| 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
|
Thursday, April 30, 2009
With Chrysler filing bankruptcy, can someone tell me just what was gained from the billions and billions of dollars we gave Chrysler? A handful of months in which Chrysler did nothing to turn its operations around? Some time in which Chrysler did nothing to restructure its debt? Time in which they did nothing to shrink the number of dealers? About all Chrysler did during the past five months was to negotiate some reductions with the UAW and persuade Fiat to come into the picture... not bad but not worth the money that has been wasted keeping Chrysler alive.
And lordy, lord, the markets did not fall through the floor and people aren't going crazy (okay, there is, but not because of Chrysler)... so just why were billions of dollars thrown away? And finally, to those who bemoan that the 'UAW owns Chrysler and GM' now, it's been that way for a long time. GM and Ford and Chrysler management have been the UAW's b***h for years, ever since they proved themselves unwilling to take on the UAW in order to bring some semblance of order to the industry. Giving the UAW a piece of paper that formally acknowledges their ownership doesn't change the reality anymore than a gay couple heading off to get married changes the fact that they were married in all but name. Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Arlen Specter's claim of not feeling wanted among the GOP rings hollow as Specter is more to the right of the Democrats than he was to the left of the GOP... and as we've seen with Lieberman, the Democrats are less tolerant of their outliers than the GOP is of theirs.
But Specter's departure also illustrates the dilemma for conservative Republicans. Yes, it would be great if every Republican officeholder had a conservative rating of 100%.... and it would be great if these '100% pure' Republicans held the White House, 60 seats in the Senate, a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, 50 governorships and control of all 50 state legislatures. But that ain't going to happen.... not now, not ever. '100% pure' conservatives probably account for no more than 20-25% of the population... and there ain't no way that the other 75-80% of the country is going to consistently vote for hard-core conservatives. To win, hard conservatives need to persuade the less-pure to join them rather than the Democrats. And to do that, hard conservatives have to not only throw the mushy middle an occasional bone, they have to agree to not go after them for being insufficiently pure. They failed with Specter and doing so made them even more irrelevant in Washington than they were at the beginning of the week. Tuesday, April 28, 2009
What rationale did GM have for waiting until today to reveal plans to shut down over 1,000 dealers and why did it feel it could have and should have waited until yesterday to announce its plans to shut down the Pontiac line?
It isn't as if GM just discovered it had too many dealers. Nor did it take until this week for GM to realize that it could no longer carry Pontiac. No, just as with GM needing to lower its high labor costs and pension and related liabilities, these are steps that GM knew a long time ago it needed to address. But instead of actually doing something to fix its problems, it dragged its heels, so much so that the entire company went down the tubes. Imagine if GM management actually had the guts to force the issue back when they were selling twice as many cars as they are now. Sure, they would have taken a huge hit to profitability... but they would have emerged in a much better position to weather today's economic problems. And, just to be clear, the blame doesn't lie entirely with GM management. Sure, they fiddled while the company burned. But they were allowed to do so by GM shareholders. GM shareholders could have - through its board of directors - forced management to take action.... but they didn't and now they stand to lose all but a penny or so of every dollar of equity. I am not rejoicing at their misfortune... but neither am I crying for them.
Writer Daniel Gross attributing the failure of Portfolio, one of Conde Nast's magazines to editorial fumbles and errors... when in fact the cause of death was more likely lackluster ad page sales.... which have very little to do with whether editors spend too much at lunch or abuse company car privileges.
One of the big reasons Gross cites for its failure is not giving enough attention to its web site. But buyers of print advertising don't really care if the publication has a web site... in fact, although it may run against conventional wisdom, they dislike magazine web sites as they allow readers to view the editorial content without exposing themselves to the expensive print advertising. And, again counter to conventional wisdom among web aficionados, web site visitors do not lead to increased number of print subscribers. Even with print advertising revenues dropping, that money pays the lion's share of the expenses needed to put out the editorial product and it has to bug print advertisers that their money is subsidizing the very sites that diminish the need and desire readers have to buy a print copy of the newspaper or magazine (talk about supplying the rope with which they hang themselves!). And while they are climbing, web-generated ad sales don't come close (nor will they ever) to producing enough revenue to support a full editorial operation. Gross is likewise wrong in arguing that the magazine should have used content from other Conde Nast publications. Why should an advertiser lay out thousands of dollars to advertise in a magazine if he knows that a reader's need for that publication is diminished to the extent that readers can get that content elsewhere? To illustrate, I subscribe to the WSJ in large part for their editorial pages... which, by showing up not only on the web but are excerpted elsewhere makes me feel somewhat dumb for paying money to read what I can read for free somewhere else. The reason to have unique content (or, for that matter, to have 'name' writers providing material) is to draw the readers that in turn draw the advertisers. Writers such as Gross (and not surprising, even though he is supposedly a business writer) still don't get (or accept) that the real customer in publishing is not the reader but the advertiser and readers are but the lure with which to draw advertisers. Advertisers don't care about the editorial content of a publication except to the extent that it attracts readers (and in particular, readers of the demographic the advertiser is interested in). A big name writer is useless (or worse, given the costs) except to the extent readers flock to the magazine because of that writer. Having a web site may increase the total number of 'eyeballs' looking at the content but it does not make readers want to buy the print edition (disclosure: I haven't bought a copy of National Review since they started their web site). If publishers want to keep ad dollars flowing in, they have to give advertisers something for the money... and that is readers of the print product... and publishers don't get that by giving away the editorial content away on a web site and they don't get that by reprinting editorial material that readers can - and will - find elsewhere. It's Publishing 101. Note: I've periodically edited the above, nothing of substance, just clean ups and elaborations. Monday, April 27, 2009
If you could cherry pick among GM's different brands, you could put together a pretty decent line up. GM offers a pretty good pickup truck, a pretty good full size SUV, a pretty good crossover, a pretty good full sized sedan, a couple pretty good compact cars, a pretty good sports car and so on. The problem is that in order to give each brand a full line up of models, GM ended up with too many cars that either have nothing special going for them or are redundant with another GM model. Put another way, there's a good car company in GM, the problem is that it's stuck alongside a bunch of losers.
So... if I were rebuilding GM from the ashes, I would definitely consider eliminating ALL of the brands (and not just Pontiac or one or two others) and selling the best of the GM lineup through a single brand. As for the name of this new brand, unfortunately, none of the existing names work. Each of them has spent billions on advertising trying to carve out a niche; and in this case, they've been successful: they all occupy niches which precludes each of them from them appealing to the entire car-buying audience. I did (for a couple of seconds) think of using GM as the moniker, unfortunately, while it was unintended, GM has firmly established itself as a name that nobody wants. So the new group needs a new name.... and, drawing from the past (and recognizing that I am better at concept than the actual details), I propose: American Motors. (yes, I know American Motors has a fuzzy past, but not with 90% of today's car buyers. yes, I know that American Motors may not have the biggest appeal for overseas, but I doubt many of the people who are now buying GM cars overseas are unaware of the American-owned nature of the company). Whatever you call it, I think a key for GM is to not look at this as Chevy -vs- Pontiac -vs- Buick and so on but as a way of putting together the strongest line up of cars as possible. EACH brand has junk in it and it doesn't make sense to keep bad cars around because 'their' brand gets to live another day. Nor does it do any good to throw out the babies when you throw out the dishwater (getting rid of Pontiac's good cars when getting rid of the Pontiac brand). And just as it doesn't make sense to drop good models, neither does it make sense to get rid of the good people that Pontiac has or its good factories; GM ought to cherry pick people and factories just as it should do with car models. Thursday, April 23, 2009
If all you heard about a movie were positive reviews you would probably have a somewhat positive view of the movie... and even if you hadn't seen the movie yourself. If all you heard about a certain ballplayer were raves from his fans you would probably have a somewhat positive view of that player... and even if you hadn't seen the player in action and even if you hadn't taken the time to review his statistics for yourself.
This is a completely natural and understandable situation. Public perception is driven more by the views of those one hears from than by the in-depth analysis one makes on their own. On subjects large and small, the public has outsourced their analysis to others, saving themselves the trouble of figuring things out for themselves. And all things being equal, when people only hear one side of a story, they're going to in some way adopt those views as their own. This is why it isn't a huge surprise that Obama is enjoying high ratings right now as he is benefiting from an awful lot of positive press coming from his cheerleaders among the MSM. There is a weak spot that can be exploited by Obama's opponents. Views that are shaped by the opinions of others are less solid than views one arrives at after figuring things out for oneself; people are more apt to change their minds when presented with information that runs counter to the information they've previously been exposed to. Put another way, Obama's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. With Obama, the public hasn't done the digging themselves. They haven't looked at the details of what he is doing and what that is likely to mean for themselves, their family and the country as a whole. They haven't gone to the movie to see it for themselves, they haven't dug up years of statistics and watched game films of an athlete to figure out whether they agree with the conventional wisdom. And the key to getting people to change their minds is to enter some contrary viewpoints into the mix. The GOP leadership has been conspicuously absent from the fight; what little fighting the GOP has done has been among themselves. And when they've tried to counter Obama, their efforts have been flat, ineffective and at times, downright silly. An example lies with the current debate over the CIA's interrogation tactics. Congress and Obama are pondering holding additional hearings and prosecuting those involved in questioning terrorists. And what has the GOP's response been? Crickets. Why hasn't the GOP been out front in demanding that Congressional Democrats and Obama stop dwelling in the past? Why hasn't the GOP leadership been in front of cameras demanding to know why, in such difficult economic times, when 90% of America cites the economy as a big problem, Obama and Congressional Democrats aren't spending ALL of their time on helping fix the economy, why they're spending even ten minutes a day on something that happened years ago? Why hasn't the GOP leadership been blasting Obama and Congressional Democrats for wasting time going after people who thought they were (and were in fact) helping their country stay safe from terrorist attack? Another target for the GOP is the Obama Administration's refusal to let banks repay the bailout money they took last year. While the public doesn't - and won't - immerse itself into the details of the program, with deficits sky high, the idea that Obama is keeping banks from sending billions of dollars to the government is - on the surface - ripe for ridicule. Normal taxpayers don't get a pass on sending in the money they owe. Credit card and mortgage companies don't refuse to take money from those who owe them, so why is the federal government not doing everything possible to encourage banks to pay the money they owe? Sure, Obama can counter with all sorts of financial mutterings, but to the average American, it will sure seem silly that Obama is keeping banks from paying their debts. Despite Obama's (currently) high rankings, he is big time vulnerable. The GOP can do a lot to whittle away at his support by starting to introduce an element of doubt in the minds of voters... but they need to do so properly, by focusing attention where he is weak... and they need to do so quickly, before the public takes opinions that has so far been shaped by surrogates and adopts them as their own. For just as with sports and movies, once someone decides they really like a movie or a particular athlete, there isn't much anyone can do to shake that. The GOP still can mount an effective challenge to Obama but they have to stop waiting. Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Question: what do school 'zero tolerance' policies, the FDA's slow approval process for new drugs and doctors practicing preventative medicine all have in common? Answer: they are all driven by a bureaucratic desire that negative events be seen by the public as having happened despite one's efforts instead of because of one's lack of efforts of prevention. Schools treat everybody who makes a crack about getting a schoolmate as a potential terrorist in order to keep from looking stupid in the unlikely event that kid actually goes off the deep end. The FDA holds approval for drugs to avoid having the public blame them if/when someone taking one of those drugs dies of complications. And doctors order tests by the basketful in order to protect themselves against charges that a test they didn't order could have saved their patient.
The same psychology holds true in fighting terrorism. Bush pretty much did everything he could think of to keep another 9-11 from happening. He (through his appointees) approved 'enhanced interrogation' and Predator strikes against known and suspected terrorists. He handed off suspects to allied countries for further interrogation. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq not only to punish those responsible for 9/11 but because he thought doing so would help prevent another attack on the United States (the 'flypaper' strategy was in large part based on giving terrorists a way of striking at Americans without having to come to America to do so). He wiretapped conversations both overseas and at home. He detained without trial suspected terrorists in order to keep them off the streets. And having done all of this, Bush was in a reasonably good position, in the event of another attack, to claim that as he had done everything legally possible and even some things that were of questionable legality in order to protect America, that he should receive less blame than if had not done those things (of course, had an attack happened, his critics were waiting to pounce and claim that the attack took place because of Bush's actions). Obama, on the other hand, not only doesn't appear to be doing everything possible to keep us safe, he actually comes across as taking steps that make us less safe. Right now the debate rages mostly on conservative talk shows and talk radio, with the likes of Dick Cheney claiming that Obama kissing up to Chavez and Castro and releasing memos detailing the interrogation tactics used on terrorists makes us less safe. But in the future, if America finds itself hit again, Obama is not going to be able to convince the public that his critics are wrong, that his actions didn't increase the likelihood of a successful attack. Obama won't be able to say that they used every tactic possible to grab terrorists and discover their secrets. He won't be able to say that he had given the CIA and our other intelligence services and our military everything they had asked for. And more importantly, he won't be able to rebut the charge that he and his administration cared more about being nice to terrorists than they cared about keeping America safe. Right now, much of America is sleeping through the debate over anti-terrorism tactics and in the absence of another attack, they're not going to rise up in protest over Obama's policies.. and so he's free to continue doing what he wants. But all bets are off if another attack takes place. The absolute worst thing a President can do, worse even than presiding over a terrible economy, is not just to have people doubt his ability to keep them safe, but to wonder if his policies actually made them less safe. Tuesday, April 21, 2009
With some negative press attention being focused on Democrats who allegedly variously funneled taxpayer money to her husband's real estate company, offered to interfere with the Justice Department in return for support, are trading earmarks for political contributions and even attempting to derail ethics legislation, now is the time for Republicans to make real sure that they are staying clean. With so many corrupt Democrats, to the extent voters are looking to punish someone, the absolutely last thing the GOP can afford is to give the MSM the opportunity to paint this as a case where both sides are guilty.
Cheney calling for Obama to declassify and release the details of what information was gleaned from 'enhanced interrogation' makes for nice theater... but on further analysis, it seems he is more concerned with his reputation than a genuine desire for the American people to know the details.
First, the methods employed and the information produced from those sessions are separate issues, releasing details of the former does nothing to render moot reasons for keeping the latter classified. A (reverse) analogy is that releasing pictures taken from a spy satellite does not obligate one to also release the technical specifications of the cameras used to take those pictures. Second, while Obama's critics are likely correct that releasing details of our interrogation methods helps Al Qaeda better prepare to resist these techniques, the release of the information gained (and by omission, information that we didn't learn) would help Al Qaeda much more by letting them know which of their secrets have been compromised and which haven't been. It will also let them clear up any confusion as to who may have been responsible for any security breaches; revealing details on the information obtained from these sessions also lets Al Qaeda identify the source of the security breach. Third, if he truly wanted us to know the details of what information was obtained through these sessions, why didn't he push for this information to be declassified before Obama took office? What is there about this information that suggests that it was critical to keep it classified up to but no later than Obama's inauguration? Finally, if Cheney really felt the American people need or ought to know the details, as he presumably knows the details, why doesn't he just come out and tell us himself? Yes, the information is classified, but since when does Cheney let a technicality keep him from doing what he thinks is in the nation's best interests? So... absent a good reason to release the information, are there any other conclusions to draw from this other than Cheney is more interested in either upstaging Obama or protecting his own image than he is in having the public learn the details of just what and wasn't learned from the interrogations? Monday, April 20, 2009
It will probably come to a shock to the financial wizards at the Fed and Treasury but the drop in credit was never really about banks having enough capital to lend; it thus comes as no surprise (at least to me) that lending at banks has dropped over the past months and despite the billions of dollars poured into the banking system by the federal government.
The problem was and remains the fear bankers have that loans they make won't be paid back. It doesn't matter how much money a banker has, how many billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into the banking system, if he suspects a would-be borrower won't make good on the loan, that would-be borrower is not going to be able to borrow any money. And being concerned about the credit-worthiness of borrowers is a very prudent position to take at any time... and especially now. With housing prices dropping, banks couldn't look to sell houses to recoup bad mortgages... so bankers do the smart thing and cut back making mortgage loans and scaling back the loans they do make. With people by the millions losing their jobs, and with forecasts calling for millions more to lose their jobs in the coming months, bankers can't be sure whether the would-be borrower would have a job and thus the income to repay the loan... so they do the smart thing and cut out a lot of lending in this sector. With businesses failing by the thousands and many more taking hits to their revenues and their bottom lines that erode what little cushion they had, banks are justified in being skeptical that commercial borrowers would be able to repay their borrowings... so here too do banks cut back on their commercial loan portfolios. And there is nothing that the financial wizards at the Fed and the Treasury can do about this. They can't - and shouldn't - tell or force banks to make loans to problematic borrowers. In fact, there is only one person who has the power to make a difference where it would matter... and interestingly, he has not only not taken steps to improve the situation, the steps he has taken have made things worse. Obama could - and should - start talking up the economy. He could - and should - start giving people some optimism that the worst is behind us and that we've turned the corner back to prosperity. He could - and should - take steps to minimize government intervention in the markets, a step that would encourage investors and employers that they'll be left alone to make their investments and hire employees without the government coming in and mucking things up. But instead of this, Obama continues to screw things up. He continues pushing for more government spending and more government involvement in business. He continues to spend time - and given how important the economy is, way too much time - on issues that have NOTHING to do with the economy (i.e., going around the world apologizing for America). And he keeps failing to offer up any encouragement to the public that we've turned the corner. And as a consequence (not totally, but a good part), we continue down the downward path... where bankers are too scared to loan money, where borrowers are too scared to go out and try to get any money. Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Here is why calls - whether they come from Obama or from the tea-partygoers - to 'simplify' the tax code is just a waste of effort (in no particular order):
* Some of the complexity in the tax code arises from needing to define 'income'. For example, while 'wages' might be pretty straightforward, what exactly is 'investment income' and when is it recognized for tax purposes? Is 'interest income' only income to the taxpayer when it is received or is it income when it is earned by the taxpayer? Does 'basis' factor into the calculation of 'capital gains income'... and if so, how does one calculate that amount? Unless we stop using income as the basis for establishing one's tax liability, you aren't going to be able to get rid of the part of the tax code that applies to defining what income is and when it is recognized for tax purposes. * Likewise, defining 'deductions' accounts for a fair number of pages in the tax code. Ah, you say, we're going to get rid of all deductions, so case closed, right? Not so quick. Are you not going to allow companies to deduct their expenses from their revenue to calculate the income on which they pay taxes? If so, that is hundreds of pages that you can't rid of, as you'll still need rules to define how a company calculates 'costs of good sold' and 'depreciation expense' (how many years? what amount factors into the calculation? what happens when you sell a depreciated asset?). * And you will never get rid of all personal deductions as Congress will never agree to stop using the tax code to advance their ideological agendas. They'll never eliminate deductions for people who have suffered catastrophic (uninsured) losses nor will they ever get rid of deductions for state income taxes and charitable contributions. And, for example, if you don't get rid of the deduction for charitable contributions, you don't get rid of the pages in the tax code that establish the rules for establishing the amount one gets to take for their charitable contributions. Neither will they get rid of deductions for, to cite but a few, improving your energy efficiency, restoring historical property and for self-employed taxpayers who make contributions to an IRA. * There will never be agreement to treat all income the same way for tax purposes. Congress will never agree to treat 'capital gains income' the same as salary income. And when you don't get rid of special treatment for capital gains income, you don't get to get rid of the sections of the tax code that address the process one has to go through to calculate their capital gains. Congress will never treat all social security income for all taxpayers the same as they treat salary income for younger workers. * Just as the majority of the tax burden falls on a small percentage of taxpayers, so too does the complexity of the tax code apply only to a small percentage of taxpayers. Most taxpayers have nothing complicated that they have to deal with and certainly nothing that a $40 tax software program can't handle for them. * Those that muddle through the tax code do so voluntarily because they feel the money they could save in taxes is worth the time and effort; if they didn't they could, for example, elect to forgo taking deductions for their contributions. Nobody has to rummage through their files to establish the basis for their residence, they do so only because the money they save by not paying taxes on the full sales price is worth the time they put in looking for receipts for the addition they put on the house fifteen years ago. * And you'll never get rid of the progressive nature of the tax code so you're not going to get rid of the tax tables and rates in favor a single tax rate that all taxpayers use to calculate their tax obligations. * And finally, there is no consensus as to what aspect of the tax code needs to be simplified. In fact, the only thing everybody agrees on is that the tax code unfairly benefits 'other' people, nobody ever thinks they are the unfair beneficiary of a loophole or favorable tax treatment. Nobody will give up their edge, they'll insist that other people give up theirs. And lacking any consensus, tax reform will go nowhere.
I'm sure others will jump all over Paul Begala for his calling today 'Patriots Day', the day the masses get to show how patriotic they are by paying taxes...
I'll simply point out most of the taxes people pay have long ago been paid - the money withheld from our paychecks throughout the year and the estimated taxes other taxpayers are obligated to make during the course of the year. My guess is that relatively few people cough up big checks today. So just like the military and firemen and police officers who show their patriotism year round, so too do us mere taxpayers show our patriotism year round - every two weeks on Friday. And I'll point out that the people he is criticizing - the tax partygoers - aren't complaining about government expenditures for the likes of medical care for wounded veterans and for research into finding a cure for cancer that he holds out as great examples of what tax money ought to go for. They're protesting - and he knows it - the far larger amounts of money being spent on bank and automaker bailouts and lobbyist-obtained tax breaks and the 10,000 earmarks and so on. They're protesting giving 'tax breaks' to people who didn't pay income taxes in the first place. They're protesting bailing out people who bought houses they couldn't afford. They're protesting sending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to foreign banks. And I'll point out that people like Begala who call for raising taxes never do their patriotic duty by sending in a dollar more in taxes than they're obligated to pay. If he truly thinks patriotism is measured by the amount of money one pays in taxes, why isn't he showing how patriotic he is by sending in more money than he has to? Because he is a phony. Tuesday, April 14, 2009
At Slate, Timothy Noah argues for the government to get even more involved in providing health care by using a graph that shows that employer sponsored health insurance premiums went up six times as much as wages during 1999-2008, which Noah claims illustrates that health care costs have spiraled out of control...
But, in an apt illustration of what Mark Twain said were lies, damned lies and statistics, Noah distorts the numbers to in a feeble attempt to support the point he wanted to make. So what that employer provided health insurance premiums went up at a faster rate than wages? As insurance premiums are (almost always) a fraction of wages, a smaller percentage increase in wages could more than cover a higher percentage increase in the cost of a good or service purchased with those wages (for example, a 5% increase in wages for someone making $50,000 a year would (ignoring taxes) give them $2,500 more in wages, more than enough to cover a 30% increase (6 times the rate of the increase in wages) of something that cost $5000 to begin with). Furthermore, the chart shows wages did increase during the period... and the true test is whether the buying power of the worker is better or worse off. Perhaps an increase in wages that was only 1/6 the rate of increase in employer provided health insurance premiums was sufficient to leave the worker better off, perhaps not... but the chart provides no guidance at all to answering that question. Finally, at least for now, while economists claim that costs borne by companies are ultimately passed on to employees and customers, meaning that higher insurance premiums covered by the employer reduces the amount of money that could otherwise be paid in wages, an increase in employer provided health insurance premiums can't be looked at in a vacuum. Did other employer costs go down by proportionate amounts, leaving the company no worse off and, on net, offsetting the drag on wages of higher insurance premiums? Again, the chart offers no guidance on this. All in all, pretty shoddy work on Noah's part. Not unexpected, as he is an advocate and advocates will do whatever they can to advance their cause.... and distorting a chart is just par for the course. Monday, April 13, 2009
I don't really care if Arizona State University does or doesn't give Obama an honorary degree...
According to ASU, they give degrees for "significant contributions" (my emphasis). Yet this bozo, the political editor at CNN, arguing that Obama deserves an honorary degree, keeps referring to Obama winning the presidency as "significant achievement" (again, my emphasis). Does he not understand that contribution and achievement are not the same thing?
Count me unimpressed with Obama's pledge to fight piracy...
First, these pirates are a relative nuisance, they don't threaten the world in the same way Al Qaeda does (or did?). They're not working on ways to obtain nuclear material, they're not looking to seize these ships and crash them into office buildings. Yes, we would be better off without them, but let's not elevate them into anything more than the low level scourge that they are (that's why I don't use the word 'terrorist' to describe them, putting them an bin Laden in the same category elevates them and lowers the significance of what bin Laden is trying to do). Second, I would have been more impressed if (as expected) Obama hadn't placed so much of an emphasis on getting cooperation from other countries. There's precious little that other countries have that they can and are willing to contribute to anti-piracy efforts. And just like Bush, Obama seems to be valuing 'cooperation' over 'getting the job done'; if Obama thinks piracy is a bad thing, he should have said the United States was going - with or without help - to everything it could to fight piracy (and it's not just semantics: getting 'cooperation' invariably means having to settle for less). And finally, I wonder why he pledged to halt the rise in piracy (my emphasis). Yes, a rise in something bad is worse than a lower amount, but did he really mean to suggest that he's okay with some amount of piracy, that he only finds it a problem when pirates exceed that limit?
Wow, there are 20,000 unemployed lawyers in America... a whopping .17% of the 12 million people without jobs.. so I think I will hold off the candlelight vigil.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
I wonder if those who last fall referred to an Obama presidency as being the second coming of Jimmy Carter would be surprised that Obama's (non)reaction to the Somali pirates seizing of an American tanker and holding the American captain as a hostage is similar to Carter's reaction to the Iranian seizing of the American embassy.
Let's just hope the American captain doesn't have to wait to get released until the swearing in of a Republican president. Friday, April 03, 2009
If the Republicans want to score points against Obama's budget and the rest of his planned programs, they need to tailor their arguments to the people whose votes they need this fall and in 2012... and in order to do that, they must realize that the issues that appeal to doctrinaire conservatives are NOT the issues that will appeal to people who are not doctrinaire conservatives.
The people I call the mushy middle are supporting Obama, not because they have sat down and analyzed his programs and rationally concluded that they stand to gain, but rather because they haven't heard anything that makes them think that they will suffer as a result. And the reason they haven't heard anything like that is because the GOP is wasting what little air time they have complaining about things these people don't care about. They do not care about the budget deficit, nor do they care about the federal debt. They do not care whether Obama is expanding federal power to unprecedented levels. They do not care whether Obama runs roughshod over the sanctity of contracts when he seeks to punish financial executives who received bonuses. They do not care whether Obama has dropped the moniker 'Global War on Terror' in favor of something else. They do not care about cap and trade. They do not care about tax hikes on the 'wealthy'. They do not care if Obama appoints bleeding heart liberals as judges. And they do not care if Obama is 'keeping score' of who in Congress opposes him. These people care about only one thing: whether their lives will be better or worse in the future compared to how they feel today... and they measure this by whether they feel more secure at work and at home, whether they have more money in their 401(k), whether they have more toys at home, whether they feel they're only being asked to pay their fair share and not being expected to carry someone else, and for some reason I can't quite understand, whether people in other countries like us or not. The GOP needs to paint Obama's policies as being harmful to the mushy middle and in terms the mushy middle can understand. The GOP needs to hit these people with a constant drumbeat that Obama's policies are going to make them less safe at home, less safe at work and leave them with less money in their pocket. Complaining that Obama's budget saddles us with trillions of dollars of debt isn't going to resonate with people who figure they're not going to be the ones paying the debt (and, given how long the debt card has been played, there's a fair degree of public numbness on this). Complaining about Obama going after Wall Street executives isn't going to score points with people who don't work on Wall Street and don't make enough money that they ever figure Obama would be coming after them. Complaining about pork in the budget doesn't score with people who rightfully figure that eliminating every dollar of pork isn't going to improve their lives one bit. If the GOP wants to ever regain power, they need to make people think that Obama is going to hurt them. They have to be willing to ignore the media which will jump to criticize GOP partisanship and fear-mongering. They have to be willing to not listen to the hard right when they complain that 'their' issues aren't being given priority. They need to stop trying to score debating points with Washington insiders and instead start scoring points with the people who have the votes the GOP so desperately need.
Andrew P. Harris, a Republican Maryland State Senator got so ticked off that students at the University of Maryland were going to show an X rated movie at the Student Union that he threatened to pull all state funding from the University if they permitted the movie to be shown.
This is nanny-statism, GOP style, and demonstrates how hypocritical GOP politicians when they criticize Obama for, for example, using the power of the federal government to go after Wall Street workers he thinks make too much money. If the GOP was true to the principle of limited government, they would have said that while showing X rated movies is not something they approve of, it is not appropriate for state legislators to micro-manage what goes on at the University of Maryland and especially so when state funds weren't being spent (student paid fees were to cover the costs of showing the movie). They would also have said that it is not appropriate for state legislators to use the power of the purse to penalize individuals and institutions who do things that they dislike. They would also have said that withholding all funding from the university would be a terrible over-reaction, that it would be extremely wrong to penalize all students at the university for the actions of a relative handful. They could also have tossed in for good measure that they recognize that not everybody shares their views regarding X-rated movies and that a condition of living in a free society is that different people are allowed - and even encouraged - to do what makes them happy without having to worry about someone coming after them. But as I've written before, the GOP isn't averse to sticking its nose where its nose doesn't belong. The only difference between the GOP and the Democrats is where they stick their respective noses. They both think that the public isn't smart enough to take care of and look out for ourselves, that we need their expert guidance to keep us from screwing ourselves up. So keep this in mind the next time you hear someone with an (R) next to their name criticize Obama that he is objecting less to the power grab as an abstract than to the specifics of the power grab. Thursday, April 02, 2009
Trivia (but not trivial) question: In what ways are Reagan and Bush II alike that hasn't gotten much discussion?
Answer: (1) They both stood by and let Congress spend money like a drunk sailor on shore leave to keep from having - and losing - a 'guns or butter' battle with Congressional Democrats which would have kept them from pursuing their defense buildups, and (2) And both were succeeded by Democrats (yeah, I'm sort of counting Bush I as a continuation of Reagan) who not only cut defense spending and raised taxes (no, Obama hasn't done so... yet), reversing most of what Reagan and Bush tried to accomplish, but also expanded domestic spending far beyond the already too-high levels of Reagan and Bush. Reagan wanted to rebuild the military after years of neglect under Carter. Bush wanted to fight wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Both needed billions and billions and billions of dollars. Both were averse to raising taxes. And both were terrified that the public, if forced to choose, would choose domestic spending over the abstract benefits of more spending on the military. And they were terrified for good reason. The Democrats were sure to make sure any 'cut' in domestic spending (even 'cuts' that were merely reductions in the growth rate) were such that the public would very much oppose. There would be no below the radar cuts in spending, they would make sure cuts were in programs like police and fire prevention, schools (and not the administrative staff but rather the teachers and custodians who are seen every day by students and parents) and libraries and homeless shelters that were forced to close and cuts in health care benefits that left people unable to find a doctor and so on. Against this, Reagan and Bush both knew the only way they could keep the money coming for defense programs was to let the Democrats have what they wanted, the last thing they wanted to hear was a complaint that there was 'money for bombs but not for babies'. So the domestic spending took off and never slowed down, with money not only being spent on babies, but on old folks and young folks and poor folks and not so poor folks. And now with Obama, the Republicans who stood by while Bush stood by are unable to legitimately protest the huge hikes in domestic spending that Obama is proposing. Obama is taking advantage of GOP silence while Bush was in office.
I was half-watching (so I may have some elements a bit off) a bit of Sean Hannity a couple of nights ago where he was ranting about Barney Frank's proposal to regulate salaries for all employees (not just CEOs) at firms receiving federal bailout funds... and I came away mightily unimpressed.
Hannity, as you might expect, was against Frank's proposal. But he was, in my mind, losing the battle to the woman (I don't know who she was) he was debating. Her line, which was a good one and one she justifiably kept repeating, was something along the lines of "these firms are getting our tax dollars, shouldn't we have oversight as to how the money is spent?" And all Hannity could come back with, at least as long as I could stand watching, was to blather on with something about the sanctity of contracts and government expanding its reach and so on. His opponent used him to sweep the floor. She had her line, she stuck with it and Hannity never (again, as far as I was watching) scored any points. On one hand, this doesn't matter, as his TV audience is comprised of conservative true believers and as far as they're concerned, Hannity won hands down. But... if the GOP hopes to shed its minority status, it has got to do a better job of scoring points with the moderates who will determine the winners and losers of elections... and these folks, given their choice between the two arguments offered, are going to go with Hannity's opponent every time. Moderates don't get worked up in a lather about 'creeping government power'. They don't go to sleep at night worrying about the sanctity of contract rights and whether Barney Frank is trying to pass a bill of attainder (which most people can't define let alone care about). They do care about how their tax money (even if they themselves aren't paying much) is being spent. They do care about whether people (and especially people working at firms believed to be responsible for the mess we're in) are profiting on the backs of taxpayers. So what should Hannity have done? He should have tapped into the public's belief that people who work in government work there largely because they couldn't get good jobs in the private sector... and used this perception to argue that the last thing we should want is for the federal government to try and micromanage these businesses. Yes, he could have replied, we do want oversight... but with businesspeople brought in from the outside to fix the situation, not with Congressional staffers or Administration bureaucrats. Given the mess Congress has made (and keeping in mind their pathetically low approval ratings), why should we want them involved in business operations any more than the absolute minimum? If we are looking for these companies to get back on their feet as quickly as possible, why would we want Congress - which, as a group, has absolutely no experience running a business - involved in that business? Why, if we are bringing in new management, would we want to tie their hands by restricting the way they go about restoring the health of these companies? Put another way, what do you think most Americans would get more worked up about: Congress unilaterally breaking contracts? Congress hitting some out-of-favor group with a punitive tax hike? Or Congressional meddling in things they know nothing about that will cost us far more than if they keep their noses out of the way of the professional - and proven - management brought in to replace the guys who screwed up? And the sad thing is that Hannity's fans would get just as worked up over this as they would over the points he made. And given the choice between making the argument that appeals to only X number of people and making an argument that appeals to 10X number of people, why wouldn't you look to make the second argument?
|