Gen. Stanley McChrystal stole the headlines today because of insanely stupid remarks by himself and his staff in front of a reporter from, of all places, Rolling Stone. Congratulations Joe Barton, your news cycle was exactly 5 days long. Anyways, more things happened than comments that should not have been made by a General in charge of a war that, let’s face it, might not ever be won in the traditional sense of winning. McChrystal is out, Petraeus is in, and the War in Afghanistan goes on.
This situation, even though it is not the best news story for the White House, does draw attention away from one of the major story lines of the Obama Administration- the economy. This is what the major economic news has been over the past 36 hours since the McChrystal story broke…
- There will be no budget this year
- There will be no discussion about the long term budget objective of the US until December (this means a VAT is coming)
- -New Home Sales dropped 33% in May
- The Canadian Banking System is the envy of the world and Canada has a more stable economy that the US has
- President Obama is considering price controls for health care
- Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has told Obama that cutting the deficit will help growth, not stunt it
- According the Federal Reserve, non financial companies have stock piled $1.84 Trillion in cash and liquid assets
I can go on and on, but the problem is that almost no one is talking about this news, especially the top two stories listed, because at the end of the day- the economy is just not sexy to talk about when we have a General resigning and an oil spill that is destroying the gulf coast. However, next week, specifically next Friday, we get a new jobs report (I bet continue to see almost no private job growth because of that last bullet point, which I will tackle soon) and that means for one hour we get to talk about the failure of the stimulus once again.
This could easily develop into a book- the mishandling of the economy by the Obama Administration, but I think the most telling point about the economic failures of the regime comes from a member of his economic team- his Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. This is the same Christina Romer that wrote a paper 6 months before he appointment to the Administration that cutting taxes is a great way to stimulate growth…Romer and her husband estimate the GDP multiplier from 1 dollar of tax cuts to be 3 while the models the Obama Administration ran said that the GDP multiplier for taxes is .99 and the multiplier for government spending is 1.54 (Want the in depth to this from a brilliant economist who gives a much deeper look into the issue?… http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/crisis-economics)
My question is- why isn’t the administration listening to her? It is clear the stimulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment at 8% or lower (their models also indicated that if the stimulus was not passed unemployment might reach 9%…gasp!) is not working. It is also clear that they should recheck their models and maybe get some more opinions on how to fight this recession. Are they? Nope, they claim their models are correct and that we just need to spend more of the government’s income. Did I say Government Income? I meant money they will take from the taxpayers and redistribute your money the way Congress sees fit…without your say. Remember, the Government does not create wealth, it only finds ways to spread it around.
Of course the answer is simple…she disregarded her own findings to write the Obama plan for recovery… http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf
So which is it Romer…is your paper wrong, or are you giving in to political pressure to push a stimulus that is costing the American people jobs while allowing the Administration to push for higher taxes? I think it is time for some answers on this contradiction. Maybe the Obama Administration thinks the multiplier for each dollar of their stimulus is greater than 3? I would like to know what is exactingly going on while the private sector continues to flail in the wind.
Oh boy I cannot wait for the fight on the VAT.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
My Speech Should Be Protected...Yours Not So Much
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending Act) has been a source of contention between the left and right over the past few months (though it has obviously taken a back seat to oil spills, SCOTUS nominations, and basically everything else in Washington because anything else is more exciting than the DISCLOSE Act.). According to the three cosponsors- Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy, the DISCLOSE Act aims to accomplish these 7 things (directly cut and pasted from discloseact.com)…
1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.
2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.
3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.
4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.
5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.
6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.
7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.
It seems benign at first. However, what this really does is tell corporations and advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle that your voice does not matter. This is directly against the First Amendment. If my fellow citizens want to pool their money together to advocate for a certain interest they should be allowed to, just as I should enjoy that right as well. This is one of those bills there their heart is in the right place, but the execution is just not there. I think corporations and unions should be 100% OUT OF ELECTIONS. That’s right, only the money of the individual should matter. There is no reason why any company, let’s say BP, should be allowed to give money to a politician. There is also no reason why, let’s say the SEIU, should be allowed to give money to a politician. The problem with the DISCLOSE Act is that it imposes restrictions ONLY ON CORPORATIONS and lets unions act as they may. This is break from decades of precedent, which treated unions and corporations in the same way. If GE cannot give to a candidate, neither should the AFL-CIO.
However, this Act also applies to special interest groups, such as the NRA. It just so happens that the NRA, like many organizations (Chamber of Commerce being another notible one) is against the DISCLOSE Act. That is, until this…
The Disclose Act would exempt organizations that “have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members from all 50 states and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations”
Interestingly enough, along with the AARP and the Human Society (which did not take a stance on DISCLOSE) the NRA just happens to fall into this category. This is not a mistake, as Democrats threw this little passage in to solidify the support of the Blue Dog Democrats who are traditionally pro-gun rights. It also happens that the NRA has now stopped opposing the Act, so long as this sentence stays in the bill. Shameless politics? You betcha. What is worse is this comment from the NRA…
“There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.”
That is from nraila.com, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In short, they are all for the first amendment when their rights are being infringed upon, but as long as they can lock and load, the government could shoot people for disagreeing with official government positions. I have several questions for Mr. LaPierre….
1. What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you believe America can do without?
2. Why are the rights of 4 million Americans more important than the other 300+ Million?
3. Why do you hate corporate America?
I also propose interrupting him constantly in order to show him that silencing speech is as annoying as it is un-American. It is odd that he would be at odds with Elena Kagan on gun rights, but right by her side on restricting free speech. Then again, nothing about being against the first amendment is anything but odd. Congratulations Mr. LaPierre, when the tyrants come to silence us, we know which building in Virginia to stop at first in order hold those accountable for the destruction of freedom in America- yours.
1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.
2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.
3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.
4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.
5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.
6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.
7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.
It seems benign at first. However, what this really does is tell corporations and advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle that your voice does not matter. This is directly against the First Amendment. If my fellow citizens want to pool their money together to advocate for a certain interest they should be allowed to, just as I should enjoy that right as well. This is one of those bills there their heart is in the right place, but the execution is just not there. I think corporations and unions should be 100% OUT OF ELECTIONS. That’s right, only the money of the individual should matter. There is no reason why any company, let’s say BP, should be allowed to give money to a politician. There is also no reason why, let’s say the SEIU, should be allowed to give money to a politician. The problem with the DISCLOSE Act is that it imposes restrictions ONLY ON CORPORATIONS and lets unions act as they may. This is break from decades of precedent, which treated unions and corporations in the same way. If GE cannot give to a candidate, neither should the AFL-CIO.
However, this Act also applies to special interest groups, such as the NRA. It just so happens that the NRA, like many organizations (Chamber of Commerce being another notible one) is against the DISCLOSE Act. That is, until this…
The Disclose Act would exempt organizations that “have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members from all 50 states and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations”
Interestingly enough, along with the AARP and the Human Society (which did not take a stance on DISCLOSE) the NRA just happens to fall into this category. This is not a mistake, as Democrats threw this little passage in to solidify the support of the Blue Dog Democrats who are traditionally pro-gun rights. It also happens that the NRA has now stopped opposing the Act, so long as this sentence stays in the bill. Shameless politics? You betcha. What is worse is this comment from the NRA…
“There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.”
That is from nraila.com, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In short, they are all for the first amendment when their rights are being infringed upon, but as long as they can lock and load, the government could shoot people for disagreeing with official government positions. I have several questions for Mr. LaPierre….
1. What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you believe America can do without?
2. Why are the rights of 4 million Americans more important than the other 300+ Million?
3. Why do you hate corporate America?
I also propose interrupting him constantly in order to show him that silencing speech is as annoying as it is un-American. It is odd that he would be at odds with Elena Kagan on gun rights, but right by her side on restricting free speech. Then again, nothing about being against the first amendment is anything but odd. Congratulations Mr. LaPierre, when the tyrants come to silence us, we know which building in Virginia to stop at first in order hold those accountable for the destruction of freedom in America- yours.
Another Progressive Act My Generation Will Be Paying For
The news over the past 3 weeks has been focused around one issue- THE oil spill. It is no longer AN oil spill, it is THE oil spill, the one my generation will compare future spills to in terms of size, damage, and the response. However, THE oil spill is going to start to take a back seat in the news, barring any more gaffes from either BP (not answering questions under oath) or the Federal Government (such as the Coast Guard pulling the crude oil removing boats off the gulf to inspect them…yes this happened).
No, from next Monday forward the political world will start to shift to something that will have long term implications that will far outreach any new laws that will come about from the Deepwater Horizon spill. The confirmation hearings on what is likely to be our next Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, will start on June 28th. If I am reading the climate in Washington correctly it looks like we are one questionable memo away from this being an interesting hearing.
First of all, President Obama does not have the same political clout, nor the popularity, as he did one year ago. At this time last year President Obama’s approval rating was anywhere between a 53% that Rasmussen reported on 6/20 to a 65% that an ABC/Washington Post poll had on 6/21. Today (6/18/2010) Rasmussen has him at 41% approval and the highest rating over the past week was a 50% that was reported by CNN, Ipsos, and the AP, each in separate polls. It is obvious that his approval has dropped and dropped big, which in Washington terms, means it is not politically advantageous for members of Congress to continue to be on his side. Since this was not the case last year, it was an open and shut case to confirm someone such as Sonia Sotomayor, who made it clear that he job on the bench was not to follow the law, but to reform the law to follow her personal political viewpoints (Ricci v DeStefano should do the trick in proving that point).
However, Supreme Court nominees are confirmed by the Senate, which is insolated from shifts in public opinion more than the House. This means the Democratic members are likely to side with Obama and confirm Kagan. In order to get the Democrats to go against Kagan, one of a few things need to happen. The first of which we can throw out right away, which is a major slip up on the part of Kagan. If she somehow is stupid enough to make a comment so controversial that her fellow progressives cannot stand beside her, she is not intelligent enough to be on the bench.
There are other options; from the Senate finding her not qualified (not likely) to her having a poor showing at the hearings (less likely), but getting enough Democrats to side with the GOP will take a minor miracle. What is the most likely way to stop Kagan, Democrats or not, is a GOP filibuster. Mitch McConnell has not ruled out this possibility and we know that the ranking republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will support a filibuster, the question is whether RINO’s such as Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins will go along with the idea. My guess is that they will not support a filibuster; help push through Kagan, and that will be that.
The point of this long post- not much, other than to show that Kagan is ending up on the Supreme Court of the United States no matter what Republicans do. She is a fierce partisan who determines law based on her personal politics based on what we can read from her memos during her time in the Clinton Administration. Chief Justice Roberts called her views on the first amendment “startling and dangerous” after Kagan said this
"Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
There is a saying that you can tell a lot about a man (in this case a woman) by looking at the company she keeps? Her judicial hero is Thurgood Marshall- one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. If her personal hero, the memos she wrote during her time in the Clinton Administration, and her own views she voiced in the Supreme Court are not enough evidence to show Kagan is a radical progressive who will ignore the Constitution just think about this- Is President Obama and his team stupid enough to blow a chance to get another person who is as far left as he is on the court for the remainder of her life?
No way are they dumb enough to blow this opportunity. They may lack leadership abilities, but they are still as politically savvy as any team out there. You can bet this is a carefully crafted move to get a member of the far left onto the court with as little theatre as possible.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Joe Barton's 15 minutes
Ok, so it was not exactly the best 15 minutes of fame someone can have, but nevertheless, Joe Barton is now making headlines from coast to coast. He literally took the spotlight away from one of the all time worst testimonies in front of Congress, which was done by Tony Hayward today. In short, this is what Barton said...
"I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20-billion shakedown."
and
"I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Enter the Motif
The day after President Obama’s first Oval Office speech I want to bring up something that has not yet been used as a talking point by my fellow members of the vast right wing conspiracy, but should be.
Here are three quotes in the past 24 hours of what the talking point revolves around before I get into what it and why it is important.
“This is an assault on our shores, and we’re going to fight back with everything we’ve got.”- 6/15/10 Speech to Troops in Pensacola, FL
“I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”- 6/15/10 Oval Office Speech
“And I want all Americans to know that I will continue to fight each and every day until the oil is contained, until businesses recover, and until the Gulf Coast bounces back from this tragedy, as I know it will.” 6/16/10 Speech after BP meeting
In the past 24 hours the Obama Administration has created a war motif that is woven throughout the President’s statements. Why are they doing this? The answer is simple. The President needs to prove two things to the American people that have been called into question since he has been on the national political scene. The first is that he does not have the executive experience needed to be an effective President. So far, he has lived up to the billing as an inexperienced and temperamental leader who has a hard time making any kind of decision. The perfect example is one two fronts- the oil spill and the economy. On the oil spill all he had to do was waive the Jones Act (which requires that only American made, owned, operated, and manned ships transport goods between American ports) and say to the Governors and BP “Tell me what you need and it is yours, lets stop the oil, minimize the impact, and go from there.” He did not, and it was well after a month when he finally answered questions about the spill
On the second front, the economy, his leadership has been questionable at best. He told us that we had to pass stimulus after stimulus to save the economy. The economy is still stagnating while the Federal Government prints money to pay off its debts. The Government has continued to extend unemployment benefits, which provides a disincentive to gain employment, and he has been bailing out companies and mortgages, creating a massive moral hazard going forward. He still believe the Government creates wealth and can make up for the dip in consumer spending, which is a problem, because the government can only spend more when it takes more from the people (either now or later- two terrible options).
The second part, where the war motif comes in, is his inability to be a strong Commander in Chief. He has bowed to foreign leaders on numerous occasions, he has had a difficult time backing Israel, our one true ally in the Middle East, and he prefers understanding murderous tyrants such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il rather than show that America does not have to cave into their demands. President Obama and his advisers know that at times he has been criticized for looking weak on foreign policy and the war motif helps with this issue of showing his strength.
Remember, the Obama Administration will never let a crisis go to waste- and the introduction of the language of war shows that they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. h=His lack of executive action and the lack of strength he conveys as Commander in Chief have been discussed multiple times and it is becoming a serious political problem. Unfortunately for the Administration, they do not have the aim, nor the skill, to pull off this maneuver.
Here are three quotes in the past 24 hours of what the talking point revolves around before I get into what it and why it is important.
“This is an assault on our shores, and we’re going to fight back with everything we’ve got.”- 6/15/10 Speech to Troops in Pensacola, FL
“I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”- 6/15/10 Oval Office Speech
“And I want all Americans to know that I will continue to fight each and every day until the oil is contained, until businesses recover, and until the Gulf Coast bounces back from this tragedy, as I know it will.” 6/16/10 Speech after BP meeting
In the past 24 hours the Obama Administration has created a war motif that is woven throughout the President’s statements. Why are they doing this? The answer is simple. The President needs to prove two things to the American people that have been called into question since he has been on the national political scene. The first is that he does not have the executive experience needed to be an effective President. So far, he has lived up to the billing as an inexperienced and temperamental leader who has a hard time making any kind of decision. The perfect example is one two fronts- the oil spill and the economy. On the oil spill all he had to do was waive the Jones Act (which requires that only American made, owned, operated, and manned ships transport goods between American ports) and say to the Governors and BP “Tell me what you need and it is yours, lets stop the oil, minimize the impact, and go from there.” He did not, and it was well after a month when he finally answered questions about the spill
On the second front, the economy, his leadership has been questionable at best. He told us that we had to pass stimulus after stimulus to save the economy. The economy is still stagnating while the Federal Government prints money to pay off its debts. The Government has continued to extend unemployment benefits, which provides a disincentive to gain employment, and he has been bailing out companies and mortgages, creating a massive moral hazard going forward. He still believe the Government creates wealth and can make up for the dip in consumer spending, which is a problem, because the government can only spend more when it takes more from the people (either now or later- two terrible options).
The second part, where the war motif comes in, is his inability to be a strong Commander in Chief. He has bowed to foreign leaders on numerous occasions, he has had a difficult time backing Israel, our one true ally in the Middle East, and he prefers understanding murderous tyrants such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il rather than show that America does not have to cave into their demands. President Obama and his advisers know that at times he has been criticized for looking weak on foreign policy and the war motif helps with this issue of showing his strength.
Remember, the Obama Administration will never let a crisis go to waste- and the introduction of the language of war shows that they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. h=His lack of executive action and the lack of strength he conveys as Commander in Chief have been discussed multiple times and it is becoming a serious political problem. Unfortunately for the Administration, they do not have the aim, nor the skill, to pull off this maneuver.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
World Cup
A post on the world cup
As I am writing this, the Socceroos of Australia are taking on the much-depleted German team. I have watched every game of this Cup except for the South Africa-Mexico game (even Slovenia-Algeria) and with half of the teams having played one match so far here are a few thoughts on the greatest tournament in world sport.
1. The officiating has been the most impressive part of the tournament. It is rare for there to be much praise piled onto the officials of any sport, especially soccer where emotions run quite high and there are a lot of subjective decisions that have to be made. Nevertheless, I have yet to see a completely blown call. The offside call during the South Africa-Mexico game is the perfect example of what we want to see from the match officials at the World Cup. Not one card has been undeserving and overall they have let the players play. This is a nice departure from what is sometimes seen in highly competitive situations.
2. This is the type of soccer than will make sure Americans will ignore the game for another 4 years. Let’s face it, this Cup has been a snoozer so far. There have been zero games that resulted in more than two goals being scored in total and the one game that everyone looked forward too, USA-England, ended up being a decent, albeit unspectacular game (it also looked like they were playing on a sheet of ice which might have had something to do with that). If this tournament is going to do for soccer what the Olympics did for hockey in America this is going to have to get more exciting (i.e more goals).
3. The most impressive teams have been South Korea, South Africa, and Argentina. Argentina was as entertaining as a team can be while scoring only one goal. I think this is the lowest amount they are held to all tournament long. They get to pick and choose between Carlos Tevez, Diego Milito, and Gonzalo Higuain to pair up with the best player in the world in Lionel Messi. South Korea looked explosive against a slow and uninspired Greece team. I am looking forward to South Korea v. Nigeria with great anticipation. The last team was South Africa, which I think might make it out of their group if they continue to use the emotions of their fellow countrymen to their advantage.
4. The only team that has played so far that will make a run at the title in Argentina. Sorry England, you looked as if you were a grouping of great players who have no chemistry. The USA will most likely play Ghana or Germany in the round of 16 if they advance and those are not terrible options. The Quaterfinals will leave them playing anyone from France or Argentina to South Africa or Mexico. I don’t think it is outrageous to think the USA will make it to the final 8…or maybe beyond if the cards fall right. Back to the original point of this observation, if I was to put money on one team I saw this weekend…it would be Argentina to make at least the semifinals (where they will meet Spain in all likelihood).
Germany won 4-0 with the last two goals being against an Australian side that was down to 10. In all reality they probably put in at least one of those goals against a full strength Socceroos.
What to look forward to this week? If you like goals, Brazil v North Korea will not disappoint. USA v. Slovenia is a huge game for both sides. Netherlands v Denmark on Monday morning is a biggie, especially with the Dutch missing Arjen Robben. However, without a doubt, Portugal v. Ivory Coast is the game of the week (if Drogba plays). If he doesn’t, the game of the week is France v. Mexico.
As I am writing this, the Socceroos of Australia are taking on the much-depleted German team. I have watched every game of this Cup except for the South Africa-Mexico game (even Slovenia-Algeria) and with half of the teams having played one match so far here are a few thoughts on the greatest tournament in world sport.
1. The officiating has been the most impressive part of the tournament. It is rare for there to be much praise piled onto the officials of any sport, especially soccer where emotions run quite high and there are a lot of subjective decisions that have to be made. Nevertheless, I have yet to see a completely blown call. The offside call during the South Africa-Mexico game is the perfect example of what we want to see from the match officials at the World Cup. Not one card has been undeserving and overall they have let the players play. This is a nice departure from what is sometimes seen in highly competitive situations.
2. This is the type of soccer than will make sure Americans will ignore the game for another 4 years. Let’s face it, this Cup has been a snoozer so far. There have been zero games that resulted in more than two goals being scored in total and the one game that everyone looked forward too, USA-England, ended up being a decent, albeit unspectacular game (it also looked like they were playing on a sheet of ice which might have had something to do with that). If this tournament is going to do for soccer what the Olympics did for hockey in America this is going to have to get more exciting (i.e more goals).
3. The most impressive teams have been South Korea, South Africa, and Argentina. Argentina was as entertaining as a team can be while scoring only one goal. I think this is the lowest amount they are held to all tournament long. They get to pick and choose between Carlos Tevez, Diego Milito, and Gonzalo Higuain to pair up with the best player in the world in Lionel Messi. South Korea looked explosive against a slow and uninspired Greece team. I am looking forward to South Korea v. Nigeria with great anticipation. The last team was South Africa, which I think might make it out of their group if they continue to use the emotions of their fellow countrymen to their advantage.
4. The only team that has played so far that will make a run at the title in Argentina. Sorry England, you looked as if you were a grouping of great players who have no chemistry. The USA will most likely play Ghana or Germany in the round of 16 if they advance and those are not terrible options. The Quaterfinals will leave them playing anyone from France or Argentina to South Africa or Mexico. I don’t think it is outrageous to think the USA will make it to the final 8…or maybe beyond if the cards fall right. Back to the original point of this observation, if I was to put money on one team I saw this weekend…it would be Argentina to make at least the semifinals (where they will meet Spain in all likelihood).
Germany won 4-0 with the last two goals being against an Australian side that was down to 10. In all reality they probably put in at least one of those goals against a full strength Socceroos.
What to look forward to this week? If you like goals, Brazil v North Korea will not disappoint. USA v. Slovenia is a huge game for both sides. Netherlands v Denmark on Monday morning is a biggie, especially with the Dutch missing Arjen Robben. However, without a doubt, Portugal v. Ivory Coast is the game of the week (if Drogba plays). If he doesn’t, the game of the week is France v. Mexico.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A large problem distracted by a disgusting comment
I will spare the world another few paragraphs on the Helen Thomas controversy, as it was just an anti-semite being an anti-semite. We have all heard the Tony Snow “Thank you for the Hezbollah view” clip 50 times today and we have all heard the original “get the hell out of Palestine” clip throughout the weekend. Unfortunately, in today’s news cycle, the ramblings of woman with a proven track record of hate towards Israel distracts from more pressing problems- the oil spill, the job offer accusations, the Kagan confirmation hearings that will be starting at the end of June, a big primary day tomorrow, the economy, and the summer offensive that the Obama regime has planned to help restore the image of our glorious leader. All of this will be covered, not in this post, but over time.
No, tonight’s post is about just one of those issues that is buried in the middle of that long list of issues that have been obscured this weekend- the economy. Last Friday the BLS job report was released and it showed two things. The first is that Census hiring is going swimmingly for the government. There is no reason to be skeptical about these jobs being created by the government, other than they are temporary jobs that keep being created, destroyed, and then created again (allegedly). However, the waste and fraud that census workers and investigative journalist/criminal James O’Keefe have detailed is not the story here either (they are just beating a dead horse). The issue is a fundamental disagreement with what drives the American economy.
The issue at hand is the role that Government should play in the recovery of the economy. This is not a new fight, the role of government, but this recession might put the debate to bed for my generation if the status quo continues in Europe and in America. This is a story that is not being covered by the conservative media as much as it should, mainly because the sovereign debt crisis of Hungary, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and the now bailed out Greece is not a simple and sexy topic. The Euro hit a 4-year low against the American dollar today and shows no sign of recovering anytime soon. Expansion of the public sector, increased deficit spending, and growing social welfare programs all played a role in this continental debt crisis. Spain, Portugal, and Greece all had their debt downgraded this past year, and this past week the President of Hungary has said that they have problems of their own. Italy and the UK are not far behind and the Eurozone is on its last breath. This situation is not contained to the European continent; this is a problem the whole of the western world will need to handle.
Europe is a glimpse into the future of America. I do not think we are at risk of defaulting on our debt in the near future (we are at risk of having our debt rating downgraded in 2013 which means it will cost more for us to borrow due to the perceived increased risk). When you look at what caused the problems that Europe is facing, then look at the rampant spending over the past decade and the policies of the current regime, one will see a troubling pattern. This should make clear one thing- the direction that the progressives in the three branches of government would like to see America go down has proven to be a path of great economic peril and it is playing out across the Atlantic right now. If America ignores the warnings from overseas, we soon might find ourselves in a much deeper problem than 9.7% unemployment and almost zero private sector growth.
No, tonight’s post is about just one of those issues that is buried in the middle of that long list of issues that have been obscured this weekend- the economy. Last Friday the BLS job report was released and it showed two things. The first is that Census hiring is going swimmingly for the government. There is no reason to be skeptical about these jobs being created by the government, other than they are temporary jobs that keep being created, destroyed, and then created again (allegedly). However, the waste and fraud that census workers and investigative journalist/criminal James O’Keefe have detailed is not the story here either (they are just beating a dead horse). The issue is a fundamental disagreement with what drives the American economy.
The issue at hand is the role that Government should play in the recovery of the economy. This is not a new fight, the role of government, but this recession might put the debate to bed for my generation if the status quo continues in Europe and in America. This is a story that is not being covered by the conservative media as much as it should, mainly because the sovereign debt crisis of Hungary, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and the now bailed out Greece is not a simple and sexy topic. The Euro hit a 4-year low against the American dollar today and shows no sign of recovering anytime soon. Expansion of the public sector, increased deficit spending, and growing social welfare programs all played a role in this continental debt crisis. Spain, Portugal, and Greece all had their debt downgraded this past year, and this past week the President of Hungary has said that they have problems of their own. Italy and the UK are not far behind and the Eurozone is on its last breath. This situation is not contained to the European continent; this is a problem the whole of the western world will need to handle.
Europe is a glimpse into the future of America. I do not think we are at risk of defaulting on our debt in the near future (we are at risk of having our debt rating downgraded in 2013 which means it will cost more for us to borrow due to the perceived increased risk). When you look at what caused the problems that Europe is facing, then look at the rampant spending over the past decade and the policies of the current regime, one will see a troubling pattern. This should make clear one thing- the direction that the progressives in the three branches of government would like to see America go down has proven to be a path of great economic peril and it is playing out across the Atlantic right now. If America ignores the warnings from overseas, we soon might find ourselves in a much deeper problem than 9.7% unemployment and almost zero private sector growth.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Just Another Day In The Beltway
This combined with this makes me wonder one thing…do we teach civics anymore in America? Think about this: there are 9 people who serve lifetime appointments and have final say on ALL CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS IN THIS COUNTRY. Don’t you think we should be able to name them? Then again this still tops every survey about the decline of the educational system in America.
Now, there is plenty to say about oil spills (the blame game continues), Israel (the Regime condemned their actions today), and also Obama’s speech in Pittsburgh yesterday, but I want to stick to his meeting with Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona this afternoon. There talked about the law, I am going to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he has read the bill, but the most important thing is that he is still clueless about what is happening inside his own Administration. He says he will send 1200 National Guard troops to the boarder, but he doesn’t know where. That $500 million pledged is still a hypothetical number. The real problem however is that the President continues to overlook the key term in this debate: illegal immigrant. The key is that first word illegal. Shouldn’t all discussion end with that one word? Of course, it cannot, because Obama wants to wave his hand (like Reagan did) and afford 10-15 million new citizens to join our social welfare programs, and, most importantly, vote Democrat.
I want to know, if the Federal Government sues Arizona for enforcing Federal law if the next thing Obama will go after is the 10th Amendment. It is clear he has a disdain for Federalism (less power for him), but to challenge state’s rights over a bill that is meant to increase the crime fighting capabilities of law enforcement seems to be the last type of law the Federal Government should ever challenge. There is no possible way a challenge to this law will ever succeed (plus there are already at least 5 that are pending) and I think Obama and Holder know this.
I am also glad that my computer battery died before I could post this because of this. Yes, it says Obama wants everything in the open. Yes, if you believe that, your only source of news is the White House website. There is a reason that media most media is not a wing of the government and that is to provide an independent and investigative look at what our leaders do. No one who seriously follows politics believed that Kagan would be a moderate voice on the court- it was the same with the Bush nominees…which is the problem with SCOTUS. There is too much partisan politics involved with the process. Remember that Rahm Emanuel is running the show at 1600 Penn and no crisis will go to waste under him. Politically, Emanuel is not stupid, though engineering the 2006 congressional takeover did not take a genius (albeit being a political operative is a great diet). The point is that Kagan was a carefully calculated nominee, as are all SCOTUS nominees in the 21st century. No one wants to have a nominee “Borked” which is why Obama nominated someone who has little paper record and he hoped the media would protect. This was because he knows that in 7 months the dream of forcing the rehashed progressive ideas of Herbert Croly formed 100 years ago are no longer going to be politically viable. Let us hope that Kagan is the last (yes, she will be confirmed) of the “change” most of my generation celebrated.
h/t To my dad on the illegal immigrant comments (the looking past the illegal part of the term). What he said to me made too much sense not to reproduce. Then again it should not come as a surprise that the man who introduced me to talk radio and politics would say something I think is 100% spot on. This is not to say I am a complete reproduction of my father's opinions, but I have yet to find something we disagree on. I chalk it up to us being right more often than the rest of the conservative media. Do no get me started on certain people, who, shall we say, focus on entertainment more than information. They disgust me. If your job is to comment on politics...you should do more than repeat simple, conservative talking points that most children learn when they get their first job. Some talk show hosts do not understand this, or do not want to tackle the task of informing their audiences. It would be a disservice to those listening if there was not a dial on every radio. Therefore, it only reflects poorly on the drones who tune in to those shows (this is not about the following: Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin...as an avid talk radio fan I know I left others out as it is impossible to cover everyone, but those are the major names at their time slots. Bob Bennett also does a great job at informing his audience.)
Now, there is plenty to say about oil spills (the blame game continues), Israel (the Regime condemned their actions today), and also Obama’s speech in Pittsburgh yesterday, but I want to stick to his meeting with Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona this afternoon. There talked about the law, I am going to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he has read the bill, but the most important thing is that he is still clueless about what is happening inside his own Administration. He says he will send 1200 National Guard troops to the boarder, but he doesn’t know where. That $500 million pledged is still a hypothetical number. The real problem however is that the President continues to overlook the key term in this debate: illegal immigrant. The key is that first word illegal. Shouldn’t all discussion end with that one word? Of course, it cannot, because Obama wants to wave his hand (like Reagan did) and afford 10-15 million new citizens to join our social welfare programs, and, most importantly, vote Democrat.
I want to know, if the Federal Government sues Arizona for enforcing Federal law if the next thing Obama will go after is the 10th Amendment. It is clear he has a disdain for Federalism (less power for him), but to challenge state’s rights over a bill that is meant to increase the crime fighting capabilities of law enforcement seems to be the last type of law the Federal Government should ever challenge. There is no possible way a challenge to this law will ever succeed (plus there are already at least 5 that are pending) and I think Obama and Holder know this.
I am also glad that my computer battery died before I could post this because of this. Yes, it says Obama wants everything in the open. Yes, if you believe that, your only source of news is the White House website. There is a reason that media most media is not a wing of the government and that is to provide an independent and investigative look at what our leaders do. No one who seriously follows politics believed that Kagan would be a moderate voice on the court- it was the same with the Bush nominees…which is the problem with SCOTUS. There is too much partisan politics involved with the process. Remember that Rahm Emanuel is running the show at 1600 Penn and no crisis will go to waste under him. Politically, Emanuel is not stupid, though engineering the 2006 congressional takeover did not take a genius (albeit being a political operative is a great diet). The point is that Kagan was a carefully calculated nominee, as are all SCOTUS nominees in the 21st century. No one wants to have a nominee “Borked” which is why Obama nominated someone who has little paper record and he hoped the media would protect. This was because he knows that in 7 months the dream of forcing the rehashed progressive ideas of Herbert Croly formed 100 years ago are no longer going to be politically viable. Let us hope that Kagan is the last (yes, she will be confirmed) of the “change” most of my generation celebrated.
h/t To my dad on the illegal immigrant comments (the looking past the illegal part of the term). What he said to me made too much sense not to reproduce. Then again it should not come as a surprise that the man who introduced me to talk radio and politics would say something I think is 100% spot on. This is not to say I am a complete reproduction of my father's opinions, but I have yet to find something we disagree on. I chalk it up to us being right more often than the rest of the conservative media. Do no get me started on certain people, who, shall we say, focus on entertainment more than information. They disgust me. If your job is to comment on politics...you should do more than repeat simple, conservative talking points that most children learn when they get their first job. Some talk show hosts do not understand this, or do not want to tackle the task of informing their audiences. It would be a disservice to those listening if there was not a dial on every radio. Therefore, it only reflects poorly on the drones who tune in to those shows (this is not about the following: Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin...as an avid talk radio fan I know I left others out as it is impossible to cover everyone, but those are the major names at their time slots. Bob Bennett also does a great job at informing his audience.)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Job Offers to the Employed
There are two pieces of wisdom that most people received from their parents that allow you to judge the character of a person. The first is that ‘actions speak louder than words’. The second is that you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. It should not be a surprise that these two phrases have come up a lot more over the past few years with regards to the leadership in this country.
It has already been documented that the company Barack Obama keeps and kept during his formative years in Chicago is, at best, a group of people who have serious flaws. A mix of domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers), racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), and felons (Tony Rezko) are definitely the highlights of this group of close personal friends. Other members of the Chicago political elite who have cleaner histories (Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel) make up his team of close confidants, and the other crucial member of his team, Cass Sunstein, is not exactly a fan of individual freedom. This horse has been beat to death however, which is why I am moving on to the other piece of wisdom, which is judging a man by his actions.
The past week and a half has told us a lot about this President. He likes to point fingers (except at himself), he likes to start investigations (only to distance himself from his own failings), and, perhaps most importantly, he believes that he is above the law. First, the Joe Sestak job offer, which Obama has shown he has not had the proper counsel on how to handle this scandal that dates back a few months. We know that this is a Chicago style administration that will wheel and deal in order to give the people what they want give the people what they think we need. It is clear that Barack Obama will stop at nothing, even the law, in order to force his vision of America on the American people.
We now get this story today, that the offers did not end with Sestak, and now we are forced to wonder this: how many more races did this Administration try to influence with a shady quid pro quo involving government positions? We may never know, and despite the efforts of Darrell Issa the Republicans still are just the minority party. The only hope is make the public so outraged that the White House is trying to control who is in Congress that there is no option but to open an independent investigation. Time will tell, but the fact that the press is starting to hammer Gibbs on this issue is a good sign.
It has already been documented that the company Barack Obama keeps and kept during his formative years in Chicago is, at best, a group of people who have serious flaws. A mix of domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers), racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), and felons (Tony Rezko) are definitely the highlights of this group of close personal friends. Other members of the Chicago political elite who have cleaner histories (Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel) make up his team of close confidants, and the other crucial member of his team, Cass Sunstein, is not exactly a fan of individual freedom. This horse has been beat to death however, which is why I am moving on to the other piece of wisdom, which is judging a man by his actions.
The past week and a half has told us a lot about this President. He likes to point fingers (except at himself), he likes to start investigations (only to distance himself from his own failings), and, perhaps most importantly, he believes that he is above the law. First, the Joe Sestak job offer, which Obama has shown he has not had the proper counsel on how to handle this scandal that dates back a few months. We know that this is a Chicago style administration that will wheel and deal in order to give the people what they want give the people what they think we need. It is clear that Barack Obama will stop at nothing, even the law, in order to force his vision of America on the American people.
We now get this story today, that the offers did not end with Sestak, and now we are forced to wonder this: how many more races did this Administration try to influence with a shady quid pro quo involving government positions? We may never know, and despite the efforts of Darrell Issa the Republicans still are just the minority party. The only hope is make the public so outraged that the White House is trying to control who is in Congress that there is no option but to open an independent investigation. Time will tell, but the fact that the press is starting to hammer Gibbs on this issue is a good sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)