| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Bad news.... getting news that your property is assessed lower than it was last year. Even though you don't plan on selling your house any time soon, it is still a bummer to see that the value has dropped all the way back to 2007 levels.
Good news... realizing that this means your property tax is going to go down. Lower assessment = lower property taxes. And even though it will take some time for the mortgage processor to make their adjustments, there should be a nice reduction in coming months. Bad news... finding out Fairfax County plans on raising the tax rate by, just coincidentally, the exact percentage that your property dropped in value, resulting in absolutely no savings or other silver lining from your property going down in value. Worse news... realizing that when property values recover, say by the 12.5% that they just dropped, that Fairfax County has no intent of rolling back the rate hikes... leaving you in a position of paying even more in property taxes than you did when the property was previously assessed at that level. Tuesday, February 24, 2009
There may be no good reason to have a pet chimp and there may be plenty of reasons why one shouldn't have a pet chimp, but why exactly does Congress feel the need to address this on a federal level?
Actually, I understand the Democrats jumping on this, as there isn't too much that they don't feel lies within their realm, but why are Republicans not just voting in favor but actually co-sponsoring this oh-so-incredibly important piece of legislation? Don't they have better, more important things to worry about?
American Express is giving $300 to some of its cardholders to, in effect, go away. While I sort of understand their logic, that paying these cardholders will save American Express money in the long term, I also wonder why I, presumably a valued customer (lots of charges, always pay on time), am being offered nothing to stay. It rings a little like Obama's mortgage plan: money and relief for those who screw up and are bad credits, nothing for those who are responsible and pay the bills on time.
I can't help but thinking that had I only not paid my credit card bills on time, I'd be getting a $300 gift card... Monday, February 23, 2009
When Bush took office, the Dow was at 10,500... when Obama opened the door to running for President, the Dow was at 12,100... when Obama was elected, the Dow was at 9,600... when Obama took office, the Dow was at 7,900... and today, the Dow closed at 7114... A drop of 41% since Obama all but decided to run and a drop of 26% since he was elected. If that ain't a lack of confidence (and remember, the stock market is nothing more and nothing less than a barometer of expectations for the future), I don't what is.
And per this report, half of the people who have lost their jobs during the recession have lost their jobs in the past three months (November, December and January)... which, coincidentally, just happens to match the time since Obama was elected. Obama wins election and pretty much the first thing employers do is start shedding jobs. Wow, not exactly a ringing endorsement of him and his policies, is it? Reagan famously asked during a debate with Carter "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?". Well, at the rate we're going, who needs to wait four years to answer that question... Sure hard to imagine that this is the kind of change 66 million people voted for, isn't it? Odd, they get the guy they want in the Oval Office and consumer confidence is near its all-time lows and 73% of Americans are scared about the way things are going right now? Don't they know they're supposed to be all gaga over what Obama is trying to do? Don't they have any confidence in him? Ahh, I think I answered my own question. I wonder how many of those 66 million would still vote for him knowing that they're running scared and paying a huge financial price for the privilege of having voted for Obama? And I wonder how many would have voted for him if they knew that employers were going to throw 1.8 million people - as many in three months as during the previous 15+ months of the recession - out of work after hearing that Obama had won? Yes, you can argue that the two are not connected, that proximity does not equal causation, and notwithstanding that you would have argued otherwise if there was a GOP President, who wants to resort to having to argue that there would have been even more layoffs had Bush continued in office? Businessweek has an article lauding Amazon for issuing refunds to people who didn't even buy something from Amazon. Yeah, it's one thing to issue a $50 credit, but if they were really good, Amazon would arrange for the country to return Obama (and get our money and jobs back). There's a T-shirt that reads "My government is spending $790 Billion and all I got was this lousy t-shirt". Heck, I'd be thrilled if that was all I got instead of the 26% drop in the value of my investments... and a likely further drop in the value of my home. And yes, go ahead and argue that McCain wouldn't have done any better. But for all you who voted for Obama and cried with joy when he won, comparing him to McCain is just the textbook example of 'the bigotry of soft expectations'. And for Republicans, who not so long ago were really down, I wonder how many of them are unable to sleep because they're looking forward to November 2, 2010 more than a kid looks forward to Christmas? Stock market down, unemployment up, consumer confidence down, people scared... what more can a minority party ask for? I remember wondering in November 1994 who would have dared thinking that Clinton winning in 1992 - and beating a Bush - would have led to the GOP taking control of Congress just two years later... and as bad as the GOP felt this past November, there's definitely a sense of deja vu in the air...
A corollary to GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is that more output confirms one's bias, the less likely the inputs are double checked (and the reverse holds true, the more the output varies from what one expected to see, the more likely one is to try to figure out what is 'wrong' with the program).
This is how we end up with situations like this, where reports of reductions of Artic ice were overblown due to what is being called 'sensor drift'. The initial reports backed up what the researchers expected (and likely wanted) to see, that ice coverage was in fact shrinking (due to global warming) and thus didn't bother checking to see if their measurements were in fact accurate. It was only when presented with incontrovertible evidence (photographs of allegedly open sea that were covered with ice) did researchers go back and examine their testing. So remember this the next time someone attempts to claim that science has 'proven' X or Y. There's a chance they're right, and there's a chance they're wrong but just don't know it... yet. Thursday, February 19, 2009
When anybody accomplishes something, or for that matter, when someone fails to accomplish something, a question that is often asked: 'is the result because of this person's efforts... or despite their efforts?'
This is applicable to business where some people succeed because of their hard work and talent while others fail despite having put in a lot of effort. And there are those who succeed despite their (apparent) lack of effort or talent and of course there are those who fail because they don't have the necessary talent and commitment to succeed. It's applicable to any parent who wonders if their kid getting a 'B' in physics was because they didn't put in the effort to get themselves an 'A' or whether their kid just isn't that smart but put in the effort that kept them from getting the 'C' they would otherwise have gotten. And it's applicable elsewhere, such as with the people who find themselves at risk of losing their house to foreclosure. How many of them are in this situation despite having done everything right (with 'right' being defined as reading the fine print, buying only as much house as they could afford, not lying on the mortgage application and not counting on rising house prices to rescue them)? Or how many of them are in the situation they're in precisely because they did what anybody with a ounce of smarts would never have done? It would be one thing if Obama was proposing to rescue only those people who find themselves in trouble because of conditions not of their making. For example, I could see lending a hand to someone who put down 20% and took out a mortgage that added up to no more than 35% or so of their pay, only to lose their job and be unable to sell the house because housing prices in their area dropped by 30%. On the other hand, I have no patience for the person who lied on their mortgage application, didn't put any money down, took on a mortgage that equaled 75% or so of their pay, figuring they'd flip the house for a profit as prices continued to rise. And Obama's rescue plan doesn't distinguish the former from the latter. It treats all in-trouble homeowners the same. There's no attempt to keep the latter group from getting a bailout. In attempting to help out those who (allegedly, as they are some people who argue against helping out anybody) deserve some help, Obama is rewarding those who not only should have known better but those who consciously tried to game the system. And that's wrong. And unfortunately, Obama doesn't care. And we shouldn't expect anything else from him. He's a Democrat and Democrats have never been interested in holding people responsible for their actions... at least not anyone who doesn't have CEO in their job title. Sure, they'll excoriate CEOs whose lack of common sense resulted in their companies going down the toilet but they'll never hold Joe and Jane Public to the same standard.
Why must we view foreclosures as a "crisis that is plaguing the nation"? Isn't the system working the way it is supposed to work, when people who buy things they can't afford have to give back what they bought?
And I am also puzzled by the lack of significant opposition to Obama's $275 BILLION foreclosure rescue plan, why more people aren't complaining about using taxpayer money to help those who, whether through stupidity, greed or ignorance, bought houses they couldn't afford to buy... and who haven't been making the mortgage payments they promised to make. And don't give the line about how sad it is for people to have to give up their homes, to have to move somewhere else that ain't so spacious or nice. People move all the time and nobody has a right to a house that is nicer than they're willing and able to pay for. To cite but one example, the couple mentioned at the end of this story "We are not deadbeats... All we want is a mortgage we can afford". Well lady, you can get a mortgage you can afford... but not in the house you're living in. Move out and buy a house with a mortgage you can afford. That's the way it is supposed to be done. Well, at least it is the way things used to be done. Wednesday, February 18, 2009
There's a thread at Wizbang where they debate whether Obama is to blame for the 2,000 point drop in the Dow since he was elected...
The decline in the market can't be taken as anything other than a lack of investor confidence in the future. Investors don't buy stock unless they're optimistic about the future (actually, they're optimistic that there will be more buyers tomorrow than there are today). So why the lack of confidence? Why are investors sitting on the sidelines? Who do we hold responsible for this? The answer: Obama, along with his economic team... and the GOP. They're both to blame. Obama hasn't been talking up the economy; he's actually been pretty negative from day one (with negativity defined to include the absence of positive commentary). Geithner hasn't impressed anyone. Obama has made people afraid and nervous people don't buy stocks, they hold on to their cash. Nervous employers don't hire staff, they don't even keep the staff they have, they cut employees. Nervous home buyers don't make the huge commitment, they sit still. And when this happens, the markets go down. And the GOP hasn't helped with their almost unanimous opposition to the stimulus bill. They've trashed the bill, along with pretty much everything else that Obama has done, so why would any politically conservative investor think good times are just around the corner? Listening to the GOP, you'd be justified in cashing out all of your stocks, pulling your money out of the bank and sticking it either in gold or under your mattress. So, with nobody talking up the economy, there's no optimism, and with no optimism, the market does down. Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Having given Chrysler and GM billions of dollars in bailout money, we're in the EXACT SAME POSITION we were a couple of months ago: Chrysler and GM are bankrupt in all but name, they are still bleeding billions of dollars a month and they still have no plan in place for turning things around (quickly or otherwise).
They still haven't reached agreement with their creditors to accept less than face value of the debt. They still haven't reached agreement with their unions to accept significantly lower wages and benefits. They still haven't figured out how to reduce the excessive number of dealerships. They still haven't told their shareholders that their equity stakes are worth absolutely nothing. About the only thing they've done is cut back on the number of times they use their corporate jets and to eliminate some of the promotions they usually do at sporting events (Super Bowl, Daytona 500). And they've announced plans to cut the number of non-union employees (which is something, but it's not going to get them back to break even). They need to be put out of their - and our - misery. Force them into bankruptcy, wipe out the current equity, hand over the new equity to bondholders and other creditors, re-write the labor contracts, eliminate the marginal nameplates and 1/3+ of their dealer network and get back on solid footing... otherwise, just as the sun rises in the morning, we're going to be feeding money to the automakers while they refuse to take the tough steps to get themselves back to break even.
I have to say I goofed in thinking that Obama and his media allies would have started talking up the economy as soon as he took office. Having blamed Bush for just about everything and positioning McCain as offering nothing other than 'more of the same failed thinking', what better way to show the voters that they were right to have voted for Obama than to start using all the tools at their respective disposal (bully pulpit for him, print space and airtime for them) to push the theme that the economy was turning around and getting better?
And, per the cliche "first impressions are lasting impressions', the last thing Obama would want is for people to start thinking of his presidency as consisting of bad times, ala Jimmy Carter. So I figured that Obama would start emphasizing the positives out there and promising voters a rosy future. I never figured he would instead be badmouthing the economy (and even after he got his stimulus bill enacted)... and I never figured that the Dow would be down some 2,000 points since he won election. I know Obama doesn't have experience running anything other than his campaigns, and more importantly, he's never run anything that was in trouble. If he had, he would know that the absolute last thing a leader can do is project negativity. Acknowledge tough times, sure, but every speech, every talk needs to end on a positive note. Leaders sell the idea that they will not only survive the problems they are facing, they will emerge even stronger. For good or bad, people look to the President for inspiration. And right now, they're not getting any... at least not of the positive variety. Monday, February 16, 2009
If the Republicans were smart, they would aggressively counter Obama's attempt to tamp down expectations in the short-term aftermath of passing the so-called stimulus bill. I know that the bill wasn't going to turn the economy around overnight, but given the alarmist rhetoric and strong arm tactics employed by Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress, the public could very well be expected to think that the positive effects would come sooner rather than later (and yes, I'm stipulating that there will be some form of stimulative effect from hundreds of billions of dollars being pumped into the system). The public doesn't understand economic theory, all they know is that Obama promised them better days if he got his stimulus day and they want to get the present Obama promised them... and now, not in six months.
This gives the GOP a wonderful opportunity to play off these expectations. Every bit of bad economic news, whether it be news of more layoffs, declining consumer confidence, whatever, ought to be met with GOP cries of something along the lines of "HUH! How can this be? Didn't Obama and the Democrats push through a law that would keep this from happening?" and "If OUR stimulus bill had been passed, you could bet dollars to donuts that we'd be seeing some relief by now". The second thing the GOP needs to do is scour the bill for the 'Bridges to Nowhere' that are certain to be in there. Every week, the GOP ought to publicize yet another instance of the Democrats taking advantage of the nation's economic troubles by including payoffs to their contributors and lobbyists. The public is willing to put up with some degree of Washington insiders padding their pocket, but there is a point where they do get pissed off, especially when things aren't going so well at home... and the GOP has the opportunity to use this bill to make this one of those times. And of course, the GOP being the top-notch team that it is, it will do nothing of the sort. They'll continue to let Obama and the Democrats set the agenda and they'll respond with the same tired lines that don't work outside the GOP base. Friday, February 13, 2009
I don't know why anybody (especially those with advanced degrees) cling to the illusion that the fate of the stimulus bill rests in the hands of GOP Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins.
Yes, those three votes (or others to replace them) are needed for there to be 60 aye votes in the Senate. And yes, 60 is the number of votes needed to end a filibuster. But who believes the GOP will actually dig in and mount a full-fledged filibuster (or even the watered down version that seems to pass these days)? When have GOP Senators ever put party discipline or philosophy ahead of their desire to get along with the Democrats? When have they ever dug in their heels on an issue so much so that they'd bear the wrath of the popular President and the liberal media? But, you might say, there's always a first time, perhaps this issue is the issue that the GOP, one might say, finds its spine? Maybe the GOP will really unite and use their leverage to force concessions from the Democrats? Well.... even if it were to happen, it still just wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter. Not because the Democrats have the money, not because the Democrats have the good looking girls, but simply (and yes, simply) because the Democrats would eliminate the filibuster and pass the stimulus bill by a simple majority. There's nothing in the Constitution that provides for a filibuster, it exists only as a courtesy that the Senate has afforded its members. And rest assured, there is no doubt that rather than compromise, the Democrats, having the guts to do what the GOP wouldn't do when the Democrats were holding up Bush's judicial nominations, would just get rid of the filibuster. Maybe they'd get rid of it altogether, although my guess is that they'd just get rid of it in cases of national security... which of course the Democrats would declare applied to the current economic situation. As I find myself needing to do over and over again, it is a mistake to think that one's enemies play by the same rules. We've seen it time and time again in wartime, where our enemies do things we would never thing of doing. And the Democrats, perhaps because they think of themselves at war with the corrupt, evil and greedy Republicans, are more than willing to do to us what we would never do to them. Heck, they're willing to do to us what they don't even want us doing to them. Yes, they're hypocrites... but they know what they want and they're not afraid to use their power to enact their agenda. It's way past time the GOP realized this and dealt with the Democrats as they are, not as we would like them to be. Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Per Ramesh, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that executive pay caps will 'cost' almost $11 Billion over ten years in the form of foregone tax collections.
And that doesn't make sense to me... and for a couple of reasons. Yes, capping an executive's pay reduces his taxable income and with it, the amount of taxes he or she would pay. But at the same time, every dollar not paid to an executive raises the corporate earnings by the same amount. And as corporations pay federal taxes at about the same rate as highly compensated employees, I figure the cap ought to be pretty much a wash. And the amount of 'lost' tax revenue also doesn't make sense. For example, in 2010, the taxes not paid is estimated to be $604 million. Using a 36% tax rate, and ignoring my above point, that corporate tax collections would offset the taxes not paid by executives, that's close to $1.7 Billion in executive compensation that would have been paid (and taxed) but for the cap on compensation. Yes, Wall Street does pay out billions in bonuses every year, but the compensation cap, as I understand it, applies only to the very top of the corporate ladder and only to firms having received federal support. It doesn't apply to employees further down the food chain nor does it apply to financial firms (such as hedge funds) who haven't taken federal funds. Can the CBO really be figuring that the compensation foregone by these executives really adds up to almost $2 billion a year? Finally, the caps only apply so long as the firms haven't repaid the federal aid, so the CBO's estimate must assume that these firms are going to go the rest of the decade in debt to the government, that they're not going to recover and pay the government back anytime soon. I know the CBO is not one for dynamic modeling, that they assume what is true now will remain true for eternity, but to assume that these firms stay indebted to the federal government for a decade is a rather pessimistic view of the economy.
I would say it's funny, but it really isn't, that Obama won the election on the basis of really nothing more than vague promises of 'Change' but when Geithner gets slammed when his 'plan' to fix the financial markets consists of nothing more than vague promises. Although Obama adviser Lawrence Summers argues that the Obama Administration isn't concerned about the day-to-day market movement, it ought to be a heck of a shock that he's not getting by with vague promises, that even Congress is demanding details of just what Geithner plans on doing.
And it ought to be troubling for Obama that the markets, a leading indicator of our collective outlook for the economy, are down significantly since he won election. He has to be asking himself (to the extent he's smart enough to think it through) why we are more pessimistic about the future with Obama in office than we were when Bush was still calling the shots. And where have all his optimistic supporters gone? Why haven't employers started hiring (or, at the very least, kept from trimming payrolls) in anticipation of Obama fixing all of our problems? Why aren't consumers off spending money - and lots of it - in a sign of support for Obama's policies? Isn't the lack of business and consumer confidence really a lack of confidence in Obama and whatever it is that he is trying to do? I know that I had predicted the exact opposite, that Obama's supporters (and especially in the media) would, in order to validate their having supported him so passionately, push the theme that Obama's victory presaged a complete turnaround in our nation's economy. And the blame for this lies with Obama. Rare is the President who has been so negative about the future. The public, and understandably so, isn't rallying around a President who has nothing good to say about the future, who is so determined to paint a picture of such despair if he doesn't get what he wants. Maybe Obama is doing this on purpose, figuring that the only way he can get this stimulus bill through (and keep in mind that 50+% of it has very little to do with stimulating the economy and very much to do with enacting a liberal agenda) is by scaring people and that as soon as the bill passes, he is going to put away the pessimism and fear and put on his happy face again. Friday, February 06, 2009
On the politics of the stimulus bill...
It was a given that a stimulus bill was going to pass. Obama wants one, the Democrats have majorities in both houses and they weren't going to let the inconvenient fact that public opposition was growing by the day keep them from pushing through their bill. True, the pro-stimulus camp might not have had 60 votes to cut off debate if the Republicans mounted a filibuster, but I have no doubt that the Democrats, unlike the Republicans back when the Democrats were holding up Bush's judicial nominees, would have been more than ready to eliminate the 60 vote rule (remember, it's only Senate custom, not law that provides for a filibuster). As the Democrats didn't need any GOP votes, their courting of so-called GOP moderates can only be explained as an attempt to portray the bill as bi-partisan (I have no idea why, if this bill is such a good idea the Democrats would want to share the credit). So to the extent that the price of getting the votes of a couple of Republican Senators that they didn't need in the first place was some tweaking of the bill, that's great. Not as great as no bill, but remember that wasn't going to happen no matter how united the GOP stood in opposition. And two GOP Senators (or even three, if that turns out to be the number) does not make for a truly bi-partisan bill. This is a Democratic bill and the public knows this is a Democratic bill. So if this stimulus bill turns out to be the turkey that conservatives claim it is (little stimulus, lots of spending on non-essential programs), it won't matter that a couple of GOP Senators voted for it, the public is going to blame the Democrats... and the GOP will very much be able to exploit it, first in 2010 and in 2012 when Obama runs for re-election. And if this bill turns out to be best thing to hit Washington since indoor air conditioning, then the Democrats will - again notwithstanding the two or three GOP votes in favor - be able to take credit for all the wonderful things that happen. You all do know I'm not losing any sleep worrying about that happening, right?
7.6% empty... or 92.4% full?
Yes, the unemployment rate increased to 7.6%. And yes, it probably sucks to be out of work. But... let's look at it a bit differently. 92 out of every 100 people who want a job has one. While the unemployment rate has jumped, the employment rate has dropped only marginally compared to the past six years. As I wrote in an earlier post, we have a choice. We can get all negative (which in turn only makes things worse) or we can look optimistically towards the future.
The adage 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' sure applies to Congress attempting to 'fix' the economy by passing a stimulus bill...
(I'm guessing) 95% of Congress's ability to affect the economy comes in the form of spending money and either raising or lowering taxes (the remaining 5% applies to regulations Congress passes). Thus, when Congress sees a problem, the only tool they have to offer is to increase spending and, in this case, cut taxes (similar to the way 'help' from the Federal Reserve, for the most part, is limited to cutting the interest rates). Unfortunately, the problems we're having are not attributable to either a lack of government spending or taxes being too high (there is too much government spending and taxes are too high but that is not causing the problems we're having). And thus, Congress's 'cure' won't do much, if any, good. The problems we're having is a lack of confidence. Banks aren't lending because they're not confident of being repaid (they're also concerned that they may need ready access to those funds in case of further deterioration of their balance sheets and lending that money makes it unavailable to them). Financial firms can't sell their assets because potential buyers are afraid those assets are still overvalued. Consumers aren't spending - and thus not borrowing to fund that spending - because they're afraid of losing their jobs. Companies are laying off workers and not hiring because they're worried about falling profits. Investors aren't buying stocks because they're afraid prices will go down rather than up. People aren't buying houses because they are afraid house prices will go down and why buy now for $X if you can buy the same house for less in three months? Now, much of the lack of confidence is self-correcting. People tend to overreact and they're doing so by going turtle. People with solid jobs are cutting back. Employers who are still making money are cutting employment. Given time, people will emerge from their shell, take a look around and realize that they overreacted. They'll start buying, they're start hiring. Thus, the stimulus we need is to stimulate the return of confidence. We need a good kick to speed up the process of coming out of our shells. And for that, we need a President who talks up the economy, who points out that more than 9 out of every 10 people looking for work has a job, that the number of people at risk of losing their home to foreclosure is a small percentage of homeowners and so on. We need a President who, like Churchill and Roosevelt, offer us the promise of overcoming the problems we're facing. Instead of that, we have Obama not helping what with his recent pronouncements of doom and gloom. The last thing - the absolute last thing - a country in trouble wants to hear from its leadership is pessimism. The last thing someone headed to the mall or off to look at houses or an executive who's thinking about filling a staffing gap wants hear on the radio is that the President is negative about the economic future. We don't need him to tell us that we're having problems, we need him to tell us things will get better. Unfortunately for America, whether he doesn't know any better or he's callously using these problems as a means of effecting an agenda, he's not offering us the leadership we need at this time.... just like the previous inhabitant of the White House. Some change, right?
No one should be surprised that the government overpaid for their 'investments' in financial firms. By definition, the fact that banks were willing to enter into such deals with the government meant that they felt those deals were better than the terms they could get on the open market. If a bank needed (picking a number) $10 billion and their choice was between selling 20% of their equity to a private buyer or 15% of their equity to the government, isn't it somewhat obvious that they'd prefer the latter?
Thursday, February 05, 2009
IF we are on the receiving end of a terrorist attack anytime in the next three-plus years, the American people are going to be mighty upset at ANYONE perceived as not having been diligent enough in detecting and deterring such attacks... which poses huge risks to the Obama Administration in light of their pledges to back off tactics used (and apparently successfully) by the Bush Administration to protect America from terrorist attacks.
Being the President in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be analogized to the doctor whose patient dies: if the doctor didn't pull out all the stops to figure out what was wrong or withheld any treatment that could have potentially cured the patient he might as well just get out his checkbook and start filling in zeroes. The patient's relatives (spurred on by ambulance chasing personal injury attorneys who invited themselves along for the ride) aren't going to care about cost limitations or that the withheld treatment had risks or whatever other defense the medical staff can offer up, all they're going to see is that their loved one is dead and they're going to go looking for scalps (note: fear of being sued is one of the big drivers of so-called 'defensive medicine', where doctors pull out all the stops in order to defend themselves against charges they didn't do all that could be done). And the same holds true if we're attacked. IF that happens, is there any doubt that somebody (hint) will claim that the attack would have been prevented if only the Obama Administration hadn't been in such a hurry to abandon 'extraordinary rendition'? Or in such a hurry to announce their intent to close down Guantanamo? Or in such a hurry to start talking with terrorist groups and their supporters? Or in such a hurry to abandon the 'enhanced interrogation methods' used during the Bush Administration? And it won't matter whether there was substance to the charges, whether such tactics would have in fact uncovered the attack (Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley became a celebrity after airing charges that her incompetent supervisors kept her from preventing 9/11). All the American people are going to see is dead Americans, rubble and a President trying to avoid taking responsibility (it's one thing to accept blame for a nomination gone awry, it's another thing altogether to stand up and accept blame for not having prevented an attack that killed Americans). And unlike in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, no one in the Obama Administration is going to get a pass by claiming they couldn't have been expected to realize the extent of the threat from terrorists. IF such an attack takes place, the American people are going to ask the question: did your Administration do EVERYTHING possible to keep this from happening? And the Obama Administration will not be able to answer in the affirmative. Sure seems like a situation Obama would really, really, really like to avoid. But what do I know, I (reluctantly) voted for the other guy.
When the Democrats start their inevitable push to raise taxes, given all of the Democrats in the news for not having paid their taxes, the GOP should demand that anybody voting for tax hikes first release their personal tax return in order for the public to see for themselves whether those who wish to raise taxes on America have first paid their own taxes.
Capping the compensation of executives at firms receiving federal aid (which, by definition, means they're not doing so good) seems analogous to putting a limit on the salaries a professional sports team with a losing record can pay its players ('hey, you guys s***ed last year so you can only spend a fraction of what teams with winning records can pay its players'). All that does is ensure that these companies continue to fail, especially compared to any competitors not hamstrung by such restrictions.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to let these failing firms offer HUGE compensation packages to executives in the hope of attracting the talent needed to fix the company? And yes I know that chasing high-priced talent isn't a sure fire path to success, that (some) pro teams have won with low-paid players, but that success is fleeting at best, situations like that last only until either the team raises its payroll or those players take off for teams willing to pay them the market rate. Either way, there is no such thing as a team that consistently wins with a below market payroll.
Here are the two biggest reasons why NOTHING will ever change as far as former Congressmen and Administration officials cashing in their seats and positions for lucrative lobbying and 'consulting' assignments...
* The money is sooooo good. Imagine a business, industry or some other organization that finds itself on the losing end of a law or regulation; the negative impact could easily run into the billions of dollars. Given the high stakes, it is well worth the money to pay six figures to the likes of Tom Daschle or Leon Panetta. * They're not qualified to do anything else. With very few exceptions, Members of Congress haven't done anything in their life but run for political office. What kind of a real job is there for someone who has never previously had a real job? They have no skills that translate to success (i.e., a job that pays decent money) in the private sector. They haven't managed a budget, they haven't learned to build anything, they haven't learned to allocate scarce resources among competing demands. Heck, they haven't even learned to work well with colleagues. The one thing they're not is stupid. And they know that lobbying represents the one real opportunity they have to maintain (or increase) their standard of living once they leave Congress, as they know employers are not lining up to hire them because of their experience designing circuit boards, handling product design or logistics or any of the other skill sets employers look for (and for those who have been hired (i.e., Cheny at Halliburton), please don't deceive yourself by thinking your employer wanted you for any reason other than your Washington connections). The public can b***h all they want, but Congress is never going to change the rules in a way that really threatens their post-Congressional chances of making money. Why would they? Monday, February 02, 2009
I think 'Overreaching', the label the Washington Post put on EJ Dionne's column is apt (but probably not for the reasons Dionne thinks appropriate)...
Dionne (as to be expected) faults the GOP for opposing Pelosi's stimulus bill even though it was "largely based on the administration's own proposals".,, but Dionne doesn't disclose to readers that while Obama is in favor of components that Pelosi put into the stimulus bill, he wasn't in favor of including them IN the stimulus bill (as opposed to considering them separately). Dionne also doesn't disclose that there's a lot in the stimulus bill that Obama doesn't like (for example, Obama wanted the stimulus bill to be free of earmarks which certainly isn't the case). Nor does Dionne point out the GOP wasn't objecting so much to the components of the stimulus bill that Obama was in favor of, they were objecting to the REST of the stimulus bill Pelosi put together (the social re-engineering that Pelosi is trying to sneak in under the cover of an emergency stimulus bill). While Dionne has high hopes that GOP Senators from Obama-carried states might go along with Obama, he doesn't mention that Democratic Senators from McCain-carried states might be a bit more hesitant to go along with their extremely liberal colleagues in the House. And finally, while Dionne notes that several economists consider "the current stimulus plan, large as it is, as still too small to give the economy the jolt it needs", he doesn't provide the full explanation that economists don't think the problem is that we need a stimulus bill of more than $800 billion, they think the problem is that so little of the $800 billion will actually do any good.
There's the old story about the guy who dies and goes to heaven where he asks God: 'All my life, I was a good guy, took care of my wife and kids, volunteered my time and never cheated anyone and yet never had much. How come you never thought to reward me?' to which God responds 'DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU TO BUY A LOTTERY TICKET?'
God, just in case you haven't been paying attention, I've been buying lottery tickets.
|