No man has a good enough memory
to be a successful liar.
Abraham Lincoln
Thumbs UP! Rand Paul's Filibuster of Brennan for CIA Chief...
Whereas libertarian-conservatives like the Paul's and myself are no fans of Obama's widening of the drone attacks overseas, including fatal attacks on US citizens without due process overseas, this deals with Paul's questioning the limits of that authority, particularly since the Obama Administration wants to add domestic drone surveillance over the US as part of state/local law enforcement's tools. Technically, speaking as CIA chief, Brennan should not have a role in domestic operations (if there is a federal role, it should apply to the FBI), but Brennan's role in promoting the drone program as counter-terrorism makes it natural for Rand Paul to probe on whether there is a limit on the use of drones without judicial oversight on due process rights, even in the US:
In a March 4 letter, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that, “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution…for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” including against American citizens.WRONG ANSWER! Ignoring the Fifth Amendment rights of American citizens is NEVER acceptable. I think that Rand Paul was spot on here, i.e., what about collateral damage involving the lives of innocent American citizens? What if, unknown to you, the college friend you invited to stay in your guest bedroom (next to your kids' bedrooms) is being secretly targeted? Would you be mollified at your kids' funeral by some Presidential spokesman saying maybe their parents should have picked better friends in college?
The Kentucky lawmaker conceded that terrorism presents a complicated national security issue.”There was a man named Awlaki,” Paul noted. “He was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and he could have been executed.”
But then he turned to Awlaki’s son, a 16-year-old born in Colorado who was killed in a drone strike while in Yemen. “Here’s the real problem: when the president’s spokesman was asked about Awlaki’s son, do you know what his response was?” Paul asked, referring to former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who made the comment after leaving the White House. “He said he should have chosen a more responsible father.”The Stock Market: A Correction Waiting to Happen?
This is not an investment blog, and let me first make it clear to readers there are risks to investments and I have been hit by stock market corrections, like Black Monday 1987. I had just started my 403B account a few months earlier, and my next account statement was very ugly and disheartening. Still, I was a young professor decades from retirement. I did not respond by putting all my savings into fixed-income vehicles; I realized the superior returns of stocks over the long run. Of course, the US has had tepid growth since 2000. There are reasons for that, some of them self-imposed, including a dysfunctional, unsustainable government burden (taxes, spending, regulations) on the private sector. Some of these are intuitively obvious: I would make rather see Warren Buffett invest more of his own money in the economy than for Obama tax away Buffett's money and "invest" it in the likes of Solyndra or feed the self-preserving federal bureaucracy.
Obama and Bernanke are claiming credit for the Dow and S&P for challenging heights reached during pre-recession 2007. Let me point out the recently revised 2012Q4 number just barely registered positive and the January labor numbers were flat. Sometimes the rising market is signaling an improved economy.
Certainly, as Mark Perry is pointing out, there are some bright spots: there is an American energy renaissance going on, e.g., Bakken, Marcellus, Eagle Ford. At minimum, reduced oil imports improve our trade imbalance, which pressures the dollar. In fact, if we relax dysfunctional export controls, we could improve on that. No doubt there has been a pent-up demand for houses (nobody wanted to catch a falling knife) and autos (as the Fed reported in its Beige Book Survey); given a herd mentality, it was only a matter of time (especially with interest rates at historic lows) before we saw some progress. Lower natural gas prices have lowered utility bills. But consider a lot of money in sales is not coming from households but in investors interested in rental properties. The real test of the economy is when prices increase under historical average interest rates. And we are all wondering what happens when Bernanke takes his foot off the gas pedal.
What do I think of the stock market rise? I view it in terms of supply and demand (of course). First, it does not surprise me with loose money policies, underlying company assets would inflate. Second, low interest rates should improve earnings and more feasible expansion. But at some point over the past year, I had much of my retirement savings in fixed-asset categories earning little, if any interest or dividends: I was losing ground based on the CPI. I looked to shift assets, which is exactly what the Fed wants me to do.
I'm still a little below my YTD aggregate highs.But I still think there's a favorable reward-risk trade-off (famous last words). Why? Overall valuations are not excessive from a historical perspectives. A lot of good stocks pay better dividends than Treasury notes. Usually when we have a correction, retail investors are all in. If anything investors since 2008 have been focusing on bonds vs. stocks. Many bonds are priced towards their maximum. If and when interest rates rise, bond prices will drop. If I'm Bernanke, that keeps me up at night. If I'm holding bonds, I'm taking a risk of capital loss. Would I predict that's imminent? No, I think there's a lot of international uncertainty, and I expect we'll see a renewal of Europe's currency woes sooner than later, which should bolster the dollar. More recently, I've focused on certain niches in the financial, technology, energy and health sectors, real estate income and dividend plays, and I've scaled back on more volatile emerging markets. I have no allocations now on precious metals and still a reasonable percentage in a high yield corporate bond fund. I also keep some powder dry if the stock market creates some buying opportunities.
How much credit do I give Obama and Bernanke for an improving stock market? Little. At a time government consumes a historically high percentage of GDP, we have businesses dodging one counterproductive progressive volley after the next--from energy price shocks, incoherent, volatile tax and regulatory policies, meddling in employee compensation, etc. We've had an inexperienced President picking winners and losers in the marketplace. He has no clue that you want broad policy initiatives, not carrot-stick initiatives where you heavily subsidize green energy ventures at the expense of the oil and gas industry. More expensive energy leaves consumers with less income to spend, save or invest. At a time Obama should have been relieving the government burden on business, he was doubling down on it. Four years later, we still see the government spawning bubbles (e.g., college tuition and government bond), vastly underfunding entitlements, pensions, floods, money deposits, etc.
The Day Laborer Circuit Court Decision: Thumbs UP!
I've done a couple of critical commentaries recently on a WWE storyline, criticized publicly by Glenn Beck whom thinks it's an attack on the Tea Party. Championship contender Jack Swagger and manager Zeb Colter are running an anti-immigrant gimmick against the champion, Mexican aristocrat Alberto Del Rio.
Beck's point is that WWE is stereotyping the Tea Party. Let me be clear: I believe that the Obama Administration is and has been arbitrarily enforcing immigration law for political purposes. This was fairly clear when the Administration all but threatened to abuse federal discretion by releasing Arizona-arrested aliens, regardless of their documented status. By principle the Obama Administration is unconstitutionally denying equal protection by creating a double standard among aliens based on ethnic identity.
That being said, I found the following critical report of an Arizona day laborer circuit court decision off a link on a self-defined Tea Party portal, which I believe directly contradicts the spirit and intent of the limited government principle. The basic idea is an attempt to prevent suspected undocumented aliens from soliciting work in public places by, e.g., abusing loitering restrictions. The Ninth Circuit struck down the law based on the First Amendment.
Let me be very clear here. I believe in the fundamental economic right of employers and employees to contract. I don't think it's the function of an employer to serve as a de facto INS agent/informer. If you believe in liberty, you don't make it more difficult for employers to contract with available workers. Unless that employer was responsible for shuttling workers across the border in violation of immigration laws, why should he be responsible for knowing that employee's legal status? It's beyond his responsibility and competence. He's not looking for reasons to disqualify able, willing workers.
My personal opinion is that a path to citizenship should not be automatic for unauthorized aliens whom were of age at the time of entry; like Gov. Bush, I prefer a form of legal residency: the rule of law would be violated by discriminating against immigrants whom followed the rules. And any immigration reform should include a viable visiting worker program.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Journey,"The Party's Over (Hopelessly in Love)"
