How's That Again?

Here's a video of Sen. Claire McCaskill protesting Wall street executives for taking $18.4 Billion in bonuses, comparing it to "kick[ing] taxpayers in the shins".

She's not wrong, but I can't help but wonder. If $18.4 billions is a kick in the shins, just what is $820 billion? A double-tap with a .45 to the head?

I agree. Companies that take bailout money should not be offering executive bonuses. Executives in those companies should not be taking them. But I wouldn't extend that any farther. If those companies who are staying afloat by themselves want to give bonuses, that's their business. Stockholders should hold their boards accountable, but that is it.

Meanwhile, don't lecture people about wasting $18.4 billion of taxpayer money and then turn around and waste $820 billion of it. To be frank, I think the Wall St. executives will probably do as much or more to stimulate the economy with those $18 billions as the Democrats will with their "stimulus bill".

I'm just disgusted with the whole mess right now. A few bad apples on Wall St. are ruining it for everyone, while the Democrats take full advantage of it to ram a bunch of wasteful, crony-rewarding spending down our gullet. I hope there's a line in the stimulus bill to buy everyone in America shin-guards, because the shin-kicking is just beginning.

Stereotyping - It's Okay Now

I've been meaning to get around to this for awhile now, as it's been tickling the back of my mind for days:

First Obama tells GOP leaders to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Then he dings them for watching and/or appearing on Fox News.

Then, of course, there was the "bitter, religous, gun-owners" crack during the elections.

Is it just me, or does Obama have a real stereotypical view of people in Middle-America and on the Right? Wouldn't a black person and the "first post-racial candidate" know better than to trade in stereotypes?

It bothers me more than a little that he seems to make such sweeping generalizations about people. Just because one is a Republican doesn't mean they all listen to Rush or watch Fox News, and it's rather offensive for him to suggest that. You'd think if he were serious about ending partisanship and opening up a dialogue he wouldn't start with a pointless dig--if not insult.

Or, to put it bluntly, Mr. President, don't bite the hand you claim you want to shake.

Now add to all that his "I won" crack. Even if in jest, it was poor form. And largely irrelevant. As someone pointed out, he was talking to other elected representatives--all of which could say the same thing. They won their respective elections or they wouldn't be there. Sure, they can't claim to have won "the big one", but they still merit some respect, lest Obama be guilty of implying their individual constituencies don't matter.

What I see here is a disturbing trend toward arrogance. He seems to be going through the motions of reaching across the aisle, but it seems to be to deliver a slap rather than a handshake. If he's not careful in two years he's going to wish he'd shown a little more magnanimity and respect.

As it is, his first report card on how he's doing at building bridges came back tonight: a big red "F".

Bi-Partisan Cooperation...But Not Today!

The House passed the Stimulus Bill over unanimous GOP dissent. Eleven Democrats also broke ranks to oppose it (including the one from my district--kinda makes me wish I'd voted for him).

It'll probably pass the Senate, too, but it'll be obvious that the Democrats will own this one, whatever happens. Obama had better pray this works, or else it'll go down in the history books that his first significant act was to blow his political capital to further trash the economy.

Uh Oh, Buck!

Didn't I predict this? Even the New York Times is noticing that the Stimulus Bill is quickly becoming a Trojan Horse for everything the Democrats want to accomplish but wouldn't be able to without a fight. More here, from The Heritage Foundation.

UPDATE: The Wall Stree Journal weighs in with their analysis of the bill. To the Democrats this isn't a recession. This is Christmas.

I Am Standing Here Beside Myself

Dr. Mark Dybul, coordinator of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has been sacked. Selected during the Bush Administration, Dybul has done a remarkable--even heroic--job, and had originally asked to stay on for a few months during the Obama Administration until a replacement could be found.

The day after Obama's inauguration Dybul as asked to resign immediately.

This makes no sense, does irreparable harm to the cause (which I thought Democrats got behind), and smacks of the nastiest of political maneuverings--something Obama had vowed to change.

Perhaps he was not behind this. Perhaps he doesn't even know yet. Perhaps he has nothing to do with it other than hiring the rat that did it. So far, though, his promise to surround himself with good people is sounding rather hollow.

Mr. President...Tear Down This Stimulus!

James Pethokoukis presents 10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan. A sample:

5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

In other words, it doesn't help to create 500,000 construction jobs if there are only 100,000 unemployed construction workers. How many unemployed bank employees do you think will apply for the other 400,000? Knowing that those jobs may--and should--go away in a few years?

The more I hear about this "Stimulus Package" the more I think it's a smoke screen to get a bunch of other things pushed on America that might not have had a chance under better circumstances. Obama claimed he'd oppose any bill with pork in it, and yet this bill is designed in such a way that nothing is pork, so that's an empty threat.

Economist Stephen J Entine has this to add:

The idea is to jump-start "aggregate demand," according to traditional Keynesian precepts. Milton Friedman, on the other hand, taught us that government spending and tax handouts do not stimulate demand, because every dollar doled out by government must be first taken in by taxes, borrowing or other spending cuts. The net effect on aggregate demand is zero.

Read the whole thing. He gets quite detailed on some of the specific points.

It's a big enough concern that Obama and his team of experts are proposing all this in the first place. It's a bigger concern that they've let Pelosi and Reid write the details. It's an even bigger concern still that the conservatives aren't offering any better plans. They've had time, since the Democrats didn't ask for any help in writing their plan.

In short, our ship is sinking. Obama wants to bail with a very large sieve. Pelosi and Reid want to use a hose to pump the water from one deck to another. The GOP is standing around wringing their hands hoping no one will ask for their opinion.

Is it any wonder Consumer Confidence is at an all time low?

Yes, We Can, But We Don't Dare

Philip K. Howard has some ideas on why Obama's call for people to get involved may fall on deaf ears:

Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.

That instruction to teachers is one of the reasons I did not become a teacher. As a man, I sensed very early on that the risk of lawsuit or arrest was just too great to risk touching children, even though it broke my heart.

I did a short-term teaching job at a private Catholic school for a few hours each week. The moment I stepped onto the playground the kids would come flocking up to me and wrap their arms around my legs. I longed to hug them back, and I know that some would have benefitted from it enormously. But I couldn't afford to care about their needs. The threat to my potential livlihood was greater than their need.

As long as the modus operandii in America remains "No good deed goes unpunished" we will not live up to our values, no matter who is in office. Indeed, I have to question if those are still our values anymore.

My sister-in-law is a speech therapist in the public school system--at least for a few more weeks. Part of her job is working with mainstreamed special needs students. She tells of the incessant paperwork involved in her job and the lawyers constantly looking over their shoulders looking to sue if every piece of documentation isn't completely perfect. How does that serve the students?

It doesn't. The best special education teachers are quitting in droves, because they got into the job to help children, not file paperwork and fend off lawyers. But the job has become all about the latter and not the former. So they leave. In their place school administrators are forced to hire lesser-skilled stand-ins who are good at neither helping nor paperwork. In the end no one is served.

But it's not about helping people any more. It's about extorting money from the system. It's about "getting yours" regardless of who you have to crush in the process. It's about forcing people to do what's right, even if the definition of "what's right" is unclear or even contradictory.

The very people who are accusing churches of trying to legislate morality are doing just that themselves. Only they can't even get that right, because they have no moral compass of their own. Common Sense has become an oxymoron. Common decency has been replaced with lowest common denominator.

The problem is going to take much more than a sharp-dressed president with a bag full of platitudes. His community organizer tactics won't work here. America needs more than a bandaid, and he's offering little more than to kiss our owie better.

Why Yes, Yes I Do...

Richard Rahn at the Washington Times is asking "Feel like a chump?:"

While you may have thought you are required by law to pay taxes on all your income, you learn the "important" folks in Washington seem to think paying taxes is optional. Chairman Charles Rangel of the House Ways and Means Committee responsible for writing tax legislation has admitted he did not pay the required income taxes on some of his private income (Caribbean rental properties, etc.); and the proposed Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, did not pay the required income tax on part of his income from the International Monetary Fund, where he worked for several years.

I thought Obama was going to hold government accountable to higher standards. It turns out (surprise, surprise) a politician lied to us...again. Geithner gets excused for his "goof". Rangel and Dodd will not be investigated by their respective Ethics Committees. At least Bill Richardson had the decency to remove himself from consideration. He probably would have gotten a pass from the Administration as well. So ironically the one politician with some integrity will NOT be part of the administration.

If I failed to pay taxes the IRS would have me in jail. Ignorance of the law would not be a valid excuse. Why is it only the "important people" don't have to obey the law? And why aren't more people worried that the current Administration is filling up with law-breakers?

"Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!"

John Stossel has an article in the Weekly Standard making the case that there is no reason for the panic we're seeing over the economy right now:

But people are losing their jobs! President Obama frets that "the unemployment rate could reach double digits." Yes, that would be bad, but in the recession of '82, it reached 10.8 percent. Yet no one even remembers the "crisis" of '82. Today's 7.2 percent unemployment rate is higher than we've grown used to, but we've experienced that rate 16 times over the past 35 years. And it pales in comparison to the 25 percent rate of the Depression era.

"The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it," economist Peter Schiff told the Wall Street Journal. "The free market does have a cure: It's called a recession."

Have we become so fragile that we can't handle any recession? The 11 recessions since World War II are part of the "creative destruction" that ultimately drives our economy, yet today politicians act as if they can insulate us from pain with bailouts and "stimulus packages."

Or, to quote from my favorite quotable movie: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

I don't want to make light of the problems many people are facing right now. And I say this as someone working in a company that has announced pending lay-offs. But the government has been throwing money at the problem with no visible result so far. I don't think solution at this point is "More cowbell!"

We're in this mess, as someone pointed out, because people have gone havily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due. So why would the answer be to go heavily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due? I've only got an MBA, mind you, so perhaps I'm just not smart enough to see it.

I don't mind the government putting out a safety net to help those in need. I may be relying on that net myself in the next few months. But as someone who has scrimped, saved, and spent responsibly I'm still waiting to see a reward for positive behavior. And I'm not seeing that much of a punishment for bad behavior, either. In a world of no consequences one should not hope for change.

Speaking Truth To The Lesser-Powered

Andy Lew offers some sage advice to conservatives, including:

DON’T make it personal. We don’t need another Derangement Syndrome. We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause, or to the country as a whole, is beyond me. Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are smushwords like BusHitler, or sillywords like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.

DON’T pretend you’re being brave when you criticize your government. Not while people in other countries actually, y’know, DIE, when they do that.

DON’T use the phrase “speaking truth to power.” EVER.

DON’T say or do everything in your power to drive this country apart and then claim you want unity when it’s your guy in power. This is like the convicted felon who conveniently finds God when he’s up for parole.

DON’T automatically think people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. Some of them are, of course. But most of them aren’t, and you might actually learn something if you listen to them.

And finally, DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

Hear, Hear! Read the whole thing.

He also gets in a swipe at Tom Hanks:

DON’T call people un-American one week, and then talk about how “We are not blue states or red states, we are the United States” the next. (This rule may only apply to Tom Hanks, but I put it in just to be safe.)

Further proof that most calls for unity from celebrities and the left (did I just repeat myself?) are little more than "We have you now! Surrender!"

Say It Ain't So, Tom

Tom Hanks, who is currently making a fair bit of money from producing a television show about an offshoot of the Mormon religion, fails to see the irony when he criticizes the church about their stance on California's Prop 8:

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'll grant it's one of the more calm and moderate criticisms I've heard, and I hope what we should read between the lines is a call for more dialogue and understanding on both sides rather than intimidation and violence. But still, the gist of his criticism is that donating money to unpopular causes is "un-American."

What, exactly, is un-American about backing unpopular causes? Gay rights was, at one point, extremely unpopular and considered by the mainstream to be immoral. So were the people who backed the cause then un-American? Were the Founding Fathers, who undoubtedly opposed "buggery" as it was known then, un-American? Bill McKeever of the Mormonism Research Ministry puts it best:

"Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."

One look at the Mormon Research Ministry's website will confirm that McKeever is not a fan of the church.

So meanwhile, I have this to say to Mr. Hanks. I've appreciated your work. You've brought a lot of enjoyment into my life. I doubt I'm going to stop watching your movies just because of this. But I do have to say that it's rather hypocritical of you advocate denying Mormons of the right to political expression while simultaneously profiting from a TV show about Mormon splinter groups.

With the support of people like you, Mr. Hanks, how long will it be before Hollywood forms their own "Un-American Activities Committee" to snuff out dissent from people whose political opinions disagree with your own? And by the way? Where is your criticism of the also-un-American black and Muslim communities? Or does your courage not extend to criticizing those minorities?

But I will give you points for at least taking a more moderate line. When Hollywood is on a pogrom against anyone who would dare support Prop 8, being moderate is as close to dissent as some people can dare come.

From The Diversity Files

I'm not a minority--at least not in the standard political definition. Let's just say that nothing I'm a minority in is likely to gain me any special protections.

But I try to be sensitive enough to realize that my perspective on race relations in America could use some expansion. It's just that (and perhaps this is wrong of me) I don't like having to take personal responsibility for the entire scope of American history.

I'm willing to take responsibility for whatever prejudices my parents may have passed along that I may not have questioned yet. I'm willing to accept that my nervousness about some people may run deeper than my own personal insecurity with any stranger, and with the lifestyles certain clothing choices communicate.

I try not to be prejudiced, but let's face it. We all make choices about people and our reactions to them based on appearance. And when people dress in a specific way because it advertises a specific lifestyle they can't really hold people responsible for judging them based on that. In short, if you're going to dress like a gang-banger or rapper, it's not unduly prejudiced of me to suspect that you're going to be angry with me for being white--and as a result be nervous about you or even try to avoid you.

It would be unduly prejudiced of me to be nervous about or seek to avoid a black person who dresses within the realm of socially acceptable norms. I believe that is the key. If someone chooses to dress or act in an intimidating manner they should not expect people to react positively or even neutrally to them. I have as much right to be nervous about someone dressed like a gang-banger as I do a white person with disheveled hair and clothing walking down the street muttering to themselves and gesticulating wildly. It's simply, like the old Far Side cartoon, nature's way of saying "Do not touch".

Anyway, what I started out to say is that I do appreciate efforts by minorities to politely give the rest of us insights as to what their world is like for them. One such example is an article by John McWhorter in Forbes. This article makes it clearer that blacks in America are not unified in how they see themselves, but just as it appears more and more whites are moving past their historical prejudices, so are blacks.

If Obama's election does nothing else than open the way for people to have polite, respectful conversations about race he will have done this country a great service. I look forward to the conversation. I have much to learn.

Good Luck, Sirs!

I didn't vote for him. So what? Today he takes office, and I wish him well. I hope he is successful. I hope he does what is right for our country. I hope before his four years are up I find myself wishing I could say I voted for him.

Most indications suggest he's not going to live up to my fears. That's a good start. Much of the changes of direction he's made since the election would have made my choice much, much harder. There are strong indications he might even "out-centrist" McCain. If so, I'll be glad.

As for me, I'm going to learn from the horrible example of our national celebrities (Hat Tip Dr. Helen). I am NOT going to start bad-mouthing my country just because I may not like the man in charge. I am NOT going to start sucking up to ever evil dictator in the world who embodies and embraces the worst (erroneous) accusations I fling at my president. I will not look down my nose at the very people who made me the filthy rich in the first place. Not that the latter one is even an option, mind you.

In short, you will not find in me any justification for how those on the other side have been treating Bush all these years.

And speaking of Bush, I wish him all the best. Thank you, sir, for doing your best for this country, even if it was unpopular and even if I didn't always agree with you on what was best. Thank you for having the guts to do what was right in spite of the disapproving glare of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. It is unfortunate that your predecessor will get much of the credit for your successes while continuing your policies, but that is the nature of a true leader. I do hope that history judges you more kindly than your rabid, loud enemies.

We Shall Make No Policy Until Its Time

Michael Totten defends Barack Obama over his silence regarding the Gaza crisis:

If Obama opposes Israel’s use of force to defend itself from missile attack, he deserves credit for keeping his opinion to himself while he is not actually president. As he has stated on several occasions: the United States only has one president at a time. “We can’t have two administrations running foreign policy at the same time,” he says. “We simply can’t do it.” He could try to undermine the current President Bush, but he’s right that it wouldn’t be proper.

On the other hand, perhaps he silently supports Israel’s short operation in Gaza against a terrorist army with whom he himself repeatedly said he would refuse to negotiate. If he said so out loud, though, his global “hope and change” honeymoon would be over before it even began. It’s not in his interest to hobble himself from the start, nor is it in America’s interest or Israel’s.

I have to agree. While I'm still in wait-and-see mode over many things Obama, I appreciate his respect in not undermining the current president, however unpopular. While it could just be that he really doesn't want to have to take the job any sooner than necessary (and who could blame him), evidence suggests otherwise.

He's NOT silent on the economy. He's saying plenty there, and it's a good thing. Right now the economy is as much a matter of perception as a matter of substance. The Democratic Congress wants to get to work fixing things, and if Obama doesn't want to lose control of the helm there he needs to be involved. Even though it may be weeks before anything gets through congress, it's important to be seen doing something.

Foreign policy, on the other hand, is NOT Congress' arena. It's important there be one and only one Voice of the US. Congress has passed resolutions supporting Bush's position on Gaza, however, and that is entirely appropriate. Obama seems to know that on matters of foreign policy he needs to keep quiet until it's his turn.

He'll get his turn soon enough. For many reasons, most of which could be simultaneously true, he is smart to wait.

Get Satan A Cardigan

It's a little scary, but Harry Reid is starting to sound almost...sensible these days:

“Even though we’re one short of 60 [senators in the Democratic Conference], I don’t want to ever have to depend on cloture,” Reid said. “We may have to do that, but it will be with the support of a few Republicans.”

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Burris Under The Saddle

It appears that the Democratic Majority has a bit of a backbone after all and has refused senate-appointee Burris admission to the Senate. I'm not impressed, though, as the Democrats are the only ones who could get away with it--not to mention they put themselves in this position in the first place.

It was a rather cynical play in the first place to insist that the real reason Burris might not be admitted is because of race. It was mean-spirited and cynical for Gov. Blagojevich to make the appointment in the first place. It does little to dispell the media image of him to lash out like this and try to take everyone down with him.

To be honest, I don't know if Burris is a good choice or not. It sounds like he's at least not a bad one. He's certainly more experienced than Caroline Kennedy. And this is most certainly not about race. To not seat a black man in the Senate to replace another black man who was just elected president should render that accusation dead on arrival.

No, this is about the fact that the governor who made the appointment is currently under indictment for trying to sell that senate seat for personal gain. That places anyone so appointed under a cloud of suspicion from the very start.

It's unfortunate that Harry Reid and the Democrats were not stronger in stating that they would refuse to seat anyone nominated by Blagojevich under any circumstances. But at least they had the basic sense to cut this off before it gets any worse.

I hope that--sooner rather than later--they can resolve this. As others have suggested, the best way would be to impeach Blagojevich and then let the Lt. Governor re-appoint Burris.

But in the mean time, I think we should all remain calm and not turn this into Cirque de Invective.

As Accurate As Truthiness

I read this interesting article today:

(AP) Tel Aviv - The Israeli government today indicated they would bow to international pressure and moderate their attacks on Hamas in Gaza to a more "proportionate response."

"Starting today," said spokesman David Ben-Gasser, "we will withdraw all troops and cease all air operations. Instead we will begin firing between 100 and 1000 rockets per month into the Gaza settlements. We will also reopen all border checkpoints, but will be directing rocket fire at these points as well. We are also recruiting for suicide bombers to send into Gaza marketplaces and schools. In lieu of this--Israeli youth being shamelessly less willing to throw away their lives--we may be forced to place suicide vests on mannequins and drop them by air into these locations. It is regrettable, but demonstrates our commitment to a proportional response.

"We are also, in a proportionate response, ending our disproportionate commitment to establishing peace between Israelis and Palestinians and will instead adopt the Hamas-inspired policy of seeking the eradication of every last Palestinian in the world."

Ben-Gasser then added, "We thank the world for their input on how to secure our population. We appreciate the feedback we have received that has basically told us we've been going about this all wrong. We hope that by adopting Hamas' tactics and policies we will succeed in gaining the good will of the international community. As soon as we have eliminated every last Palestinian in the world I'm certain much of the trouble in the Middle-East will disappear."

Okay, I didn't read this anywhere, but it would serve the world right if this were Israel's response. They are fighting an enemy with the stated goal of eliminating all Jews. This same enemy completely disregards all internationally-accepted rules of warfare. This same enemy deliberately targets civilians and uses their own for shields and camoflage. This same enemy hides behind international agencies.

This call for a "proportionate response" is poppycock. Russia used the U.S. invasion of Iraq to justify their own invasion of Georgia. Well, I say Israel should be able to use Russia's invasion of Georgia to justify their invasion of Gaza. It is time that Hamas be eliminated. Unfortunately that means that some innocent Palestinians will be killed. Perhaps they should remember that next time they elect a terrorist group into power.

Hamas doesn't care one whit for the people they supposedly represent. Palestinians are just chips in the big game. Their primary use is as body count for news stories. So next time you Palestinians decide you don't like Israeli tanks firing at you, why don't you just turn around and beat the crap out of the Hamas militant hiding behind you to attack the Israelis? I'll bet you find the Israelis stop firing at you.