Leaders don't make excuses for inaction.
They are first movers and early adopters.
They make things happen.
W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, and T. G. Cummings
Another October Surprise?
Iran and the Obama Administration
In addition to the surprise Obama-convenient September jobs report which saw what we empirical researchers call an outlier, an explosion of part-time jobs (which count in official job statistics) from the household survey, not reflected in the establishment (employer) survey. Then there have been the volatile jobless claims where similarly we saw a multi-year low just to hear some unidentified state, rumored to be California (denied), wasn't included.
I get email alerts from a conservative Christian media source WND which had been heavily promoting a story: an October surprise deal between the Obama Administration and the Iranian regime. The basic gist is Iran wanted to wait until after Election Day. The Administration has been fear-mongering about Romney giving Israel a green light to attack. and suggested a deal where Iran agrees to some temporary suspension of its nuclear program in exchange to the repeal of key sanctions. (There are reports of a dire domestic economy suffering under economic sanctions.)
Surprise, surprise. Just 2 days before the final debate, one on foreign policy, the Gray Lady has just reported an agreement to nuclear talks between Iran and the US.
How does Romney respond? The US has one President, I would be skeptical of Iran's timing and motives, whether they are attempting to influence the US election. I would point out Obama has a convoluted record on Iran especially his silence during the green revolution.
I really don't want Romney involved in Iran. The best thing he can do Monday is to swear off intervention and nation building, reassure people he is not impulsive, trigger-happy but calm, cool, and collected under pressure.
Long story short, I don't see voters going for Obama because Iran has agreed to talk; talk is cheap, and could be little more than a stall tactic. They don't want us getting sucked into another unaffordable Gulf War
Political Potpourri
In yesterday's post I ranted a bit about libertarians going after Romney: for example, I haven't counted the number of times Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has gone after Romney by name China, but I've probably seen at least a half dozen times over the last few weeks, while he has rarely singled out Obama--whose actions, never mind rhetoric, are material violations against the free market on steroids. I think Romney has a messaging problem. There can be no doubt that China, as the world's second biggest economy, should be floating its currency--and Romney is not the only critic. Democratic Senator Schumer has periodic temper tantrums on the topic. Boudreaux argues our mixed economy has no moral standing to complain given the Fed's easy money manipulations and various counterproductive policies, subsidies, tax expenditures and gimmicks (deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.), etc. Agreed, and I have been clear about opposing anti-consumer tariff increases.
I mentioned in previous posts how Sen. Rand Paul, probably father Ron Paul's pro-liberty conservative successor, got flamed after endorsing Romney after he had clinched the nomination. I've long listed my favorite two Fox media personalities as John Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here is a relevant Daily Bell interview with the latter: let me just deal with the Romney-bashing, First, I agree with the judge on policy. I think the judge is mistaking rhetoric with performance, but I think what Romney can do depends on the Congress elected with him. Cutting spending and programs is easier said than done--just look at the recent PBS funding kerfuffle. And Ryan has been pilloried over even deferred Medicare reform. But the talking point "I don't want efficient government--I want less government" is wrong; whatever minimal government should exist must be efficiently run.
An interesting development in the Missouri Senate race. According to Wenzel Strategies:
Akin leads McCaskill by a 49% to 45% margin after new reports that McCaskill voted for funding bills in Washington that included $40 million for corporations linked to her husband.Death Panels:
Coming Soon to A Socialized Democracy Near You
I recently pointed out that Democratic misleading claims of lower public sector administration costs are based on percentage of claims paid, including expensive end of life care, especially for senior citizens.
Anthony Wile of Daily Bell talks about British end of life panels (my edits)
Thousands of patients have already been placed on 'death registers' which single them out to be allowed to die in comfort rather than be given life-saving treatment in hospital, it emerged last night.
Nearly 3,000 doctors have promised to draw up a list of patients they believe are likely to die within a year, Department of Health figures showed yesterday .
They have been asked to earmark elderly patients who show signs of frailty or deterioration during routine consultations at their surgeries.
None of this will end well. It will start with the aged and infirm and logically proceed to infants that will be diagnosed as having little or no chance at a "quality of life."
The US has passed a health care plan that will support British policies,
Another Sore Point From the Second Debate:
Obama Pandering for Women's VotesObama has an obnoxious, disingenuous debating style where he knowingly creates a straw man of his opponent (this is very much like his infamous "clinging to their guns and Bibles" gaffe--why Midwesterners were irrational for not voting for him when he was promising them more goodies from the Treasury). He brought up the Ledbetter law; let us recall the context. a female just before putting in for retirement allegedly uncovered a wrongdoing against her by a supervisor a decade earlier and demanded an extrapolated windfall settlement. Policy at the time allowed a limited appeal period (of a few months), which was ultimately upheld in court. Obama during the debate mocked the position of a limited appeal, saying something to the effect how was she supposed to appeal a wrongdoing she wasn't aware of? Of course, top management can't correct a supervisory problem it doesn't know about. In this case, evidence and witnesses were unavailable. Obama knows that, unless Harvard Law School doesn't cover concepts like statutes of limitations. The Ledbetter Act basically raises record keeping costs and is morally hazardous by not encouraging the timely filing of grievances.
Note that my principled opposition to government intervention in personnel matters has absolutely nothing to do with gender--I would say the same thing if it was a male filing a 10-year grievance. But, in a world where women are CEO's of major corporations like IBM and HP or Obama proved Americans would elect a black man President and there are self-made female millionaires and billionaires like Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart, isn't it time we take the federal training wheels off the bike? Isn't it time we put an an end to double standards that some types of unfairness (e.g., EEOC) are more equal than others?
This isn't necessarily Romney's position (if you recall, he said the best thing he could do for women is to foster pro-economic growth policies, fostering job and compensation growth).
Propositions in the People's Republic of California
I oppose tax-hiking propositions 30 and 38 and favor union-reform 32.
PS I didn't know libertarian pollsters could be so drop dead gorgeous.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Four Tops "7 Rooms of Gloom"
