Here's a Great Read

Great Article by Bartle Bull of Prospect Magazine

It's nice to get perspectives from people outside of the country.

The Liberal Thought Process

So, I was reading an article on the Huffington Post by Robert L. Borosage and several things jumped out at me about the way liberals think - especially about the upcoming budget.

"Fully $1.4 trillion of the largest annual "Obama" deficit -- the $1.8 billion the CBO projects for FY 2009 that ends this October -- was bequeathed to him from George Bush"

The idea is that because Obama inherited a deficit from Bush, it is OK to continue on in the deficit spending.
This is problematic for two reasons: The first is easy (and we all learned it as children) - two wrongs don't make a right. Second, Obama has significantly added onto Bush's deficit with his $787 billion "stimulus" bill, his $400 billion spending bill, Geithner's $1 trillion Public-Private Toxic Asset idea, and other spending. He didn't inherit any of that spending from Bush.

"Now as the economy verges on a depression, Republicans are indicting Obama for raising spending and deficits. This is like a gambling addict squandering the family fortune in a Las Vegas blowout and then scolding his wife for borrowing money to keep the kids in college."

Um yeah. Obama was elected to fix the problem, not make it worse. During his campaign, he claimed to have solutions. So, if he does nothing to solve the problem, yeah, he should be held accountable. He claimed that the "buck stops with him" and it rightly should. If he didn't think he could solve the mess, he should have dropped out of the race.

"Had Republican leaders any sense of decency, they would just shut up and let adults address the mess they have left."

I think it says something if you always have to resort to name calling and insults.

"The current US public debt is about 40% of our annual economic production (GDP). It's been far higher -- reaching as much as 109% of GDP coming out of World War II."

He probably doesn't realize that the debt incurred during WWII was in fighting Nazis and the Japanese (not increasing domestic entitlements). Agreed that it is necessary to spend what you have to spend to get out of a crisis and the current financial situation qualifies. But how much of Obama's $9.7 trillion debt burden is related to getting out of the financial crisis? Not most of it.

"Clinton brought it down to 33% and Bush drove it back up to about 40% even though the economy was growing. Under Obama's plans, the national debt will rise as a percentage of the economy to about 65-67%."

This one makes me laugh. He criticizes Bush for increasing the debt 7% even though the economy was growing. But then he gives Obama a pass for increasing it 25%. And guess what buddy - the projections are that the economy will be growing again in 2010. So, if Bush raises it 7% during a time when the economy is growing, it is bad. If Obama raises it 25% while the economy is growing, it is good. Be honest and just say that what Obama is doing is OK because it is spending on things you approve of (entitlements as opposed to national security).

"But what is notable about that increase is that it will leave the US carrying only about the same debt burden that Germany, France and Canada were carrying -before they began adding to it in the current economic downturn. According the analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2008, Germany's public debt was at 65%, France at 66%, and Canada at 64%."

Ah, the good old "If it's good enough for France..." defense. France does a lot of things that I wouldn't want to happen in the USA. But then again, that's pretty much the difference between liberals and conservatives, right?


One more laugher:

"Richard Shelby, top Republican on the banking committee, warns Cassandra-like that Obama's budget will put the country on "the fast road to financial destruction.""

Should someone tell him that Cassandra correctly warned about the destruction of Troy? She was given the gift of prophesy but cursed so that no one would believe her.

Liberal Offensive Against Palin

It sounds like liberals are attempting to ground Sarah Palin's run for President in 2012 before it can even start.

Her opponents in Alaska have subjected her to a deluge of ethics complaints, which have cost her $500,000 in legal fees.

There is no question that liberals are threatened by Palin and everything that she stands for. But I had thought that they would leave her alone once the election was over - at least until she announced another run.

But they are doing two things here: first - exhausting her personal resources to make it harder for her to run for President. Second, making sure to muddy her name as much as possible, so that in 2012, they can claim that she had X number of ethics complaints filed against her as governor.

It's despicable and also a bit frightening. The liberal government has shown what it can do to people it doesn't like (AIG bonus tax, anyone?) and this will probably be a story that is repeated with more frequency for the next four years.

Putting Obama's Budget in Perspective

Great article from Peter Ferrera about Obama's budget.

It's completely shocking that Obama could try to convince anyone that he is going to cut the budget or is making "difficult choices".

I really can't wait to see Paul Ryan's budget next week.

We've Always Been at War with Eastasia

Is it just me, or do you get a Nineteen Eighty-Four vibe from the Obama Administration lately?

We no longer have the War on Terror - it is now "Overseas Contingency Operations"

Acts of terrorism are now called "man-created disasters"

We can no longer use the words "terrorist" or "enemy combatant"

Andrew Breitbart (his blog here) made a great point on Sean Hannity tonight. Look at how Democrats treat political enemies compared to how they treat America's enemies. Barney Frank calls Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" but we can't call someone who blows up buildings containing women and children a "terrorist"?

You look at the massive smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh and all Republicans, orchestrated by James Carville and approved by the White House and you have to think a bit about "Hate Week" from Orwell's novel - a time in which citizens are stirred up against the enemies of "The Party".

And does anyone get a "cult of personality" feel from Obama - especially when he chooses to bypass a skeptical Washington Press Corp and take his message directly to media outlets that are much more friendly?

Or am I just paranoid?

Interesting Lines from Obama's Press Conference

What I've said here in Washington is that we've got to make some tough choices. We've got to make some tough budgetary choices.

Tough budgetary choices? Since Obama seems unwilling to cut anything out of his agenda, I wonder what he is referring to. He went sky-high on his budget, including record deficits and tripling the current national debt within 10 years. So, where are the tough choices?

And I've said that we've got to start driving our deficit numbers down.

Um, how do you plan to do that when your own projections are for 7 trillion in deficits in the next 10 years? That is not driving the deficit down. And let me tell you, raising taxes into the stratosphere won't get you there either.

Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process.

This statement seems to be contradicted by the fact that he is trying to get the budget passed by the House on a single vote, without any changes.

First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one.

First, here's the same finger pointing and petty politics that Obama said he was going to Washington to change. Second, it is a bit dishonest to say he was inheriting a $1.3 trillion annual budget deficit. That number was the deficit for last year, which was a year of bailouts. The deficit for the previous year was around $500 billion - not great, but much lower than what Obama is going to institute. To claim a $1 trillion annual deficit per year for 10 years is reducing the deficit is so intellectually dishonest that it is embarrassing.

Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both -- the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget. The deficit is cut in half.

Again, very misleading. A deficit of $700 billion per year is still higher than anything George W Bush had in all but his last year in office. And there are no projected bailouts in that budget, which means it is nothing more than a growth in government spending. It is an increase in the deficit, not a reduction!

But it is going to be an impossible task for us to balance our budget if we're not taking on rising health care costs

Obviously, most everyone agrees for a need to reduce health care costs. But you are not going to balance the budget by instituting universal health care, which is what Obama is calling for. Revamp the health care system, yes. Government run (and funded) health care, no.

What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn't go up.

That's actually not true. When you include benefits like health insurance payments, retirement payments and other benefits to employees (and not just straight salary), the pay for the average worker has gone up dramatically in the past 30 years.

Question: But on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney general's office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, "Look, we're outraged." Why did it take so long?

Obama: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak.

Sigh

The Obama Snooze-Fest

Well, that was boring.

It is pretty obvious that Obama over-corrected after he has been hammered for joking and laughing about the economy and turning his attention to other things (March Madness). But I would much rather see him making fun of the handicapped than sit through such a dull and monotonous presentation.

I have to admit that I didn't watch the whole thing. I just couldn't do it. It was so boring! And repetitive. He said the same thing over and over. Most of it was stuff he said during the campaign.

And what was the deal with the opening statement. You think that if you remove the teleprompters and replace them with a giant TV in the back of the room, no one will notice that you are still reading? Come on!

So, I basically got nothing out of it. And I doubt Obama came any closer to drumming up support for his bank-breaking budget plan.

Card-Check Dead for Now?

According to the Washington Examiner, Senator Arlen Specter will oppose cloture on card-check in the Senate today. This means that the Senate will be unable to pass the bill and that it is, at least for now, dead.

That is great news in the fight against union intimidation. However, it is likely that the issue is not over. This means that we must continue to encourage our representative to oppose this bill.

Initial Reaction to the New Giethner Plan

The New York Times and The New Republic don't seem too impressed.

However, as predicted, the stock market is reacting favorably - the Dow is up about 4% at this point. In addition, Asia markets are doing very well today based on this news.

Of course, if the plan fails to take root, these early gains are meaningless. But it is further proof of what I posted last week - investors are there and money is there. People just want to know there is a potential for things to get better.

Obama Reaches out to Former President of France

President Obama wrote a letter to Jaques Chirac, the former President of France, saying he hoped the two could work together for the next four years (at least he accepts he will be a one-term President). I speak very little French, but it sounds like Obama discussed their mutual opposition to the war in Iraq.

I wonder two things:

First, does Obama think he is going to improve our standing in the world by dealing not with current leaders of other countries, but with their predecessors? How is the going to help build a coalition to help deal with problems like Iran?

Second, how would Obama feel if current French President Nicolas Sarkozy attempted to continue working with President Bush, instead of Obama? Sarkozy was a big supporter of W.

Finally, it seems that this contradicts his earlier statement of "one president at a time" dealing with foreign affairs. However, it could also mean that he really wants to deal with only one French president, and it's not the current one. It's going to be tough to get France's help on any issue when discussing the matter with someone out of power.

Obama's Inappropriate "Gallows Humor"

President Obama did an interview with 60 minutes tonight. At one point, interviewer Steve Kroft incredulously asked Obama how he could laugh about the financial crisis, and asking him, "Are you punch-drunk?"

It's another misstep in a series of them for Obama. His obvious false "rage" about the AIG bonuses, his public undressing by Duke's Coach K, his Special Olympics gaffe... it hasn't been a good two weeks (two months) for the President.

Fred Barnes sums it all up nicely.

Geithner (Finally) Unveils Toxic Asset Plan

It's not a perfect plan, but at least it's something.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally announced his plan to remove toxic assets from the ledgers of banks and financial institutions.

The basis of the plan is to create a "Public-Private Investment Program"; the public being $500 billion to $1 trillion more of federal money, the private being investments by the private sector into the fund. The plan is that investors can set the proper valuation of the troubled assets and share in the risk.

It seems like a relatively simple plan, which makes one wonder why it took Geithner so long to come up with it.

The problem with the plan is that private investors could have been buying these troubled assets all along - why will they start to do it now? Theoretically, investors will buy in because they are only taking half the risk - with the government (taxpayers) taking the rest. But if the private investors stay away, the taxpayers will be left holding the entire bag of [expletive deleted] and it will probably require more than the trillion dollars of federal funding that Geithner has offered up initially.

The first question will be to see how people respond in the morning. My guess is that people will be happy to have some sort of plan, and that alone might help ease financial tensions.

Obama's Iran Misstep

President Barack Obama made a huge mistake when he offered to enter into direct talks with Iran in a Friday video addressed to that country.

Iran's response? Thanks but no thanks. They won't talk to the US until we drop our sanctions against them and stop the "hostile propaganda" (i.e. saying that they support terrorism and are developing nuclear weapons).

So, Obama tried to reach out and has now given Iran a tremendous amount of power. Obama claimed that simply agreeing to talk to these people would give them what they wanted. Most of us knew differently. And now we have Iran making demands before they will agree to talk to us. Incredible.

Well done Mr. President.

I Hope Obama's Scalpel is Sharp

During the election campaign, Candidate Obama repeatedly stated that he would go through the federal budget line-by-line, item by item, and cut wasteful spending. When John McCain suggested a spending-freeze for non-essential items, Obama bristled - saying we needed a scalpel, not an axe.

It now looks like Obama's tool of choice is a shovel, as he is prepared to pile more onto an already bloated federal budget. The new estimate: 1 trillion dollar deficits per year for the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Obama's much more conservative estimates show only a seven trillion dollar increase in the national debt in the next decade).

Considering his lack of focus on any one matter before him at the time, I wonder how long it's going to take him to go through the budget line-by-line. On maybe, that's the campaign promise he's going to break - obviously the huge entitlement promises aren't going away, even in this economy.

Mitt on Larry King

A New Legal Standard?

Apparently, whether something has been sufficiently blogged and "twittered" is a new standard for deciding whether a legal question should be adjudicated. And apparently, Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President has been so discussed. Therefore, despite a continued lack of a simple piece of hard evidence (his birth certificate, perhaps?) being produced - the issue has been twittered enough that it can no longer be the basis of a lawsuit.

Now, I believe that Obama probably is a citizen. But the fact that the question has not been answered in a way to satisfy anyone who is really asking it makes you wonder why not. It should be so simple for Obama to prove he is a citizen, but every case is basically dismissed on other grounds. It is a little weird, isn't it?

But weirder still is the judge's ruling. This has to be the first time in legal history that a judge has decided that something has been the subject of so much public discourse that the court case does not actually have to be decided based on the law. Bottom line, if you want a court to decide a matter, don't twitter about it!

Wow

Not much else to say about this

He Literally Can Do Nothing Right

You may remember in a post last week I linked to a story about Obama's terrible turns at diplomacy lately, especially with the British. When Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the White House a couple weeks ago, he brought some very thoughtful gifts for our new President, including a pen made from wood from the sister ship of the British naval vessel whose wood makes up Obama's desk in the Oval Office. Obama in turn gave the Prime Minister a set of 25 DVDs of classic American films. Pretty lame, right? But not a big deal. Until Mr. Brown sat down for a little movie night...

Breaking: Geithner Confirms Administration Pushed for AIG Loophole

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner confirmed in a CNN interview today that the Chris Dodd added the AIG bonus loophole to the Dodd Amendment at the administration's behest.

This of course further calls into question Obama's "rage" about the bonuses. He specifically allowed them to avoid potential lawsuits.

Instead of just admitting this at the time, Obama has engaged in a very public (and harmful) charade and now that he is caught, he is trying to downplay the damage (which explains Axelrod's statement today).

Here's a great article in the Weekly Standard discussing the issue.

Mixed Messages from Administration

David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Obama said today that the American people aren't sitting around thinking about AIG. This of course is in direct contradiction to yesterday's Gallup poll and opposite of Obama's message of the past few days.

What is the administration doing???

During the campaign, Obama did a very good job of picking a message and sticking to it - and about 95% of the time, it was the right message, even if it was a lie (his only big slip was spending three weeks attacking Sarah Palin). What happened to that political acumen?

he has spent many weeks talking about issues other than the economy. He has spent much too much time discussing Rush Limbaugh. He has given mixed messages on the economy. And now he can't even get his position on AIG straight. The only think Obama proved he could do during the campaign was communicating and now he can't even do that right.

Capitol Hill Catfight

There has been some Democrat infighting in Washington the past two days.

In essence: Chris Dodd proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill that would limit bonuses for bailout recipients (creatively called the Dodd Amendment). In the final bill, the amendment applied to bonuses guaranteed after January 2008. The AIG bonuses were guaranteed in January 2008 so are not covered by the Dodd Amendment.

Dodd claims that the date was not included in the amendment when he wrote it and he had no idea it would protect AIG.

But considering he has gotten more money in campaign contributions from AIG than almost everyone else, you have to wonder about the veracity of his claims.

Either way, there is a lot of finger pointing going on, and none of it involves Republicans.

Is it Possible Not to Hate Robert Gibbs?

I know I can't be the only person who thinks he is a total boob. The real question is: is there anyone who doesn't think so?

He was asked a bunch of hard but fair questions during his White House press briefing yesterday. He compared it to torture. Seriously? It's your job to answer the media's questions? That's torture?!?

This came a day after he took up daily press briefing time to insult former Vice President Dick Cheney. So much for a new brand of politics free from the pettiness that has plagued Washington.

This guy is a complete joke.

Who Cares About AIG Bonuses?

The Obama Administration certainly doesn't - even though it pretends to. Why should they? Sure, it it absurd to pay million dollar "retention" bonuses to people you don't retain. It seems obscene to pay bonuses at all to people who ruined the company financially, and with it - the entire global economy. The populist anger (protesters outside their offices) and the impotent "rage" of the Obama administration seems to make sense. There is something that just doesn't sit well with these bonuses.

But who cares? AIG has gotten $170 billion dollars from the government. So these bonuses make up less than a tenth of a percent of federal assistance. That is a pittance. All of the peoples' and media attention is on the wrong thing. The real question is: what happened to the other $169 billion dollars and why is the company still struggling? Why is AIG shipping that money off to foreign banks? Why did Geitner give AIG another $30 billion two weeks ago without a requirement that bonuses be cut? Since the government owns 80% of AIG and Democrats were screaming for more oversight, what is the Federal Government doing to fix the problem? The answer to all these questions and more on tonight's episode of Soap.

In truth, Obama is piling on about the bonuses because it allows him to look like he is on the side of the people. It distracts everyone from the real questions. As mentioned in a previous post, Obama is still in campaign mode (for the 2010 midterms and his own re-election) because that is all he knows how to do. Remember during the campaign when people criticized him for his lack of executive experience and he said he had plenty because he had experience leading his campaign? Apparently all you get when you elect such a person is a campaigning President - more concerned with his own flagging poll numbers than finding a solution to the economic mess.

Obama's New Tack

I'm glad President Obama is taking my advice - at least somewhat.

When I posted last week that investors are just waiting for some good news, or a real recovery plan out of Washington, he must have been paying attention.

While the administration has still failed to come up with plan, Obama has decided to bring the good news. First, his press conference on Friday in which he said his projections for the economy are optimistic. I think he used the phrase, "The economy is strong," which is ironic since he (and others) mocked John McCain for saying basically the same thing during the Presidential campaign. Then, he had Ben Bernake on "60 Minutes" saying that the recession will probably end in 2009. Finally, the White House again announced yesterday that the economy is fundamentally strong despite the current mess.

All of this upbeat talk has seen positive effects on the stock market, which was up for most of the day today (a 5th straight day of gains though it looks like it might close down a tiny bit).

The real question is whether the optimism will lead to a sustained recovery. It's doubtful. Which means Obama is going to have to come up with a plan still. However, the stock market is not an indicator of how the economy is doing, but an indicator of how people think the economy is doing. All the positive talk can have a big impact on consumer confidence, which might help lead the way out of the "mess" we are in right now. But without a real plan forward, consumer confidence will undoubtedly tumble and the current progress will just be another speed bump in the market's race to the bottom.

The Hits Just Keep on Coming

President Barack Obama's administration is about 50 days old and it has already been marred with more scandals and problems then Democrats could ever invent against President Bush. The latest two don't seem to be just a failure to pay taxes.

First, Obama's computer technology chief is on leave after the FBI raided his former office and arrested two of his former employees. Vivek Kundra owned a computer technology company and it appears that two of him employees engaged in systematic fraud against the city of Washington D.C. And now Kundra is in charge of the government's computer systems.

In addition, a 4th nominee for the Treasury Department, H. Rodgin Cohen (a bigshot New York attorney) has withdrawn after unidentified problems were found during the vetting process. The one positive for Obama - at least they found the problems during the vetting process.

Has the Obama administration done anything right yet? Judd Gregg was a good pick for treasury until Obama insulted him by taking the Census away and showed that he wouldn't actually take his advice on any economic issue. So, I guess not.

How many more days is Obama's Presidency?

Help Stop Card Check

Legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate this week to eliminate secret ballot voting for union organizing.

The basic premise is this: currently, if employees want to unionize, they hold a secret ballot vote and if a majority vote in favor of unionization, they will be represented. Sadly for labor unions, membership is at an all-time low. So, they are pushing hard for new legislation which eliminates the secret ballot. Instead, the union only needs to get more than 50% of the employees to sign a unionization card. And since it's not a secret ballot, the union supporters and bosses will know exactly who hasn't signed. And then they can just happen to run into that person after work and say something like this, "Hey Joe, I noticed you haven't signed the union card yet. We would really like you to. I'll probably swing by your house later tonight and see if you are ready to sign yet. Oh and by the way - I know where you wife works and where you're children go to school. I'm going to have a couple of my guys watch over them to make sure nothing happens, just in case. Are you sure you're not ready to sign the card yet?"

If you think something like that won't happen, you are fooling yourself.

So, go here and sign an online petition to have the Card Check law (ironically called the Employee Free Choice Act) defeated. This law would be terrible for employees, terrible for businesses and terrible for the country.

What Citibank Tells Us

Last night, the President of Citibank distributed an internal memorandum which claimed that the troubled bank had seen profits for the first two months of the year. In response, the entire stock market went up about 6% in value.

This proves one important thing. Money is there - people are just waiting. What are they waiting for? Well, it appears that good news is one thing. Citibank just claims to be turning a profit and the market rallies.

Then when you look at the fact that the market dips every time President Obama or Tim Geithner discuss the economy without saying anything useful or reassuring, investors are also waiting for a plan - for some direction. For his first seven weeks in office, Obama has done nothing on the economy but flounder. Well, he also signed a $700 billion economic stimulus package that won't be as effective as he promised. But he has yet to put forward a substantive plan on how to rescue the economy or fix the problems that led to the mess in the first place.

He has put forward proposals on Guantanamo Bay, Embryonic stem cell research, education and trade. He has managed to engage in terrible foreign affairs. But the one issue that probably got him elected, and the one most important to all Americans - he has done nothing but wallow.

Today's market surge proves that there is still money and there are still investors. They are just waiting for something to give them hope. Isn't that what Obama was supposed to provide?

Funding Stem Cell Research

In 2001, President Bush created an executive order that seemed incredibly wise. On the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he crafted a brilliant decision that balanced the importance of preserving life with the need for medical research - allowing federal funds for research on the 21 lines that had already been created (because the life was already destroyed), but blocking federal funds for the creation of new lines by the destruction of new embryos.

It was wise because President Bush could see that it was wrong to use the tax revenues of a person who thinks embryo destruction is murder - it is disgusting to force a person to pay for something that the feel so strongly is wrong.

But Obama doesn't get that. Even as a "Christian", he can't see the wisdom in the balance. And so, he agrees to allow federal funds to fund embryonic stem cell research.

This, despite the fact that adult stem cells have proved more promising than embryonic stem cells in curing disease. Just last year, doctor's managed to rebuild a woman's trachea with an organ made of adult stem cells. Doctors also treat leukemia and other blood disorders with adult stem cells while no treatments have been effective using embryonic stem cells.

In addition, scientists have managed to reprogram adult skin cells into insulin-producing pancreatic cells. The possible wide-ranging medical uses for this technology are astounding. Again, these are better results than have ever been produced with embryonic stem cells.

But for liberals, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is a must-have. Why? There is already plenty of private funding for embryonic stem cell research. Why must they conscript people's money for such a cause when people don't believe in it, and it's less promising than other fields of research? Because liberals always have to prove that they have the right to destroy life in whatever manner they choose. Anything that they perceive as a threat to abortion must be stopped. Even if it is a very wise decision.