basically giving the same talking points on the same issue. Ron Paul presents a philosophically consistent critique of Big Government--including the military-industrial complex. For more than half of our history, we basically didn't get involved in the military conflicts on other continents. Paul is the the person saying that the emperor is wearing no clothes. We've got to stop costly foreign entanglements; we've got to get a fiscal mess in order. We've got to stop surrendering our constitutional rights against the ever expansive government scope creep (including the TSA and the Patriot Act). Ron Paul is the one candidate from either national party whom addresses these issues consistently. His is a voice that deserves to be listened to, and polls suggest that he is nearing a 20% support level in virtually every state leading off the path to the nomination. For other Republicans to be dismissive of what Paul has to say is to ignore the 20% of the people intending to vote for him.
Happy Birthday to the Blogger! Old Days...
Some Google Notes
I use all 5 major browsers, but I heart Google technology. (The core search engine is wonderful; I was an early adopter of Gmail and Chrome, Google Translate is a thing of beauty (you can optionally translate a foreign-language webpage at the press of a button), and of course there are the acquired brands (Blogger, which I use for this blog, and Youtube, which I use almost exclusively for my video clips). In fact, I like some of its products and services they've desupported, like the daily humor website Giglish, Notebook (folded into the awesome Docs), and Desktop/Sidebar (the Google Calendar gadget is a very attractive tile with color-coded event dates and a list of upcoming events underneath).
If you are new to Chrome, there's a new built-in toggle switch new page between most frequently used website and user-installed web apps (complementary concept to add-ons or extensions) tiles. Here are a few extensions I have used and recommend: Magic Actions for Youtube (cinema mode is amazing; among the options: full-screen, replay, not autoplay but buffer a video, etc.), 2D browsing (simple window/tab dashboard)/TooManyTabs, Lastpass (passwords)/Xmarks (bookmarks/favorites), Bookmark Sentry (scan for and optionally delete duplicate or obsolete bookmarks), iReader (or Readability bookmarklet) (strips off extraneous webpage content other than base text for say pdf-prints) , Wisestamp (configures signatures for your online Gmails), Google Dictionary (double-click on a webpage word for a popup definition) and Evernote/Metaproducts Inquiry (webpage clipping downloads: note there are corresponding freeware desktop clients). The extension icons in the address bar can also be functional; for example, some will indicate the number of emails in your Gmail account, your local area temperature, and the amount of time until your next scheduled event. Google has a second calendar extension which serves as a dropdown list of future calendar events.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"The First Noël"
The Priests
Andy Williams
Kenny G. (instrumental)
Mormon Tabernacle Choir (with Hallelujah)
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Miscellany: 12/29/11
Quote of the Day
The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials.
Chinese proverb
Status Report
[12/30] Due to technical issues, the full version of this post was unavailable until now.
Caption of the Day
And Now--The Latest Episode of 'As the Polls Turn'
It seemed like just 2 or 3 weeks ago the Gingrich surge had exploded at what many bloggers or pundits were calling just at the right time; some polls just two weeks ago had Gingrich at 40%, doubling a distant second Romney's percentage. Gingrich was all but claiming the nomination was inevitably his. Today Gallup tracking had Romney breaking to a 4-point lead over Gingrich nationally for the first time since the post-Cain surge; if you look at the past week's daily results, the trailing 4 candidates' numbers (Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum) have barely budged by a point or two all week, meaning that Gingrich voters are flipping to Romney. (I always felt that a number of former Cain supporters would eventually join the Romney campaign; in fact, Cain was a 2008 Romney supporter.)
Two Iowa caucus polls today had Romney narrowly leading or tied for the lead with Paul and/or Gingrich (I think at best Gingrich is third because Gingrich doesn't have the organization of the other two candidates.) Was it just a few months ago when Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll? Now the favorite native daughter from a neighboring state finds herself unlikely to place and in fact is having to fight a late surge by Santorum and the better financed Perry campaign in the second tier. It seems clear that Michele Bachmann, whose campaign director recently defected to the Ron Paul campaign, is putting most (if not all) of her resources into Iowa; it's very difficult to see how her campaign is able to survive without a first-tier finish here: the subsequent primary polls mirror her single-digit status, she has a very difficult time raising money to sustain a campaign on low poll numbers, and she needs a good finish in Iowa to give her momentum and raise her numbers elsewhere. My take: Bachmann will not finish in the money next week and will effectively withdraw from the race shortly thereafter.
Obama in the Internet betting universe has seen his odds pick up to a multi-week high at about 52%. In part, I think that reflects the volatile nature of poll results and infighting among GOP Presidential hopefuls, but I correctly (again) called a peak to his rating surge after the two-month payroll tax holiday was approved (by "again", I'm referring to the fact I correctly called the peak of Obama's post-UBL operation surge).Both Gallup and Rasmussen issued approval rating polls today, showing a meltdown of the surge. More interestingly, Rasmussen released the first poll showing Romney beating Obama beyond a typical measure of error, with Obama at just under 40% (and roughly 5% undecided).
If I'm Obama, I'm very worried at this point. I can't rule out this poll was an outlier, but with few economists predicting the minimal 3% growth needed to make a real dent in unemployment numbers, barring a meltdown by the GOP nominee, it's difficult to see how he picks up another 10 points in approval from here or so that we normally expect with successful reelection efforts. One can never rule out the unexpected, e.g., a rally-around-the-President surge following a 9/11-style event (which took Bush to near 90% approval ratings), but that could be a double-edged sword: for example, a replication of his inept handling of the BP oil spill or (worse) the people think his Administration was not proactive in heading off the problem in question could result in a 1980 Carter-style wipeout.
The conventional wisdom is that Obama will go negative or run against the GOP House. First, many pundits expect that the House will remain in GOP control after the election (they need 25 or so seats to flip, and at this point that seems unlikely: in fact, some notable House Dems are retiring (e.g., OK and MA), the Republicans left some seats on the table last election, and there are at least 2 New York GOP-leaning districts currently being held by Dems which could easily flip with the right candidates).
Second, I think most voters do recognize that Obama himself is part of the stalemate on Capitol Hill: the fact that neither the Dem-controlled Senate nor the President seems to come up with a decent budget the last 2 or 3 years is NOT the GOP's fault. Furthermore, most voters are going to hold the Dems, not the GOP, responsible for increasing the national debt by 50% in just 4 years. It's hard to argue with the fact that states, counties and cities, including those under Dem control, are having to cut budgets, while the Three Progressive Stooges (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) sing "Don't Worry: Be Happy": pay no attention to those actuaries behind the curtain saying that social security, Medicare, and ObamaCare are Ponzi-like schemes: we're going to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow!
Third, if and when Obama goes negative, he loses the one thing he has going for him: his likability ratings. Although he's very gifted on the campaign trail, I personally think he has been very stupid in his approach of constantly blaming Republicans for his failures to perform. I don't think voters respond well to whining politicians; they want to see somebody whom is willing to put his country above his political self-interest, whom accepts responsibility instead of giving pathetic excuses for a failure to lead on anything. What sold American voters on Obama (beyond his better than 2-to-1 campaign money edge over McCain) was his positive "hope-and-change" thing; as Dr. Phil McGraw might say, "America, how's that working for you?"
It's Time to Fire Attorney General Eric Holder and Impeach Barack Obama...
First of all, I'm very pro-immigrant, and I would be willing to consider something short of citizen status, e.g., permanent residency status for some unauthorized aliens (they can apply for citizenship status from their home countries, just like everyone else, with merit-based preferences in terms of language, post-graduate degrees in certain areas or professional skills (e.g., scientists, engineers, high tech professionals, and medical personnel). I also think that piecemeal state legislation on immigration is a very bad, unconstitutional idea; I prefer the states or cities billing the federal government (suing if necessary) to recover costs associated with services and/or costs associated with unauthorized aliens. I also want to see a comprehensive reform of the quota/lottery system, and I want to see sweeping reform of the temporary foreign worker programs so that employers whom cannot find willing labor to provide affordable goods (e.g., farm products) and services to market do not find their constitutional economic liberties blocked by anti-consumer, protectionist crony union interests.
The difference I have with the Obama Administration deals with their backdoor approach to "immigration reform" favoring crony minority interests, solely on political grounds. This is yet another attempt by Obama to pick and choose winners in the economy. You cannot "pick and choose" whom is breaking the law and enforcing it; that's a fundamentally unconstitutional violation of equal protection. If Eric Holder or ICE is refusing to process unauthorized citizens by saying, a priori, we are going to decide enforcement, not using Congressional criteria but our own (politically-motivated) reasons, that's dereliction of duty, pure and simple.
But another release from ICE indicates that the new hotline is "part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration."
Okay, quite frankly, this is a load of bureaucratic CRAP. Let's summarize what ICE is REALLY saying here: "However you got here in the past, unless you have been deported or are previously wanted, you have nothing to worry from us so long as you do not engage in crimes of violence." That's a de facto backdoor amnesty. Get a speeding ticket after expiration of your visa (or no evidence of authorization)? No worries. Applying for work with fraudulent papers or social security cards? No problem.
You can't do this; a spendthrift President suddenly deciding the one time he's going to CHANGE policy, not simply enforce it, and disingenuously rationalize it using budget reasons? Give me a break: I can see maybe you get to August or September just before the end of the government's fiscal year that you are running low on discretionary funds, but this is a guy whom is saying in advance that he doesn't have the extra funds he says he needed from Congress, so he's going to make up his own rules on how to spend the money Congress allocates, even though that was meant to cover EXISTING legislative intent. I mean, this is like those Wisconsin teachers whom knew in advance they were going to be sick on the day of a union rally. Keep in mind during the 2007 immigration reform debate, this is a former Senator whom wanted to drag out for years in appeals the day of reckoning for identified unauthorized aliens.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Jingle Bells"
Bing Crosby & the Andrew Sisters. The Crooner handles this song deftly and makes it sound so effortless. It is incredibly difficult to do effectively what he does vocally.
Duke Ellington Orchestra/Louis Armstrong. Nice jazzy version!
Alvin and the Chipmunks
Jingle Bell Rock
Bobby Helms (original hit version)
The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials.
Chinese proverb
Status Report
[12/30] Due to technical issues, the full version of this post was unavailable until now.
Caption of the Day
 |
| He's got Romney on his mind.... Image courtesy of Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images |
It seemed like just 2 or 3 weeks ago the Gingrich surge had exploded at what many bloggers or pundits were calling just at the right time; some polls just two weeks ago had Gingrich at 40%, doubling a distant second Romney's percentage. Gingrich was all but claiming the nomination was inevitably his. Today Gallup tracking had Romney breaking to a 4-point lead over Gingrich nationally for the first time since the post-Cain surge; if you look at the past week's daily results, the trailing 4 candidates' numbers (Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum) have barely budged by a point or two all week, meaning that Gingrich voters are flipping to Romney. (I always felt that a number of former Cain supporters would eventually join the Romney campaign; in fact, Cain was a 2008 Romney supporter.)
Two Iowa caucus polls today had Romney narrowly leading or tied for the lead with Paul and/or Gingrich (I think at best Gingrich is third because Gingrich doesn't have the organization of the other two candidates.) Was it just a few months ago when Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll? Now the favorite native daughter from a neighboring state finds herself unlikely to place and in fact is having to fight a late surge by Santorum and the better financed Perry campaign in the second tier. It seems clear that Michele Bachmann, whose campaign director recently defected to the Ron Paul campaign, is putting most (if not all) of her resources into Iowa; it's very difficult to see how her campaign is able to survive without a first-tier finish here: the subsequent primary polls mirror her single-digit status, she has a very difficult time raising money to sustain a campaign on low poll numbers, and she needs a good finish in Iowa to give her momentum and raise her numbers elsewhere. My take: Bachmann will not finish in the money next week and will effectively withdraw from the race shortly thereafter.
Obama in the Internet betting universe has seen his odds pick up to a multi-week high at about 52%. In part, I think that reflects the volatile nature of poll results and infighting among GOP Presidential hopefuls, but I correctly (again) called a peak to his rating surge after the two-month payroll tax holiday was approved (by "again", I'm referring to the fact I correctly called the peak of Obama's post-UBL operation surge).Both Gallup and Rasmussen issued approval rating polls today, showing a meltdown of the surge. More interestingly, Rasmussen released the first poll showing Romney beating Obama beyond a typical measure of error, with Obama at just under 40% (and roughly 5% undecided).
If I'm Obama, I'm very worried at this point. I can't rule out this poll was an outlier, but with few economists predicting the minimal 3% growth needed to make a real dent in unemployment numbers, barring a meltdown by the GOP nominee, it's difficult to see how he picks up another 10 points in approval from here or so that we normally expect with successful reelection efforts. One can never rule out the unexpected, e.g., a rally-around-the-President surge following a 9/11-style event (which took Bush to near 90% approval ratings), but that could be a double-edged sword: for example, a replication of his inept handling of the BP oil spill or (worse) the people think his Administration was not proactive in heading off the problem in question could result in a 1980 Carter-style wipeout.
The conventional wisdom is that Obama will go negative or run against the GOP House. First, many pundits expect that the House will remain in GOP control after the election (they need 25 or so seats to flip, and at this point that seems unlikely: in fact, some notable House Dems are retiring (e.g., OK and MA), the Republicans left some seats on the table last election, and there are at least 2 New York GOP-leaning districts currently being held by Dems which could easily flip with the right candidates).
Second, I think most voters do recognize that Obama himself is part of the stalemate on Capitol Hill: the fact that neither the Dem-controlled Senate nor the President seems to come up with a decent budget the last 2 or 3 years is NOT the GOP's fault. Furthermore, most voters are going to hold the Dems, not the GOP, responsible for increasing the national debt by 50% in just 4 years. It's hard to argue with the fact that states, counties and cities, including those under Dem control, are having to cut budgets, while the Three Progressive Stooges (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) sing "Don't Worry: Be Happy": pay no attention to those actuaries behind the curtain saying that social security, Medicare, and ObamaCare are Ponzi-like schemes: we're going to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow!
Third, if and when Obama goes negative, he loses the one thing he has going for him: his likability ratings. Although he's very gifted on the campaign trail, I personally think he has been very stupid in his approach of constantly blaming Republicans for his failures to perform. I don't think voters respond well to whining politicians; they want to see somebody whom is willing to put his country above his political self-interest, whom accepts responsibility instead of giving pathetic excuses for a failure to lead on anything. What sold American voters on Obama (beyond his better than 2-to-1 campaign money edge over McCain) was his positive "hope-and-change" thing; as Dr. Phil McGraw might say, "America, how's that working for you?"
It's Time to Fire Attorney General Eric Holder and Impeach Barack Obama...
First of all, I'm very pro-immigrant, and I would be willing to consider something short of citizen status, e.g., permanent residency status for some unauthorized aliens (they can apply for citizenship status from their home countries, just like everyone else, with merit-based preferences in terms of language, post-graduate degrees in certain areas or professional skills (e.g., scientists, engineers, high tech professionals, and medical personnel). I also think that piecemeal state legislation on immigration is a very bad, unconstitutional idea; I prefer the states or cities billing the federal government (suing if necessary) to recover costs associated with services and/or costs associated with unauthorized aliens. I also want to see a comprehensive reform of the quota/lottery system, and I want to see sweeping reform of the temporary foreign worker programs so that employers whom cannot find willing labor to provide affordable goods (e.g., farm products) and services to market do not find their constitutional economic liberties blocked by anti-consumer, protectionist crony union interests.
The difference I have with the Obama Administration deals with their backdoor approach to "immigration reform" favoring crony minority interests, solely on political grounds. This is yet another attempt by Obama to pick and choose winners in the economy. You cannot "pick and choose" whom is breaking the law and enforcing it; that's a fundamentally unconstitutional violation of equal protection. If Eric Holder or ICE is refusing to process unauthorized citizens by saying, a priori, we are going to decide enforcement, not using Congressional criteria but our own (politically-motivated) reasons, that's dereliction of duty, pure and simple.
But another release from ICE indicates that the new hotline is "part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration."
Okay, quite frankly, this is a load of bureaucratic CRAP. Let's summarize what ICE is REALLY saying here: "However you got here in the past, unless you have been deported or are previously wanted, you have nothing to worry from us so long as you do not engage in crimes of violence." That's a de facto backdoor amnesty. Get a speeding ticket after expiration of your visa (or no evidence of authorization)? No worries. Applying for work with fraudulent papers or social security cards? No problem.
You can't do this; a spendthrift President suddenly deciding the one time he's going to CHANGE policy, not simply enforce it, and disingenuously rationalize it using budget reasons? Give me a break: I can see maybe you get to August or September just before the end of the government's fiscal year that you are running low on discretionary funds, but this is a guy whom is saying in advance that he doesn't have the extra funds he says he needed from Congress, so he's going to make up his own rules on how to spend the money Congress allocates, even though that was meant to cover EXISTING legislative intent. I mean, this is like those Wisconsin teachers whom knew in advance they were going to be sick on the day of a union rally. Keep in mind during the 2007 immigration reform debate, this is a former Senator whom wanted to drag out for years in appeals the day of reckoning for identified unauthorized aliens.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Jingle Bells"
Bing Crosby & the Andrew Sisters. The Crooner handles this song deftly and makes it sound so effortless. It is incredibly difficult to do effectively what he does vocally.
Duke Ellington Orchestra/Louis Armstrong. Nice jazzy version!
Alvin and the Chipmunks
Jingle Bell Rock
Bobby Helms (original hit version)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Miscellany: 12/28/11
Quote of the Day
The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you.
Max DePree
Obama Money At Work: News Clipping of the Day
Gary Johnson Bolts the GOP to Seek the Libertarian Party Nomination
I like the fact that the GOP has a deep bench of capable governors--e.g., Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, George Pataki, etc. We've still had 4 former/current governors in the race: Mitt Romney (MA), Rick Perry (TX), Jim Huntsman (UT), and Gary Johnson (NM).
Rick Perry, after a blockbuster start, ran into trouble over immigration and the Gardasil controversy, then ran into problems even remembering his talking points (the famous "oops" moment). Perry has the money, but to be frank he's barely clinging to double-digits in Iowa polls and isn't even in double-digits in southern states like South Carolina and Virginia, which should be his strong suit, and in fact he didn't even have the organization to get on the ballot in Virginia. My bold prediction: if Perry doesn't finish in the money (top 3) in Iowa, he'll withdraw. GOP voters like his record in Texas, but they don't think he'll be competitive in a race against Obama. It's also possible that Perry, since he has a lot of money, could play the bystander like Huckabee in 2008, hoping to benefit from any mid-campaign stumble by the front runner, but GOP voters are also aware that his poll matchups against Obama aren't very good. Mitt Romney knew better in 2008 to gracefully concede and build momentum for a second chance.
Jim Huntsman is very appealing from a standpoint of two solid terms from a conservative state, and he has significant diplomatic experience; being ambassador to China is better than, say, Palin's claims of trade mission experience with Russia and Canada. Many see China competing with the US for the global economic leadership position. But Huntsman doesn't have Romney's private-sector and winter Olympics accomplishments, and the more moderate Republicans Huntsman is aiming at see Romney as a viable competitor to Obama. I expect Huntsman will probably drop out after New Hampshire.
I see Garry Johnson as sort of the libertarian alter ego to Tim Pawlenty, both fierce fiscal conservatives. They are both outstanding public servants, but they lack what GHW Bush famously called "the vision thing". Johnson as a libertarian Republican found himself competing with Ron Paul, the undisputed intellectual leader of the group and other than executive experience and possibly running as a Washington outsider, he never really had a rationale for his candidacy. The press, which normally goes after conservatives by questioning their pro-life position on the 1.5% of abortions involving rape or maternal health, loves to put libertarians on the spot over controversial stands like drug legalization (or decriminalization); of course, libertarians will draw parallels between the Mexican drug violence and organized crime's involvement in (alcohol) Prohibition.
Johnson had all but disappeared after an initial couple of GOP debates, barely registering within statistical significance in the polls, if that. I think third parties are more about making a statement. If a Republican has a chance to win the Libertarian Party nomination, it will be Ron Paul. This drives the media conservatives nuts, worrying that Paul will siphon votes from the eventual nominee and allow an incompetent Obama to win reelection by default. They constantly demand loyalty tests from Paul.
My personal opinion is that Paul's real intent is to use his support as leverage in the GOP platform: I could see Romney and Paul coming to an understanding about Fed chair Bernanke's future, a more accountable Fed, and several pro-liberty/Tea Party planks in the platform. I don't think Paul has any intention of seeing his likely swan song in politics enabling the reelection of the most communitarian President in history.
Trump Goes Independent
Say it ain't so, Joe! You mean after all the GOP Presidential candidates whom genuflected in front of him and kissed his ring, Trump has decided to bolt the GOP for a possible Presidential run of his own? Who couldn't see this coming when Busey withdrew his all-important endorsement of Gingrich. Don't you remember last April Busey endorsed Trump's possible run? This blog is not favorably disposed to the Donald, whose inflammatory, irresponsible anti-Chinese trade protectionist rhetoric is unworthy of a serious Presidential contender. For once I"ll be a part of the 99% voting against the 1% supporting Trump.
What's Another $1.2T Increase in the National Debt for Obama?
With the debt at $15.2T just $100B under the modest ceiling, Obama is expected to ask for the remaining $1.2T in the phased debt ceiling increase to last through 2012. Just a reminder: Obama inherited a $10.6T national debt. He is set to set a new all-time record of debt by a single President by mid-year, even as the economy has technically been in a recovery since June 2009, over 2.5 years ago. I still think it's morally outrageous that a spendthrift President has the audacity to ask for the money, never having made a serious attempt to cut the budget in any meaningful way.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Pie Jesu"
The Priests
Children's Choir of Saint-Marc
Gregorian. (Video Christian art, subtitles)
Andrew Lloyd Webber arrangement (Requiem) with Sarah Brightman, Paul Miles Kingston
The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you.
Max DePree
Obama Money At Work: News Clipping of the Day
Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits.Obama Golden Oldie: What Obama wears out there on all those golf courses are sunglasses, not green shades. I'm channeling my inner Casey Kasem to remind you of the #1 hit sound bite from the Rush Limbaugh show two years ago last October:
KEN ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
WOMAN: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of money?
WOMAN: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?
WOMAN: Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN: I don't know. His stash. I don't know. I don't know where he got it from but he's giving it to us, to help us. We love him. That's why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!
Gary Johnson Bolts the GOP to Seek the Libertarian Party Nomination
I like the fact that the GOP has a deep bench of capable governors--e.g., Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, George Pataki, etc. We've still had 4 former/current governors in the race: Mitt Romney (MA), Rick Perry (TX), Jim Huntsman (UT), and Gary Johnson (NM).
Rick Perry, after a blockbuster start, ran into trouble over immigration and the Gardasil controversy, then ran into problems even remembering his talking points (the famous "oops" moment). Perry has the money, but to be frank he's barely clinging to double-digits in Iowa polls and isn't even in double-digits in southern states like South Carolina and Virginia, which should be his strong suit, and in fact he didn't even have the organization to get on the ballot in Virginia. My bold prediction: if Perry doesn't finish in the money (top 3) in Iowa, he'll withdraw. GOP voters like his record in Texas, but they don't think he'll be competitive in a race against Obama. It's also possible that Perry, since he has a lot of money, could play the bystander like Huckabee in 2008, hoping to benefit from any mid-campaign stumble by the front runner, but GOP voters are also aware that his poll matchups against Obama aren't very good. Mitt Romney knew better in 2008 to gracefully concede and build momentum for a second chance.
Jim Huntsman is very appealing from a standpoint of two solid terms from a conservative state, and he has significant diplomatic experience; being ambassador to China is better than, say, Palin's claims of trade mission experience with Russia and Canada. Many see China competing with the US for the global economic leadership position. But Huntsman doesn't have Romney's private-sector and winter Olympics accomplishments, and the more moderate Republicans Huntsman is aiming at see Romney as a viable competitor to Obama. I expect Huntsman will probably drop out after New Hampshire.
I see Garry Johnson as sort of the libertarian alter ego to Tim Pawlenty, both fierce fiscal conservatives. They are both outstanding public servants, but they lack what GHW Bush famously called "the vision thing". Johnson as a libertarian Republican found himself competing with Ron Paul, the undisputed intellectual leader of the group and other than executive experience and possibly running as a Washington outsider, he never really had a rationale for his candidacy. The press, which normally goes after conservatives by questioning their pro-life position on the 1.5% of abortions involving rape or maternal health, loves to put libertarians on the spot over controversial stands like drug legalization (or decriminalization); of course, libertarians will draw parallels between the Mexican drug violence and organized crime's involvement in (alcohol) Prohibition.
Johnson had all but disappeared after an initial couple of GOP debates, barely registering within statistical significance in the polls, if that. I think third parties are more about making a statement. If a Republican has a chance to win the Libertarian Party nomination, it will be Ron Paul. This drives the media conservatives nuts, worrying that Paul will siphon votes from the eventual nominee and allow an incompetent Obama to win reelection by default. They constantly demand loyalty tests from Paul.
My personal opinion is that Paul's real intent is to use his support as leverage in the GOP platform: I could see Romney and Paul coming to an understanding about Fed chair Bernanke's future, a more accountable Fed, and several pro-liberty/Tea Party planks in the platform. I don't think Paul has any intention of seeing his likely swan song in politics enabling the reelection of the most communitarian President in history.
Trump Goes Independent
Say it ain't so, Joe! You mean after all the GOP Presidential candidates whom genuflected in front of him and kissed his ring, Trump has decided to bolt the GOP for a possible Presidential run of his own? Who couldn't see this coming when Busey withdrew his all-important endorsement of Gingrich. Don't you remember last April Busey endorsed Trump's possible run? This blog is not favorably disposed to the Donald, whose inflammatory, irresponsible anti-Chinese trade protectionist rhetoric is unworthy of a serious Presidential contender. For once I"ll be a part of the 99% voting against the 1% supporting Trump.
What's Another $1.2T Increase in the National Debt for Obama?
With the debt at $15.2T just $100B under the modest ceiling, Obama is expected to ask for the remaining $1.2T in the phased debt ceiling increase to last through 2012. Just a reminder: Obama inherited a $10.6T national debt. He is set to set a new all-time record of debt by a single President by mid-year, even as the economy has technically been in a recovery since June 2009, over 2.5 years ago. I still think it's morally outrageous that a spendthrift President has the audacity to ask for the money, never having made a serious attempt to cut the budget in any meaningful way.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Pie Jesu"
The Priests
Children's Choir of Saint-Marc
Gregorian. (Video Christian art, subtitles)
Andrew Lloyd Webber arrangement (Requiem) with Sarah Brightman, Paul Miles Kingston
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Miscellany: 12/27/11
Quote of the Day
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Polls, Polls, and More Polls
Obama's post-2 month payroll tax holiday "triumph" bounce seems to have peaked at about 47%. He clearly has the momentum, but consider the following projections from National Polls:
Obama 262 vs Generic Republican 174
Obama 371 vs Gingrich 119
Obama 284 vs Romney 222
Obama 289 vs Paul 152
Recall that there are 538 electoral votes (the number of federal legislators + 3 for the District of Columbia). To win the Presidency outright, one needs (538/2)+1=270. One thing is very clear from these results: Romney is running closer to Obama than any other GOP challenger, and Gingrich is running worse than McCain against Obama. This tells you a lot of about the race for next year: I think the winning challenger is going to have to argue that unlike Obama and the Congress, he is from outside Washington and is able to work productively in a bipartisan manner. This exactly fits Romney. Gingrich was in Congress for a generation; he took retainer fees from Freddie Mac, one of the arch-villains of the economic tsunami. A recent discovery that one of Gingrich's think tank websites on health care had positive things to say about RomneyCare, one of the issues that activist Republican conservatives are not happy about, makes it harder for Gingrich to distance himself on that issue.
The all-important Iowa caucuses are now within a week. There is some evidence that Rick Santorum is getting a modest "hot conservative" bump from Gingrich's dropping poll numbers, but let's get serious: Santorum got blown out of his reelection by "Mr. Excitement" himself, Bob Casey. Casey lacks Obama's charisma and political skills; Santorum comes across as too strident, and he lacks administrative experience. National Polls features two recent GOP polls, the Gallup tracking poll which has shown Gingrich drop a substantial lead over Romney to the bare minimum. The Economist poll still has Gingrich up by 6, but we've also seen Romney and Gingrich in a dead heat in two earlier polls. The latest polling shows Paul with a small but impressive lead in Iowa before next week's crucial caucuses given the most motivated supporter base of any of the candidates. (See my earlier preliminary endorsement earlier this month.)
Some Thoughts on the Asset Bubbles
There are 3 basic schools of economics I have generally considered in drafting my commentaries: the Keynesian school, the monetarist school (e.g., Friedman), and the Austrian school (Mises, Hayek). This is not an economics blog, but in layman's terms, the Keynesians are particularly interested in consumer confidence and related measures and the ability to government policy to influence the economy. The monetarists argue that in the long run it's maintaining the money supply commensurate with sustainable economic growth. The Austrian school is particularly characterized by a focus on business cycle theory One of the key concepts of the latter school is malinvestments that occur as an artifact of central bankers whom keep their feet pumping easy money into the economy. Think, for example, the enormous amount of money that went into housing and, say, credit extended to home owners using their home equity as collateral. What's the return on all that money in these areas? Homes don't generate widgets for sale; a homeowner's investment in a large-screen TV doesn't yield dividends like investing that money in blue chip utilities. It's not necessarily that a consumer is tapped out, but when home prices doubled within just a few years while people's incomes didn't, the prudent investor said, "The price has gotten ahead of itself; sooner or later, you're going to run out of buyers at these prices."
I came across a debt migration chart published by a financial newsletter company. (Any investor must do his own due diligence in researching investments.) What's particularly notable was how stable the US government debt-to-GDP ratio was from the Clinton to Bush Administrations at roughly two-thirds the size of the economy. At the same time, S&P 500 companies increased debt to just over revenues by the peak of the Bush expansion in 2007 to less than half of revenues during the Age of Obama. (There's some evidence that households have also sought to pay down debt.)
I'll simply conclude that I believe that businesses and households are worried about the long-term sustainability of fiscal and monetary policies and hence are unwilling to take on new debt given current economic instability.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Winter Wonderland"
Boston Pops
Mormon Tabernacle Choir
The Eurythmics
Instrumental Jazz
Bing Crosby
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Polls, Polls, and More Polls
Obama's post-2 month payroll tax holiday "triumph" bounce seems to have peaked at about 47%. He clearly has the momentum, but consider the following projections from National Polls:
Obama 262 vs Generic Republican 174
Obama 371 vs Gingrich 119
Obama 284 vs Romney 222
Obama 289 vs Paul 152
Recall that there are 538 electoral votes (the number of federal legislators + 3 for the District of Columbia). To win the Presidency outright, one needs (538/2)+1=270. One thing is very clear from these results: Romney is running closer to Obama than any other GOP challenger, and Gingrich is running worse than McCain against Obama. This tells you a lot of about the race for next year: I think the winning challenger is going to have to argue that unlike Obama and the Congress, he is from outside Washington and is able to work productively in a bipartisan manner. This exactly fits Romney. Gingrich was in Congress for a generation; he took retainer fees from Freddie Mac, one of the arch-villains of the economic tsunami. A recent discovery that one of Gingrich's think tank websites on health care had positive things to say about RomneyCare, one of the issues that activist Republican conservatives are not happy about, makes it harder for Gingrich to distance himself on that issue.
The all-important Iowa caucuses are now within a week. There is some evidence that Rick Santorum is getting a modest "hot conservative" bump from Gingrich's dropping poll numbers, but let's get serious: Santorum got blown out of his reelection by "Mr. Excitement" himself, Bob Casey. Casey lacks Obama's charisma and political skills; Santorum comes across as too strident, and he lacks administrative experience. National Polls features two recent GOP polls, the Gallup tracking poll which has shown Gingrich drop a substantial lead over Romney to the bare minimum. The Economist poll still has Gingrich up by 6, but we've also seen Romney and Gingrich in a dead heat in two earlier polls. The latest polling shows Paul with a small but impressive lead in Iowa before next week's crucial caucuses given the most motivated supporter base of any of the candidates. (See my earlier preliminary endorsement earlier this month.)
Some Thoughts on the Asset Bubbles
There are 3 basic schools of economics I have generally considered in drafting my commentaries: the Keynesian school, the monetarist school (e.g., Friedman), and the Austrian school (Mises, Hayek). This is not an economics blog, but in layman's terms, the Keynesians are particularly interested in consumer confidence and related measures and the ability to government policy to influence the economy. The monetarists argue that in the long run it's maintaining the money supply commensurate with sustainable economic growth. The Austrian school is particularly characterized by a focus on business cycle theory One of the key concepts of the latter school is malinvestments that occur as an artifact of central bankers whom keep their feet pumping easy money into the economy. Think, for example, the enormous amount of money that went into housing and, say, credit extended to home owners using their home equity as collateral. What's the return on all that money in these areas? Homes don't generate widgets for sale; a homeowner's investment in a large-screen TV doesn't yield dividends like investing that money in blue chip utilities. It's not necessarily that a consumer is tapped out, but when home prices doubled within just a few years while people's incomes didn't, the prudent investor said, "The price has gotten ahead of itself; sooner or later, you're going to run out of buyers at these prices."
I came across a debt migration chart published by a financial newsletter company. (Any investor must do his own due diligence in researching investments.) What's particularly notable was how stable the US government debt-to-GDP ratio was from the Clinton to Bush Administrations at roughly two-thirds the size of the economy. At the same time, S&P 500 companies increased debt to just over revenues by the peak of the Bush expansion in 2007 to less than half of revenues during the Age of Obama. (There's some evidence that households have also sought to pay down debt.)
I'll simply conclude that I believe that businesses and households are worried about the long-term sustainability of fiscal and monetary policies and hence are unwilling to take on new debt given current economic instability.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Winter Wonderland"
Boston Pops
Mormon Tabernacle Choir
The Eurythmics
Instrumental Jazz
Bing Crosby
Monday, December 26, 2011
Miscellany: 12/26/11
Quote of the Day
You must lose a fly to catch a trout.
George Herbert
The Political Pundits Are Wrong: Obama Will NOT Be Reelected
The common wisdom, even during Fox News Sunday, is that Barack Obama has to be the favorite heading into next year's Presidential election (I'm adding some unstated reasons just to make the opposing point of view stronger): Obama has the advantage of incumbency; Obama is a phenomenal campaigner, unlike any of his likely GOP opponents; Obama will have a formidable warchest; the economy seems to be on the cusp of improving, not great enough, but enough for Obama to claim credit, and the voters will give him credit.
It is no secret to any faithful reader of this blog that I am opposed, in the strongest possible terms, to the reelection of Obama, whom I personally recall for specific reasons the worst, most unqualified President in American history. However, that assessment does not detract from my objective analysis of next year's election and let me make my case: Obama got 53% of the popular vote in 2008, in the strongest year for Democrats in decades (even Bill Clinton didn't break 50%--in a more robust economy). Although Obama is getting a minor boost to about 47% approval (likely because of the 2-month extension of the payroll tax holiday), he is in deep trouble: only in one poll (CNN) does Obama break 50% against any of the leading GOP contenders. It's very unlikely under 50% less than a year before the election that if and when the election comes, undecideds are going to go with the President. He is no longer the outsider, the proponent of "hope and change" Even after taking out UBL, Obama's ratings quickly peaked and went down. I do expect Obama to run against Congress and paint his opponent as a right-wing extremist, but policies like health care "reform" and the 2009 stimulus bill remain unpopular. The big thing is unemployment, and make no mistake: we are going to have to see significant growth (>3%) to see unemployment really start to whittle down; the unemployment rate only got down to 8.6% because discouraged job seekers left the labor force. We could even see an uptick from here in hiring, but see unemployment climb as discouraged workers take any positive developments as a sign to rejoin the workforce. When you take into account that the private sector is barely hiring at a pace to place new workers, never mind nearly 14 million unemployed and millions of other underemployed, I think there's not enough political spin to put lipstick on Obama's record.
If I'm the GOP nominee, I'm going to drill home to people every chance I get that Obama is the first President in recent memory to see US Treasury debt downgraded. In the end, I think people are worried about massive debts and they realize by the election, Obama will have added more national debt than Bush did in 8 years. They know that sacrifice is going to have to hit everyone, not just the upper 1%, and I don't think they want a President whom has shown little ability to negotiate bipartisan compromises. They also know the record of the 111th Congress, and I don't think any patriotic American believes that a Democratic Congress and President in 2013 is going to get us out of structural trillion dollar deficits--and trillion dollar deficits are just not sustainable, period.
Sunday Talk Soup: Some Brief Notes on Meet the Press Part 1:
We are still the world's leading manufacturing nation, but there are serious policy problems making it worthwhile to invest in American factories. The trade protectionist standpoint of Democrats, not to mention dysfunctional, globally uncompetitive tax policies, worsen growth attempts. The solution is the law of comparative advantage and free trade. One of the PIMCO studies I cited in the Man of the Year post has a very interesting plot showing that the US does very well in our free trade partnerships--but it took the Democrats 4 years to confirm 3 free trade deals Bush negotiated and Obama hasn't negotiated any significant others.
Brokaw is worried about mortgages underwater, but that's a phenomenon that follows a correction of any real estate boom/bust cycle which usually lasts about 17 or so years. As the job market improves, we should see the housing slowly but surely improve.
As for the discontent of the American people: I think they're regretting the fact that last year's election left the Democrats still in control of the Senate, and the constant fighting between the parties leaves no one accountable. I honestly believe that Americans are ready for REAL shared sacrifice, just as they have had to see states and cities have to do to live within their moves. I would hope that the American people aren't delusional enough to believe that price-fixing by the government in health care resolves the intrinsically higher costs of an aging population. A recent study that showed the lowest pregnancy rate in decades is not helping the picture.
Just a Reminder: My Choice for 2011 Man of the Year
Earlier this evening I posted my choice. Did you agree? Of course, my award is but a few bytes in cyberspace; that and $5 will buy you a cup of Starbuck's coffee. Of course, with my choice's actions, a cup of joe may set you back $10 by the end of the decade...
Political Humor
"The best part about holiday parties is the alcohol. You have a couple of drinks and you tell your coworkers and your superiors what you really think about them. And then the fun begins." - David Letterman
[And you thought that a sober Biden was gaffe-prone...]
"The New York Daily News reported that Obama bought the Wii game “Just Dance” for his daughters, Sasha and Malia. Or in other words, the New York Daily News just ruined the fun of opening presents for Sasha and Malia." - Jimmy Fallon
[Well, Obama first tried playing the board game Monopoly with them under his "balanced approach" rules, but the girls got tired paying Obama the Tax Collector $150 every time they passed Go. Then there were the "you've just been audited--go straight to jail" cards, but no "Presidential pardon" cards... Obama always ended up being the winner with tax liens on all the properties.]
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Hallelujah (Handel's Messiah).
Neil Diamond His unmistakable baritone gloriously complements the choir.
Choir (Video with Classic Christian Art)
Mannheim Steamroller
You must lose a fly to catch a trout.
George Herbert
The Political Pundits Are Wrong: Obama Will NOT Be Reelected
The common wisdom, even during Fox News Sunday, is that Barack Obama has to be the favorite heading into next year's Presidential election (I'm adding some unstated reasons just to make the opposing point of view stronger): Obama has the advantage of incumbency; Obama is a phenomenal campaigner, unlike any of his likely GOP opponents; Obama will have a formidable warchest; the economy seems to be on the cusp of improving, not great enough, but enough for Obama to claim credit, and the voters will give him credit.
It is no secret to any faithful reader of this blog that I am opposed, in the strongest possible terms, to the reelection of Obama, whom I personally recall for specific reasons the worst, most unqualified President in American history. However, that assessment does not detract from my objective analysis of next year's election and let me make my case: Obama got 53% of the popular vote in 2008, in the strongest year for Democrats in decades (even Bill Clinton didn't break 50%--in a more robust economy). Although Obama is getting a minor boost to about 47% approval (likely because of the 2-month extension of the payroll tax holiday), he is in deep trouble: only in one poll (CNN) does Obama break 50% against any of the leading GOP contenders. It's very unlikely under 50% less than a year before the election that if and when the election comes, undecideds are going to go with the President. He is no longer the outsider, the proponent of "hope and change" Even after taking out UBL, Obama's ratings quickly peaked and went down. I do expect Obama to run against Congress and paint his opponent as a right-wing extremist, but policies like health care "reform" and the 2009 stimulus bill remain unpopular. The big thing is unemployment, and make no mistake: we are going to have to see significant growth (>3%) to see unemployment really start to whittle down; the unemployment rate only got down to 8.6% because discouraged job seekers left the labor force. We could even see an uptick from here in hiring, but see unemployment climb as discouraged workers take any positive developments as a sign to rejoin the workforce. When you take into account that the private sector is barely hiring at a pace to place new workers, never mind nearly 14 million unemployed and millions of other underemployed, I think there's not enough political spin to put lipstick on Obama's record.
If I'm the GOP nominee, I'm going to drill home to people every chance I get that Obama is the first President in recent memory to see US Treasury debt downgraded. In the end, I think people are worried about massive debts and they realize by the election, Obama will have added more national debt than Bush did in 8 years. They know that sacrifice is going to have to hit everyone, not just the upper 1%, and I don't think they want a President whom has shown little ability to negotiate bipartisan compromises. They also know the record of the 111th Congress, and I don't think any patriotic American believes that a Democratic Congress and President in 2013 is going to get us out of structural trillion dollar deficits--and trillion dollar deficits are just not sustainable, period.
Sunday Talk Soup: Some Brief Notes on Meet the Press Part 1:
BROKAW: In 1968, which I lived through, there was enormous turmoil, but everyone could get a job. We still had a manufacturing base in this country....I think the rest of the country just feels that they're not included in a lot of what is going on,
We are still the world's leading manufacturing nation, but there are serious policy problems making it worthwhile to invest in American factories. The trade protectionist standpoint of Democrats, not to mention dysfunctional, globally uncompetitive tax policies, worsen growth attempts. The solution is the law of comparative advantage and free trade. One of the PIMCO studies I cited in the Man of the Year post has a very interesting plot showing that the US does very well in our free trade partnerships--but it took the Democrats 4 years to confirm 3 free trade deals Bush negotiated and Obama hasn't negotiated any significant others.
Brokaw is worried about mortgages underwater, but that's a phenomenon that follows a correction of any real estate boom/bust cycle which usually lasts about 17 or so years. As the job market improves, we should see the housing slowly but surely improve.
As for the discontent of the American people: I think they're regretting the fact that last year's election left the Democrats still in control of the Senate, and the constant fighting between the parties leaves no one accountable. I honestly believe that Americans are ready for REAL shared sacrifice, just as they have had to see states and cities have to do to live within their moves. I would hope that the American people aren't delusional enough to believe that price-fixing by the government in health care resolves the intrinsically higher costs of an aging population. A recent study that showed the lowest pregnancy rate in decades is not helping the picture.
KATHLEEN PARKER: And you know, the truth is the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street people are, are really two sides of the same coin. You know, one is against big government, one is against crony capitalism.Some people think Parker is a 'conservative' commentator. Okay, folks, I may have to invent a category next year called "Bonehead of the Year", and this is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard in my life. This goes beyond bad analysis: it's a departure from reality. I consider myself a Tea Party member, and I am AGAINST industrial policy or crony capitalism of any kind. I am pro-liberty, pro-free market, pro-capitalist. We "real" conservatives oppose bailing out banks or auto companies or insurance concerns (or any other entity). On the other hand, OWS wants Big Government and has no problem with crony unionism; they think they have a right to the property of others by punitive taxation and want Big Government to pay almost all their bills, including education. OWS cherry-picks which crony capitalists they condemn (mostly banks). but they fail to understand government is part of the problem.with guarantees.
MR. MORIAL: You know, the anger that Americans feel, I think, is accelerated by the fact that the middle class has evaporated, that the recession has created a greater income inequality than ever before.I know people whom have made into the six-figures whom have earned very little over the past two years. It is true that some groups have done better than others, but when the well-to-do invest in new plants in the process of making more money, they hire people to get them there. A wealthy individual doesn't have to spend his money in expensive ventures which can yield thousands of new jobs.
Just a Reminder: My Choice for 2011 Man of the Year
Earlier this evening I posted my choice. Did you agree? Of course, my award is but a few bytes in cyberspace; that and $5 will buy you a cup of Starbuck's coffee. Of course, with my choice's actions, a cup of joe may set you back $10 by the end of the decade...
Political Humor
"The best part about holiday parties is the alcohol. You have a couple of drinks and you tell your coworkers and your superiors what you really think about them. And then the fun begins." - David Letterman
[And you thought that a sober Biden was gaffe-prone...]
"The New York Daily News reported that Obama bought the Wii game “Just Dance” for his daughters, Sasha and Malia. Or in other words, the New York Daily News just ruined the fun of opening presents for Sasha and Malia." - Jimmy Fallon
[Well, Obama first tried playing the board game Monopoly with them under his "balanced approach" rules, but the girls got tired paying Obama the Tax Collector $150 every time they passed Go. Then there were the "you've just been audited--go straight to jail" cards, but no "Presidential pardon" cards... Obama always ended up being the winner with tax liens on all the properties.]
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Hallelujah (Handel's Messiah).
Neil Diamond His unmistakable baritone gloriously complements the choir.
Choir (Video with Classic Christian Art)
Mannheim Steamroller
And the 2011 Man of the Year Is...
 |
| Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke Photo Courtesy of the Fed Reserve |
Within this context, I considered Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian whose death sparked a cascading set of popular revolts across the Arab world, notably Egypt and Libya; Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, has had to deal with a number of international crises; Governor Scott Walker (R-WI); and Grover Norquist, whose "no-new-tax" pledge has played a pivotal role in Congressional and GOP Presidential politics.
But to me, the big story of the year has to be the global economy, in particular, the cascading fiscal crises spreading across the European union, shaking the euro, a key currency competitor to the dollar. The budgetary crises were inevitable: a slow-growing or even declining population, expanding retirement lifespans without additional revenues or reserves to accommodate pensions, government employment regulations which discourage new hiring, an increasingly unsustainable social welfare net unable to keep up with increased demand, and sluggish economies. We are seeing a cascading affect on various countries, with Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy (all of the above except Italy with deficits running at 10% or the above in 2009 and heavy national debts overall). Even France and England have seen strong protests to modest reforms in things like phased age eligibility for retirement and increased user shared costs for universities. One can only wonder how German Chancellor Angela Merkel, listed by Forbes as the most powerful woman in the world, can continue or extend policies potentially morally hazardous, aiding irresponsible European neighbors.
I have not focused to date in this blog of a very important event that occurred at the close of November. Consider the following summary from PIMCO's Crescenzi:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke continues to show he is one of the few true deciders these days on the global policy stage. On 30 November, the Federal Reserve, along with five other central banks including the ECB, announced enhancements to their existing U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangements. These provide for the Fed to swap dollars in exchange for other currencies, in unlimited amounts, through 1 February 2013, at a rate of about 60 basis points (bps) – down from about 110 bps previously....For Europe, the swap line enables the ECB to borrow dollars and then lend those dollars to European banks, which are sorely in need of funding because the world is playing hot potato with their debts...Keep in mind that any use of the Fed’s swap facility expands the Fed’s monetary base: All dollars, no matter where they are deposited, whether it be Kazakhstan, Japan or Mexico, wind up back in an American bank. This means that when the Fed’s swap line is used, the Fed will create new money. This in some ways makes the swap line a backdoor way to engage in quantitative easing.
Crescenzi is a big Ben Bernanke fan, which was clear in an earlier post, "Ben Bernanke the Decider":
[Filling the void of leadership] is Ben Bernanke, the veritable Sultan of Swat. From the very beginning of the financial crisis, Bernanke has been unflinching and audacious, never compromising, going to bat for the American people even under great criticism. Where political leaders have failed Bernanke has succeeded in providing continuous leadership at a time of crisis. There are many who are nonetheless critical of Bernanke and the Fed, believing the Fed’s actions pose substantial costs and risks to the United States...While it is true that the lowering of interest rates and the creation of $1.6 trillion of excess bank reserves poses substantial risk to price stability, this notion applies only when the transmission effects of monetary policy behave normally... what is both remarkable and instructive for the outlook for monetary policy is how active the Fed remains even though it has reached the zero-bound for interest rates. We today find ourselves contemplating a long list of potential Fed actions, ranging from several variations of QEIII to an abundance of communications strategies, including the potential for targets on inflation, growth, and/or employment, or perhaps guidance related to the size of the Fed’s balance sheet.Among other actions taken at the end of November was the Chinese agreement to lower its bank reserve requirements, which have been pumped to help constrain inflation hitting lower-income people (e.g., food and energy prices). The worry in this regard is the increasing global importance of a vibrant Chinese economy which has led to huge imports of materials from, say, Australia, South America, and Africa.
Crescenzi rightly points out that the European government bond problem is one of chickens which have come home to roost. The European central bank rightly focuses on price stability but it is prohibited from lending to governments (versus banks). It is also clear that the Europeans failed to require individual countries to make the tough decisions necessary in order to provide a sound base for the euro currency.
I agree that we are not going to see a significant lift to lending until we see American businesses and individuals feeling more confident in a secure economic future with a government that has learned to operate within its means and a more limited agenda. But among other things, I think that Ben Bernanke's activism is disconcerting; I am not heartened by the fact that the Chinese realize that soaring food and energy costs are a problem, but Bernanke has signaled that near zero interest rates will continue to be the policy for the indefinite near future. Just as European banks' chickens have come home to roost, a world awash in dollars is not going to end well.
The idea that we shouldn't increase interest rates because banks aren't lending anyway is, in my opinion, wrong-headed; raising rates now would signify that the US is going to defend the dollar for intrinsic reasons (not simply as a refuge from a sinking euro). A stronger dollar would enable us to manufacture value-added products at a more competitive price and make the dollars of lower-income workers go further; inflation is a very cruel tax consequence of wrong-headed neo-Keynesian economic policies.
I have concerns about American dollars being used to shore up European banks: after all, isn't it moral hazard by essentially helping the Europeans stabilize their current crisis instead of finally facing the hard decisions they have to make (e.g., having the European central bank buy up government bonds and as its price, demand fiscally responsible policies?)
And I don't like the fact that "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke is pursuing an activist role without the same transparency of the Congress (e.g., during TARP). Whereas there is a lot to be said about shielding central bankers from incessant administration and Congressional demands (from both parties through recent American history) for easy money vs. combating inflation, I have problems with Bernanke having a blank check to deploy potentially trillions of dollars globally, all of which can come back to haunt us in the long run. I have not seen enough use of the bully pulpit from Bernanke in dealing with Obama's upcoming decade of trillion dollar deficits and even steeper credit bureau rating drops.
Whether or not you approve of Bernanke's moves, there can be no doubt but his has become one of the most important voices during and after the recent economic tsunami; for that reason, I'm naming "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke my 2011 Man of the Year.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Miscellany: 12/25/11 Happy Christmas!
 |
| Painting by Marianne Stokes, "Madonna and Child" (1907-08) |
Quote of the Day
The best thing we can do for ourselves and the people in our lives
is to love them unconditionally,
forgive them without reservation
and to accept them exactly as they are.
Iyanla Vanzant
Interesting Updates on the Carpe Diem Blog
Economist Mark J. Perry's blog is now pulling in over 200,000 pageviews a month. I'm envious: I was hoping this little blog would build a reader base by word of mouth, and I've made a few minor efforts to promote the blog at other websites (no success).
The Perry blog typically includes clippings on various subjects followed by a short Perry commentary: the shale gas and Bakken formation stories; the income inequality theme; foreign trade (particularly China); website odds on the GOP nominee; the alive-and-kicking US manufacturing sector; low inflation and positive growth indicators; and free market issues (including rent control and other price-fixing gimmicks along with various prohibitions). [I'm more skeptical on the overall discussion of inflation given the sticky high inflation of food, energy/fuel, health care, and particularly college education. I went into a Safeway for the first time in months recently, and it seemed as though the prices of everything had jumped dramatically.]
I had to smile at Perry's sarcastic reference to the politically correct "Christmakwanzakuh" season. There were 3 recent posts in particular I wanted to briefly comment on:
- Cheap Shale Gas Supplies Lower Utility Customer Bills. It's somewhat ironic to see that utility companies have to apply to regulators in order to LOWER rates; you won't see these stories being carried by the progressive populists (whom never did understand why gas stations dropped their prices in a soft economy...)
- China Trade Statistics and Apple Products. Perry cites a recent study focusing on the manufacture and sales of two princpal Apple products: the iPhone and iPad; don't expect Trump or Romney to emphasize this study which suggests that the trade balance numbers with China can be or have been misleading (i.e., the real balance is a lower trade gap). Charts show that Chinese labor accounts for something like 2% of item prices.
- The Rich Get Richer--and the Poor Get Richer. I remember one of the few times I allowed myself to buy something at an early adopters' premium was a VCR. It went for about $1200, and I also bought a copy of The Sound of Music for about $80. (I invited some of my fellow UH Catholic Newman friends over for a dinner party, one of the few I ever did.) Of course, today the going price on a VCR/DVD recorder ranges from $75 to $200 and above, and you can purchase a special edition of the same classic movie on more robust DVD for less than a third of my cost. What's all the more amazing is that 1980-1981 dollars were much more valuable, so the real price difference is more remarkable. PC computer hardware price cuts are even more striking, and there are several freeware full-featured office suites available. In the cited story above, we see that for relative compensation, for the same work hours it took to buy a single appliance, you can today buy something like 8 different appliances from Best Buy today. The law of comparative advantage and free trade enable lower-income people to stretch their precious dollars further in clothing and other consumer products.
Peace on Earth and GOP Groupthink
on the Military-Industrial Complex
Ron Paul must feel like a piñata at the GOP debates. It is amazing what Presidential politics will do. I recall reading some of the news stories before Sara Palin became a national candidate: her first-born son was joining the military, and she was worried whether her son's life would be at risk over oil (from the Middle East). Once she became the VP nominee, it became a political ritual for her to pay tribute to the military, particularly the man heading the ticket, John McCain, a former long-time North Vietnamese prisoner of war.
George W. Bush's evolution of rationale for Middle East involvement eventually shifted to the spread of democracy. But, in fact, where has our involvement gotten us? There are historic rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Arabs and Persians, Kurds and Arabs, Jews and Muslims (of course), and more recently Muslims and Christians. A recent story in The Telegraph mentions the fact that two-third of Iraqi Christians have gone into exile to escape religious persecution; a similar situation is developing in Egypt where 25 Copt Christians were murdered two months ago; over the past year some 300 Christians have been arrested in Iran, Christian priests are being murdered in Tunisia, Maronite Christians in Lebanon are increasingly being targeted in bombings, and Syrian Christians are coming under attack during the existing civil strife. Under the "Arab spring" form of democracy, fundamentalist Muslim factions (like the Salafists) are able to exert influence beyond their numbers due to their ruthless methods, even in dealing with any deviations from a rigorous religious code (e.g., beards are symbolically significant in Islam, so barbers who offer beard shaving services have come under attack in addition to women whom fail to veil their faces.)
I am a proud American, supporting a theory of government which, in principle, curbs the tyranny of the majority with respect to individual rights. However, when we look at the governments in other countries, I am hesitant to suggest one-size-fits-all. I believe that in some countries or cultures forms of government have evolved over time to establish an equilibrium among opposing factions. We need to worry about the law of unintended consequences before we support intervention dealing with a country or region.
I am skeptical of those in the libertarian movement espousing conspiracy theories about the existence of a perpetually large Defense Department, suggesting it is looking for the Next Big Threat. In the context of The Telegraph story, for instance, some would argue that supporting the revolutionaries during the Arab spring would lead to the emergence of radicalized groups--persecuting religious minorities (such as the above-cited persecution of Christians) and thus providing pretext for subsequent Western intervention.
I wish the GOP contenders would do a post-Iraq/Afghanistan lessons learned and say to the American people next fall: George W. Bush made mistakes: what lessons did we learn about intervention from the Beirut barracks bombing that led to President Reagan withdrawing US forces? What did we learn from nation building in east Europe during the 1990's? The GOP rivals revere the principle of listening to the generals on the ground--but who was it that recommended understaffing the occupation to the point we couldn't maintain ground after Americans withdrew, needed elsewhere? I want to hear of a higher barrier of entry to war with American blood and treasure at stake. I want to hear less obsession with outlaw regimes in Iran and North Korea and more about streamlining of bases, obligations and alliances. We cannot continue to borrow 40% of the Defense Department budget; we cannot afford to spend an undue amount of blood and treasure in small countries of questionable strategic importance.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Harry Belafonte, "Mary's Boy Child"
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Miscellany: 12/24/11
Quote of the Day
Always do more than is required of you.
George S. Patton
Superficial Progressive Analyses of the Tea Party
I really get irritated at the stereotypes aimed at the Tea Party. Although I have not formally participated in the movement, I have written dozens of commentaries consistently arguing against government scope creep from local issues (e.g., lemonade stands and food trucks; the Kelo decision) to the federal level (e.g., the TSA, the Patriot Act, disturbing expansion of the military tribunal system, particularly at the expense of American citizens). I have talked about across-the-board spending cuts and asset sales, sunsetting regulations, streamlining and consolidating operations, and delegating authority to the state and local levels of government; I have discussed privatizing school and retirement systems and scaling back our international military presence and obligations. I am just as skeptical of growth to feed the military-industrial complex as I am of progressive empire building in the areas of domestic policy. But I have more realistic expectations about what can be done in mixed government at the federal level, I don't overpromise, and I avoid some of the intentionally provocative statements made by Ron Paul, especially regarding American adversaries.
The REAL reform takes shape under the surface; it won't be the real meat goals of say, abolishing the Energy Department or the Education Department. Most likely even if those things were done, relevant programs would simply be reassigned. It will happen in thousands of little ways, like streamlining regulations and the jobs that support unnecessary regulations, downsizing the government through attrition, outsourcing nonessential operations, and offering early retirement packages for expensive government employees.
The fact that progressives have to resort to engage in stereotypes in describing the Tea Party and supported candidates is hardly surprising. Consider the following predictable extract from a typical New York Times progressive columnist:
"Like when the nonrich start asking why people who make millions of dollars in annual income can't accept a modest levy to pay for that payroll tax cut." When someone writes a statement like that, I have to wonder--is Ms. Collins really that clueless? Or is she exaggerating a point, not intending for anyone to take her seriously? Payroll taxes are really mandatory retirement contributions, not taxes in the sense of underwriting regular government. The FACT is that high-income workers already pay TWICE their share of national income in federal tax burden. On top of that Ms. Collins thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the well-to-do, whom already earn a lower return on those retirement investments than lower-income workers, to pick up part of the retirement tab for everybody else. Where does Ms. Collins draw the line? If a one-percenter eats at a local restaurant, does she think he needs to pick up everybody else's tab? What gives her the right to cast judgment on someone else's property--to think it's only right that she should pass judgment on or control what another person earns as a result of his own hard work?
I have never been a one-percenter and likely never will be, but I'm against class warfare tax hikes, even if it would be in my personal interest. Why? Among other things, I think that the economically successful save and invest their own money more effectively than the spendthrift federal government which would confiscate it but can't even balance its own budget or handle the taxpayers' money more efficiently.
But to answer the economically illiterate Ms. Collins more fully, let us remind her that MONEY IS FUNGIBLE. Out of a greater than $3.5T budget, we can't find $120B or so to sustain a temporary tax cut? And let us not forget during multiple Bush tax rebates/credits and a massive one from Obama (before this year's payroll tax holiday), a large percentage of that tax break did not result in economy-boosting spending but was used adding to savings or paying off debt. In other words, the payroll tax holiday was simply another ineffectual stimulus as usual, but Ms. Collins thinks it's only fair that 1% of the population should have to pay ten years for one year of ineffectual stimulus spending.
Going back to Ms. Collins' earlier cited, nonsensical prose about establishment Republicans putting those Tea Party hotheads in their place, the issue had more to do with political reality. The Left, of course, knows it from their own perspective. Ted Kennedy pressed for decades for a single-payer universal health care system--but he settled for compromise measures like RomneyCare. During the 111th Congress House Democrats wanted a public option and didn't get it.
And so President Obama droned on with his pretentious, "I would like to thank all the little people; you're responsible for making this 2-month extension of the current payroll tax holiday possible." For Ms. Collins, let us review Obama's "leadership" and "accomplishment" here: he wanted a 3.1 point cut--half of the employee share of social security tax--not to mention a business-side tax; he wanted it paid for by a class warfare tax cut over 10 years, but this is paid for by increased GSE loan guarantee fees; he wanted a year long agreement, but he got a two-month agreement. Oh, yeah: Obama really won here, didn't he, Ms. Collins?
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"O Little Town of Bethlehem"
Barbra Streisand
Instrumental
Vienna Boys Choir
Perry Como
Always do more than is required of you.
George S. Patton
Superficial Progressive Analyses of the Tea Party
I really get irritated at the stereotypes aimed at the Tea Party. Although I have not formally participated in the movement, I have written dozens of commentaries consistently arguing against government scope creep from local issues (e.g., lemonade stands and food trucks; the Kelo decision) to the federal level (e.g., the TSA, the Patriot Act, disturbing expansion of the military tribunal system, particularly at the expense of American citizens). I have talked about across-the-board spending cuts and asset sales, sunsetting regulations, streamlining and consolidating operations, and delegating authority to the state and local levels of government; I have discussed privatizing school and retirement systems and scaling back our international military presence and obligations. I am just as skeptical of growth to feed the military-industrial complex as I am of progressive empire building in the areas of domestic policy. But I have more realistic expectations about what can be done in mixed government at the federal level, I don't overpromise, and I avoid some of the intentionally provocative statements made by Ron Paul, especially regarding American adversaries.
The REAL reform takes shape under the surface; it won't be the real meat goals of say, abolishing the Energy Department or the Education Department. Most likely even if those things were done, relevant programs would simply be reassigned. It will happen in thousands of little ways, like streamlining regulations and the jobs that support unnecessary regulations, downsizing the government through attrition, outsourcing nonessential operations, and offering early retirement packages for expensive government employees.
The fact that progressives have to resort to engage in stereotypes in describing the Tea Party and supported candidates is hardly surprising. Consider the following predictable extract from a typical New York Times progressive columnist:
I think the moral here is pretty clear. We have talked for nearly three years about how the Tea Party is terrorizing the Republican establishment, until the old country-club, deal-making model was verging on extinction. But it now appears that if the new populist right does something that actually endangers the well-being of the old, entitled right, the establishment will rise up and slap those little whippersnappers down faster than you can say Mitch McConnell.She then goes on to say:
This is the song of the Republican establishment, which hateshateshates class warfare. Like when the nonrich start asking why people who make millions of dollars in annual income can’t accept a modest levy to pay for that payroll tax cut.Poor Gail is analytically challenged so let's educate her. There are a lot of moderate Republicans, particularly in the Northeast, part of the mythical "Republican establishment" (take, for instance, Colin Powell) whom in fact are supportive of domestic welfare programs. These programs, beyond temporary short-term fixes, are thought by Republican conservatives and libertarians to be morally hazardous, with citizens effectively developing dependencies on the programs of progressive government. And we have seen long-term Republican establishment types, e.g., John McCain during the initial Bush tax cut debates and more recently Newt Gingrich, whom have engaged in class warfare/populist rhetoric.
"Like when the nonrich start asking why people who make millions of dollars in annual income can't accept a modest levy to pay for that payroll tax cut." When someone writes a statement like that, I have to wonder--is Ms. Collins really that clueless? Or is she exaggerating a point, not intending for anyone to take her seriously? Payroll taxes are really mandatory retirement contributions, not taxes in the sense of underwriting regular government. The FACT is that high-income workers already pay TWICE their share of national income in federal tax burden. On top of that Ms. Collins thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the well-to-do, whom already earn a lower return on those retirement investments than lower-income workers, to pick up part of the retirement tab for everybody else. Where does Ms. Collins draw the line? If a one-percenter eats at a local restaurant, does she think he needs to pick up everybody else's tab? What gives her the right to cast judgment on someone else's property--to think it's only right that she should pass judgment on or control what another person earns as a result of his own hard work?
I have never been a one-percenter and likely never will be, but I'm against class warfare tax hikes, even if it would be in my personal interest. Why? Among other things, I think that the economically successful save and invest their own money more effectively than the spendthrift federal government which would confiscate it but can't even balance its own budget or handle the taxpayers' money more efficiently.
But to answer the economically illiterate Ms. Collins more fully, let us remind her that MONEY IS FUNGIBLE. Out of a greater than $3.5T budget, we can't find $120B or so to sustain a temporary tax cut? And let us not forget during multiple Bush tax rebates/credits and a massive one from Obama (before this year's payroll tax holiday), a large percentage of that tax break did not result in economy-boosting spending but was used adding to savings or paying off debt. In other words, the payroll tax holiday was simply another ineffectual stimulus as usual, but Ms. Collins thinks it's only fair that 1% of the population should have to pay ten years for one year of ineffectual stimulus spending.
Going back to Ms. Collins' earlier cited, nonsensical prose about establishment Republicans putting those Tea Party hotheads in their place, the issue had more to do with political reality. The Left, of course, knows it from their own perspective. Ted Kennedy pressed for decades for a single-payer universal health care system--but he settled for compromise measures like RomneyCare. During the 111th Congress House Democrats wanted a public option and didn't get it.
And so President Obama droned on with his pretentious, "I would like to thank all the little people; you're responsible for making this 2-month extension of the current payroll tax holiday possible." For Ms. Collins, let us review Obama's "leadership" and "accomplishment" here: he wanted a 3.1 point cut--half of the employee share of social security tax--not to mention a business-side tax; he wanted it paid for by a class warfare tax cut over 10 years, but this is paid for by increased GSE loan guarantee fees; he wanted a year long agreement, but he got a two-month agreement. Oh, yeah: Obama really won here, didn't he, Ms. Collins?
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"O Little Town of Bethlehem"
Barbra Streisand
Instrumental
Vienna Boys Choir
Perry Como
Friday, December 23, 2011
Miscellany: 12/23/11
Quote of the Day
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Author unknown
Laura Ingraham and Other Gingrich Apologists
The conservative talk show host for some reason serves as Bill O'Reilly's replacement host on his prime time hit cable news magazine show The O'Reilly Factor. As regular viewers know, O'Reilly generally starts off his broadcast with a feature called the Talking Points Memo. I have not been watching FNC's prime time shows (or their nightly reruns) for several weeks, but I do subscribe to O'Reilly's Talking Point Memo podcasts. I hadn't noticed the distribution of substitute host talking points until now. I have never been an Ingraham fan, and this talking point criticizing a Romney group attack ad on Gingrich doesn't change my mind.
Here's the ad text:
Ingraham essentially talks about this ad being rated "4 pinocchios" from Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post "fact checker". ("4 pinocchios means 'whoopers'; a designation Kessler says over the abortion claim.) Basically if you look at Kessler's column, the criticisms turn out to highly subjective; in fact, by any objective analysis, Kessler's analysis is shallow and highly subjective. Let's go through it point by point.
The first criticism is the hourly rate Newt was paid ($30,000), not the total amount. In fact, the advocacy group used a Washington Post estimate, not their own; Gingrich did not charge Freddie Mac by the hour; he got paid a retainer each month, meaning that he worked a variable number of as-needed hours (if any) per month. I rate Kessler's criticism as trivial. Gingrich resisted GSE reform while on retainer, the GSE's made risky loans using government guarantees and the GSE's were primarily beneficiaries of TARP funds. And let's not be naive: the reason Freddie Mac hired Gingrich is not for his expertise in European history; it has to do with his connections on Capitol Hill as a former Speaker. I rate the advocacy group's criticism: Thumbs UP!
The second criticism is that the co-sponsored bill with Pelosi never got enacted. This is, once again, a trivial criticism by Kessler: the advocacy group would have made a tougher ad if the bill had become a law. Should the former Speaker be held responsible for the legislation he wanted to pass? I think so. I rate the advocacy group's criticism: Thumbs UP!
Kessler saves his venom for the abortion language. Again, I find Kessler unconvincing. The ad says "some abortions", not "most" or "all", which would have been stronger. And, in fact, Gingrich did talk about federal payments for cases of rape and life endangerment.
That being said, the fact of the matter is that Gingrich never sought to expand abortion services beyond the exceptions under the revised 1977 Hyde Amendment. These exceptions account for something like 1.5% of all abortions. It is true that some conservatives wanted to go to the stricter language of the original Hyde Amendment which did not even allow exceptional circumstances, and Gingrich was worried about keeping moderate Republicans, opposed to the change, in his working majority.
I think what the advocacy group was trying to tell conservatives is that if you're going to go after Romney for making compromises along the way, you have to be consistent and apply the same standards to Gingrich for his deal making along the way.
Still, I give the advocacy group on this issue a clear THUMBS DOWN! I think it's unbelievably ill-advised to go after Gingrich's position on abortion given Romney's blatant pro-abortion choice stands during two statewide runs in Massachusetts, particularly his contemporary Senate run against Kennedy. Gingrich can easily flip the argument on Romney. If you are trying to appeal to social conservatives, it's far better to contrast Romney's solid marriage and family values.
Finally, Kessler argues against the fact of Gingrich's historic Congressional rebuke, arguing others would have been, but they resigned first. I rate Kessler's assessment trivial and irrelevant. After all, Gingrich also had the option of quitting before the House vote. I rate the advocacy group's assessment accurate and fairly stated. Thumbs UP!
Going back to Ingraham's opinion, she's suggesting Gingrich has been taking the high road and thinks that all this negative campaigning is a recipe for defeat. Before proceeding, let me point out that this blog is not favorably disposed towards a Gingrich Presidency.
First, let us not mince words here: negative campaigns have been part of American history since the early years of the republic. Ms. Ingraham has a convenient memory: consider, for instance, the 2002 California gubernatorial election and the 2006 Illinois one: in both cases, unpopular incumbents won reelection. Second, let's remember: Gingrich did not win his position in the polls by merit: he won it by default as the non-Romney candidacies of Bachmann, Perry, and Cain imploded. Third, the conservative media (including Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, and others) are blatantly hypocritical on this issue: the very concept of the non-Romney candidate is an implicit direct unprovoked attack on Romney: how many times have we heard RomneyCare, the policy flip flops (particularly on abortion), etc.? Apparently attacks on Gingrich's record are reprehensible, unlike Romney's. Fourth, just like any veteran politician, Gingrich hasn't been afraid of attacking others; his attacks on the press are just as reprehensible as Obama's attacks on Fox News. And Gingrich's populist attack against Romney's tenure at Bain Capital could have been written by Barack Obama. The fact that Gingrich has been going around praising Teddy Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton and validating the principles of industrial policy or crony capitalism that Barack Obama has embraces is hardly "conservative". Finally, there are legitimate reasons to question Gingrich's electability given his regular losses in the polls, even with Obama's approval rates down: he would go into a general election with high unfavorables from moderates and independents. Why isn't it fair to ask why few, if any of the GOP Congressmen whom served under Gingrich as Speaker have endorsed him? Obama has up to $1B to run for reelection; if anyone thinks that the Obama campaign is going to run it's "morning in America again" campaign, he's delusional. Obama would LOVE to run against Gingrich: a career politician, someone with ties to the GSE's, a bipartisan vote against him on ethics issues before the House, etc.
Ms. Ingraham, you have already shown by quoting Kessler that you are willing to conveniently quote a liberal journalist "fact checker" when it fits into your agenda. But pretending that policy proposals with a likable sound bite like "9-9-9" have a chance of passing without compromise is a departure from reality. Obama is going to spend hundreds of millions in negative ads against his GOP opponent next fall; competition is the American way.
And Now For a Word From Monks During This Holiday Season
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Christmas Story/Songs.
"The Littlest Christmas Tree." (Red Skelton/Skit)
"Belleau Wood/A Christmas Truce". (Andy Griffith). This is perhaps one of the best known stories of all time: Christmas Eve, 1914 with Allied and German trenches facing each other. One of my favorite Christmas films (Joyeux Noël, 2005: see movie trailer to follow); I own a copy and highly recommend it.
Far too many American fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers have died or lost their limbs in foreign lands. How many times must we forget the lesson and the words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé? "I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed...The little children are freezing to death...no blankets, no food... I want to have time to look for my children...maybe I shall find them among the dead...Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
Newsong. "The Christmas Shoes". I will never forget when I first heard this song. I was at a gas station in Los Angeles, probably topping off the gas tank before returning the rental for the flight home. The song so totally captivated me that I just sat in the car listening to it, hanging on every word.
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Author unknown
Laura Ingraham and Other Gingrich Apologists
The conservative talk show host for some reason serves as Bill O'Reilly's replacement host on his prime time hit cable news magazine show The O'Reilly Factor. As regular viewers know, O'Reilly generally starts off his broadcast with a feature called the Talking Points Memo. I have not been watching FNC's prime time shows (or their nightly reruns) for several weeks, but I do subscribe to O'Reilly's Talking Point Memo podcasts. I hadn't noticed the distribution of substitute host talking points until now. I have never been an Ingraham fan, and this talking point criticizing a Romney group attack ad on Gingrich doesn't change my mind.
Here's the ad text:
You know what makes Barack Obama happy? Newt Gingrich's baggage. Newt has more baggage than the airlines. Freddie Mac helped cause the economic collapse but Gingrich cashed in. Freddie Mac paid Newt $30,000 an hour; $1.6 million. Gingrich not only teamed up with Nancy Pelosi on global warming but together they co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a UN program supporting China's brutal one-child policy. As Speaker, Gingrich even supported taxpayer funding of some abortions. And Newt is the only Speaker in history to be reprimanded. He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations by a Republican Congress.
Ingraham essentially talks about this ad being rated "4 pinocchios" from Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post "fact checker". ("4 pinocchios means 'whoopers'; a designation Kessler says over the abortion claim.) Basically if you look at Kessler's column, the criticisms turn out to highly subjective; in fact, by any objective analysis, Kessler's analysis is shallow and highly subjective. Let's go through it point by point.
The first criticism is the hourly rate Newt was paid ($30,000), not the total amount. In fact, the advocacy group used a Washington Post estimate, not their own; Gingrich did not charge Freddie Mac by the hour; he got paid a retainer each month, meaning that he worked a variable number of as-needed hours (if any) per month. I rate Kessler's criticism as trivial. Gingrich resisted GSE reform while on retainer, the GSE's made risky loans using government guarantees and the GSE's were primarily beneficiaries of TARP funds. And let's not be naive: the reason Freddie Mac hired Gingrich is not for his expertise in European history; it has to do with his connections on Capitol Hill as a former Speaker. I rate the advocacy group's criticism: Thumbs UP!
The second criticism is that the co-sponsored bill with Pelosi never got enacted. This is, once again, a trivial criticism by Kessler: the advocacy group would have made a tougher ad if the bill had become a law. Should the former Speaker be held responsible for the legislation he wanted to pass? I think so. I rate the advocacy group's criticism: Thumbs UP!
Kessler saves his venom for the abortion language. Again, I find Kessler unconvincing. The ad says "some abortions", not "most" or "all", which would have been stronger. And, in fact, Gingrich did talk about federal payments for cases of rape and life endangerment.
That being said, the fact of the matter is that Gingrich never sought to expand abortion services beyond the exceptions under the revised 1977 Hyde Amendment. These exceptions account for something like 1.5% of all abortions. It is true that some conservatives wanted to go to the stricter language of the original Hyde Amendment which did not even allow exceptional circumstances, and Gingrich was worried about keeping moderate Republicans, opposed to the change, in his working majority.
I think what the advocacy group was trying to tell conservatives is that if you're going to go after Romney for making compromises along the way, you have to be consistent and apply the same standards to Gingrich for his deal making along the way.
Still, I give the advocacy group on this issue a clear THUMBS DOWN! I think it's unbelievably ill-advised to go after Gingrich's position on abortion given Romney's blatant pro-abortion choice stands during two statewide runs in Massachusetts, particularly his contemporary Senate run against Kennedy. Gingrich can easily flip the argument on Romney. If you are trying to appeal to social conservatives, it's far better to contrast Romney's solid marriage and family values.
Finally, Kessler argues against the fact of Gingrich's historic Congressional rebuke, arguing others would have been, but they resigned first. I rate Kessler's assessment trivial and irrelevant. After all, Gingrich also had the option of quitting before the House vote. I rate the advocacy group's assessment accurate and fairly stated. Thumbs UP!
Going back to Ingraham's opinion, she's suggesting Gingrich has been taking the high road and thinks that all this negative campaigning is a recipe for defeat. Before proceeding, let me point out that this blog is not favorably disposed towards a Gingrich Presidency.
First, let us not mince words here: negative campaigns have been part of American history since the early years of the republic. Ms. Ingraham has a convenient memory: consider, for instance, the 2002 California gubernatorial election and the 2006 Illinois one: in both cases, unpopular incumbents won reelection. Second, let's remember: Gingrich did not win his position in the polls by merit: he won it by default as the non-Romney candidacies of Bachmann, Perry, and Cain imploded. Third, the conservative media (including Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, and others) are blatantly hypocritical on this issue: the very concept of the non-Romney candidate is an implicit direct unprovoked attack on Romney: how many times have we heard RomneyCare, the policy flip flops (particularly on abortion), etc.? Apparently attacks on Gingrich's record are reprehensible, unlike Romney's. Fourth, just like any veteran politician, Gingrich hasn't been afraid of attacking others; his attacks on the press are just as reprehensible as Obama's attacks on Fox News. And Gingrich's populist attack against Romney's tenure at Bain Capital could have been written by Barack Obama. The fact that Gingrich has been going around praising Teddy Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton and validating the principles of industrial policy or crony capitalism that Barack Obama has embraces is hardly "conservative". Finally, there are legitimate reasons to question Gingrich's electability given his regular losses in the polls, even with Obama's approval rates down: he would go into a general election with high unfavorables from moderates and independents. Why isn't it fair to ask why few, if any of the GOP Congressmen whom served under Gingrich as Speaker have endorsed him? Obama has up to $1B to run for reelection; if anyone thinks that the Obama campaign is going to run it's "morning in America again" campaign, he's delusional. Obama would LOVE to run against Gingrich: a career politician, someone with ties to the GSE's, a bipartisan vote against him on ethics issues before the House, etc.
Ms. Ingraham, you have already shown by quoting Kessler that you are willing to conveniently quote a liberal journalist "fact checker" when it fits into your agenda. But pretending that policy proposals with a likable sound bite like "9-9-9" have a chance of passing without compromise is a departure from reality. Obama is going to spend hundreds of millions in negative ads against his GOP opponent next fall; competition is the American way.
And Now For a Word From Monks During This Holiday Season
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Christmas Story/Songs.
"The Littlest Christmas Tree." (Red Skelton/Skit)
"Belleau Wood/A Christmas Truce". (Andy Griffith). This is perhaps one of the best known stories of all time: Christmas Eve, 1914 with Allied and German trenches facing each other. One of my favorite Christmas films (Joyeux Noël, 2005: see movie trailer to follow); I own a copy and highly recommend it.
Far too many American fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers have died or lost their limbs in foreign lands. How many times must we forget the lesson and the words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé? "I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed...The little children are freezing to death...no blankets, no food... I want to have time to look for my children...maybe I shall find them among the dead...Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
Newsong. "The Christmas Shoes". I will never forget when I first heard this song. I was at a gas station in Los Angeles, probably topping off the gas tank before returning the rental for the flight home. The song so totally captivated me that I just sat in the car listening to it, hanging on every word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)