| 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
|
Monday, November 30, 2009
Fortune magazine writer argues that former Enron-CEO Dennis Koslowski ought to be receive clemency.
And in doing so, Kaplan either ignorantly gets all sorts of things mixed up or intentionally mixes them up in order to back up his feeling that there should be criminal charges filed against executives of Wall Street firms that ran into problems last year. Let's start by distinguishing between what Koslowski did and what the current batch of Wall Street executives are alleged to have done. Koslowski stole money from Tyco by paying himself bonuses and using corporate funds for his own benefit without receiving explicit approval from Tyco's board of directors. It didn't matter that the money was properly accounted for on Tyco's books... it's theft if you take property from someone without their approval. The current batch of Wall Street executives engaged in a series of bad - but legal - business decisions that resulted in serious problems for their companies and the country as a whole. They made investments that turned out to be duds. They didn't properly manage risk and diversify their holdings. They didn't anticipate the market turning against them. While their decisions ought to be enough to keep them from holding similar positions anytime in our lifetime, (based on what we know) their actions were NOT illegal. A basic rule is you can't be prosecuted if you don't break a law. It isn't enough that the consequences of your actions are bad, if what you did was legal, you can't be thrown in jail. And a legal act doesn't become an illegal act even if you're motivated by self-interest (such as dreams of the tremendous compensation you'll receive as a result of your business activities). Koslowski belongs in jail not because he was a bad business executive, nor because, like Enron's Andrew Fastow or Worldcom's Scott Sullivan, he engaged in illegal business activities, but because he is a thief... and thieves belong in jail. His sentence was appropriate for the amount of money - millions of dollars - that he was convicted of stealing from Tyco's shareholders. And it doesn't matter that Tyco shareholders benefited in total from his tenure, even after taking into account the money he stole from them.... a thief is a thief and a thief who does good things is still a thief. And while I don't think I'll be hiring anyone from Citigroup, Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns anytime soon, unless it is shown that they hid their activities from their superiors or that they took money that they're weren't contractually entitled to, they don't deserve to be criminally prosecuted for what turned out in hindsight to have been some real stupid business decisions. Note the adjective: stupid. Not illegal. Stupid. One gets you jail, and it should, the other doesn't.. and it shouldn't. Friday, November 27, 2009
Who does the Cuban government think is President of the United States? They're running their biggest military exercises in five years to prepare for a possible invasion of Cuba by American forces. How crazy must they be to think of Obama as someone who not only doesn't like the Cuban dictatorship but is also willing to use military force to remove them from power?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
While fewer people getting laid off is welcome news, repeat after me, IT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT! And it is NOT A SIGN OF RECOVERY!
An improvement is when more people find jobs than lose them. A sign of recovery is net hiring instead of net reductions in staff. Analogy: you have a 101 degree temperature. An hour later, it's at 101. An hour after that, 102. An hour after that, 102.5. Are you recovering? Or are you getting more sick, albeit at a slower rate? You ain't getting better until your temperature starts to drop. And the economy isn't there yet, we are still shedding more jobs than we're adding.
Yeah, with all that is going right in the world, the State Department ought to be spending time and effort and money decorating the State Department building and the Blair House for the holidays. I'm sure that will win the 'hearts and minds' of people around the world.
I hate that the rules prevent Navy Seals from punching a terrorist in the mouth. I think getting punched in the mouth is the minimum a terrorist responsible for killing Americans ought to receive upon being captured.
But I also don't like it when soldiers/sailors/airmen ignore the rules and if they are found to have violated those rules they deserve to be punished. For better or worse - and in my opinion, it is usually for the worse - the men in the field don't get to establish the rules by which they fight our enemies. I hate it that our guys are put in greater risk because of rules that limit their ability to fight back. But these guys know the rules when they signed up. They agreed to follow the orders they are given. Subordinates aren't allowed to pick and choose which orders they want to follow and which they don't. They either follow the rules or they get out or they get punished. Monday, November 23, 2009
Might be interesting to see the impact the Fort Hood killer's possible insanity defense will go over with the crazies who got all excited over his killing 13 people. By extension, if he's motivated by Islamic fanaticism and he's deemed crazy, what does it say about all the others just like him?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Regarding the Democrats 'bribing' Senators to support Obamacare...
Pre-bribe, there are two positions a Senator can have: the legislation is good or it is bad. The question is whether the 'bribe' is sufficient to take a bad bill and turn it into a good bill. I doubt that $300 million in 'bribes' is sufficient to turn a bad bill into a good bill for the people of Louisiana... thus, Landrieu accepting - and bragging about accepting - a 'bribe' of that size to vote for the bill still screws Louisiana residents, albeit $400 million less screwed than would have been the case. (Yes, technically the vote was only to start debate on the bill, but as the 'bribe' is only paid if the bill passes, so I look at Landrieu as having committed to voting for the bill itself). Now if Landrieu had concluded the bill was good, then she has enhanced a good bill to the tune of $300 million, a definite home run for her state. But given that she claimed to be undecided up to the last minute, it would be hard to argue that she had all along intended to vote for the bill. There is one twist: the bill is bad but Landrieu figured it would pass anyway so this was her way of getting something out of it for Louisiana. Unfortunately for this argument, her vote would have kept the bill from being passed so it's hard for her to argue that bill supporters had more than enough votes. And the fact that they had to offer up a $300 million 'bribe' is proof they didn't have the vote: why give away money if they didn't need to? Hopefully, Louisiana residents will see past her focus on the $300 million she 'found' for the state to the overall negatives that this bill has for them. Thursday, November 19, 2009
I know how betrayed and disappointed I was when Bush turned out to be nothing like the President I thought he was going to be. Instead of getting a President who would watch the budget and limit government spending, who wouldn't engage in nation building, who would be a somewhat effective defender of conservative principles and who leave the GOP in no worse shape than he found it, we ended up with a guy who blew the budget, let spending spiral, did nothing while the economy collapsed, embarked on a stupid plan to force democracy on the Middle East, a waste of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and set the stage for the Democrats to take control of Washington. Bush was so bad that at times I really wondered if we wouldn't have been better off if either Gore or Kerry had won. And when he left office, my thoughts ran more to 'good riddance' than 'sorry to see you go'.
I wonder if Obama's supporters - and in particular, the independents whose support put him over the top - are starting to feel the same way about Obama. No matter how much he tries to blame Bush, they know the economy is worse off now than it was when Obama was elected and worse than the day he took office, they know employers have dumped millions of jobs. While they might have liked the abstract of a President who was less arrogant towards the rest of the world, I wonder if they really are all that excited watching Obama bow and apologize to the world. I wonder how safer they feel with Obama deciding to hold the terror trials in NYC rather than in the relative safety and obscurity of Guantanamo Bay, with Justice Department policy being set by lawyers who not too long ago were volunteering to work on behalf of our terrorist enemies. I wonder if they like that their health insurance is going to cost them more and cover less. I wonder how they feel about the all but certain likelihood that their taxes will be going up at the same time the value of their house keeps going down. If I were an independent who had voted for Obama, I can't imagine the scenario in which I would be impressed with the job he has done. I can't imagine them telling themselves they're better off now than on the day he took office. Like me, they're probably glad Bush is gone but completely disillusioned with what Obama is doing. And unlike me, having voted for Obama, I wonder the extent to which they're feeling betrayed and stupid for having fallen for the hype. Maybe they're not at the point where they wish they had voted for McCain but I wonder how far away from that thought they really are...
Why exactly did Nicholas Cage, better known for his acting than his serving as United Nation's Ambassador on Drugs and Crime, need to go to Kenya to visit with jailed Somali pirates in order to figure out why they were pirates?
Let's see, people turn to crime - which includes piracy - if (1) they determine the risk/reward of criminal behavior is better than the alternatives available to them, and (2) they have no moral compass to deter them from doing something in their financial best interests. So my guess is that these pirates told Cage that they had no other prospects that presented them with the same economic benefits and that they didn't figure there was much of a chance of getting caught and jailed (or blown out of the water by US Navy Seals). There is also the possibility that jail is a step up for some of these criminals, that they're better fed and sheltered than if they stayed in Somali, thus making them even less fearful of the consequences of being caught. An easy solution to this is to lower the living standards for jailed criminals, making their lives more miserable than if they stayed home and out of trouble. An even easier solution is to summarily execute anyone caught engaging in piracy, thus providing would-be pirates with a much lower reward/risk ratio. Another question: most ambassadors are ambassadors to some PLACE. Where exactly can one find 'Drugs and Crime' on a map? Does the United Nations have an ambassador to recreation? to shopping?
While technically Jimmy Johnson only has to finish 25th or better on Sunday to win his 4th championship, in reality, he probably doesn't have to finish even that high.
Mark Martin is currently 108 points behind Johnson. With Johnson getting 34 points just for starting on Sunday, Martin has to come up with 143 points to win (Johnson wins any tie based on his having more wins than Martin). So if Martin wins the race and gets the 10 bonus points for leading the most laps, he'd get 195 points on Sunday, giving him 6,579 for the season; Johnson would need the 87 points that goes with 25th place to win the title (if Johnson led any laps, he could finish 26th, if by some chance he led the most laps, he could finish 27th and still win). But the odds are against Martin pulling a 195 point day. A 3rd place finish for Martin (even with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as low as far back as 32nd (and without needing any bonus points). A 5th place finish for Martin (again with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as far back as 36th (again without needing any bonus laps). Interestingly, the NASCAR point system would take points away faster for Martin finishing lower at the front than it would from Johnson finishing lower at the back (at the front, each position is worth 4 or 5 points, at the back, each position is only worth 3). And if Martin only pulls off a top 10, leading some laps but not most? He'd end up with 6,523 points, leaving Johnson to come up with 31 points for the championship... which meaning Johnson wins just by starting. So while the announcers on Sunday are going to do their best to hype the possibility that Martin may pull it out and take the championship away from Johnson, Martin has to come pretty close to winning the race to do so... and that is if Johnson comes in close to last. Of course... with a handful of cars likely to start and park, if Johnson can stay out of trouble for the first handful of laps, he is probably guaranteed close to 37th place points, leaving Martin needing to finish among the top five. Given this, since Johnson and crew chief Chad Knaus have always said their #1 focus is winning the championship, Johnson would improve his odds by dropping back from the pack and running laps by himself until the start and parkers pull off, ensuring him the 37th place finish that is probably enough... at which point he can then jump into the fray and pass the handful of cars he would need to lock things up and without worrying about what might happen in those early dangerous laps.
Paging Glenn Beck, paging Glenn Beck...
What kind of mileage and ratings do you think you can get attacking the Obama Justice Department for hiring lawyers who worked for terrorists? Whatever the American public might think about the legal principle that criminals in general and terrorists in particular have the right to counsel, I think the public would really draw the line at having attorneys who VOLUNTEERED to represent our enemies coming to work at the Justice Department that is supposed to be keeping us safe from those enemies. I know attorneys are fond of claiming that representing someone doesn't mean that the attorney buys into and shares their client's political philosophy (notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as this, an attorney who represents a crook isn't necessarily a crook himself) but I'm pretty confident there's a much higher likelihood that attorneys who VOLUNTEER to represent terrorists would be at least somewhat more supportive of the terrorists than attorneys who thought terrorists were scum who should be taken out back and shot and thus wouldn't have volunteered to represent them. And with the fight against terror being the life and death matter that it is, is there any justification for the Justice Department to hire attorneys who are more likely than not to be at least somewhat supportive of terrorists? Shouldn't we be able to agree that VOLUNTEERING to represent terrorists ought to disqualify someone for employment at the Justice Department... the Pentagon... and the White House?
The role of our military is to protect Americans from harm. The primary way it does so is by deterring our enemies from attacking us... and by retaliating against any enemy who does in fact attack us.
With this in mind, the 'strengths' of our military are those factors which make it less likely that anyone will attack us and which improve the effectiveness of our retaliation. So... how exactly does Army Chief of Staff Casey, recently cited as saying "Our diversity ... is a strength", figure that 'diversity' is something that makes our military more able to deter our enemies and punish those who attack us? Modern tanks and warplanes are a strength, troops that are better at killing our enemy than our enemy is at killing them are a strength, logistics that allow for our military to deploy faster than our enemies is a strength. 'Diversity' doesn't make our planes fly faster, our tanks shoot farther, our troops improve their kill ratio. Do our enemies factor the racial, sexual and religious composition of our troops into their determination of whether to attack us? Do they fear facing a military comprised of Protestant straight white guys less than they fear a military made up of a mix of races, religions, gender and sexual preferences? I don't know of any good reason to exclude women, Muslims, blacks or, for that matter, gays from military service... but that's not the same thing as arguing that our killing power goes down if we don't include them. Casey's remarks strike me as someone who has forgotten what he is supposed to be doing... tis a shame that our military leaders are comprised of people like him. It isn't good for the military, it isn't good for America. Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I don't understand why NYT columnist Thomas Friedman gets such respect. Geez, if I can pick apart his arguments in a couple of minutes, how good can he be?
Here is an excerpt of his column today, with my thoughts in bold italics... The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering. And this is coming, unless, as the deniers apparently believe, a global pandemic or a mass outbreak of abstinence will freeze world population — forever. How many times have gloom and doomers tried scaring people with claims that the world is running out of resources, we're running out of space? We have no place for our garbage! We can't hope to feed all these people! It was bogus when the likes of Paul Ehrlich was making money selling books claiming that we were are doomed, it's sad that Friedman is trotting out the same dead horse to support his proposals. So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency. Thomas, you ignorant fool. We care about being dependent on petro-dictators... which is why we argue for more exploration and development both here in the United States as well as places controlled by friendlies. We also don't have objections to developing alternative energy sources, we just don't want our economy crippled in the process. And there's more: "Green hawks believe otherwise.... It has to be. And we believe that the country that invents and deploys the most E.T. (energy technology) will enjoy the most economic security, energy security, national security, innovative companies and global respect. And we believe that country must be America... And we believe the best way to launch E.T. is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest". So, let's see, you want the free market to play a big part in developing ET... but only after you interfere with the free market by taxing carbon-based energy? You fear the effects of higher prices for carbon-based energy... and your response is to push up the price for carbon-based energy? If you want America to pay higher prices for carbon-based energy, why not just let the free market process play out? If you're right, America will be jump at developing lower priced energy sources... and with our ingenuity, we'd be sure to do so and without the resentment at our own government for being the ones driving up energy prices (wouldn't it be better if we were mad at the Saudis than our own government?). And if you're wrong and the price of carbon-based energy doesn't go through the roof, perhaps because exploration and development generates additional reserves, then so be it, we'll be happy to keep filling up our cars with gasoline and burning coal to provide electricity... and without having the economy take a hit for no good reason. Why fiddle where there's no need to fiddle? And wait, there's still more: So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. Probably because you're a New York elitist who vacations on Long Island, you don't realize that I don't have a beach house, nor do most Americans. You also make the assumption - without offering any proof - that the effect of global warming would be a net negative. I'd be happy to play golf in 70 degree weather in January. I'd be happy not having to heat my house six months a year. Aren't there areas in the world that would become more productive agriculturally? And wouldn't that help to feed all the people wanting, as you put it, 'American sized Big Macs'? What we have here is a failure (cue music from Guns and Roses). Friedman, by his own admission, buys into the whole global warming dogma, complete with apocalyptic consequences for us all if we don't rid ourselves of our addiction to gas. But as neither he nor his comrades have been able to convince America that we need to do so in order to (perhaps) slow down temperature growth (that may not be happening and which we may not be responsible for in the first place), he is trying another track: we're not supposed to give up gas because of global warming but because our economy will crash if we don't. I guess the easiest way of describing his strategy is something along the lines of "if you can't get what you want by scaring them with X, try scaring them with Y.... and if that doesn't work, try scaring them with Z".
During the Bush presidency, there were many times where one agency or another came out with findings or issued a report or released some bit of information that served to undermine a Bush position or policy (the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed that Iran had stopped its work on nukes is but one example)... and pretty much every time, there were cries from the right how unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats were looking to trash Bush policies with which they didn't agree.
So now comes a government task force that recommends that regular mammograms aren't necessary for most women under the age of 50, a recommendation that runs counter to current guidelines that recommend routine mammograms for women starting at age 40. And this news is released just when people are worried about whether Obamacare will result in medical care being rationed by government and in particular, by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats... and the last thing Obama wants now is a real life situation where unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are calling for reductions in the amount of medical care people receive. Does this mean that there is at least one conservative somewhere in the bowels of government?
Jeffrey Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, like so many other people, makes a mistake when he claims that employer provided health care enjoys tax advantages that result in overinsurance and higher costs.
Let's think about this in common sense terms. An employer is going to provide compensation to workers only up to an amount where his employees are satisfied. The compensation will consist of a combination of salary and other benefits such as vacation time, retirement plan contributions, medical insurance, free coffee, etc. Most of the other benefits will have a cost to the employer that gets factored into the employer-employee arrangement. The employee will appreciate only those benefits that provide him with a desired benefit. To the extent that the employee doesn't use or feel a need for a certain benefit, the employee will discount its value to him. Since there is a cost to the employer of providing these benefits, the employer isn't getting his money's worth if any of these benefits don't generate employee satisfaction (in ordinary English, the boss ain't going to pay for something if there's nothing in it for him). Employees do like getting medical insurance as part of their compensation package. But they're not going to appreciate a package that provides them with more coverage than they feel they need. And since it costs more to provide additional coverage, if the boss doesn't think the employees are going to value the added coverage, then the boss isn't going to provide that coverage, he'll take that money and spend it on something else that he thinks his employees will appreciate. Thus, there is no incentive for the employer to provide too much insurance to employees, with 'too much' being defined as more insurance than the employee thinks he or she will use (for example, providing nursing home care benefits to a workforce comprised of teenagers isn't going to go over very well and thus isn't likely to be contained in such a package). And neither is there an incentive for the employee to demand more coverage than they think appropriate. Most employers insist that employees bear at least some of the cost of medical insurance coverage. In most cases, the higher the coverage, the higher the cost to the employee so this would discourage employees from demanding coverage in excess of the amount they thought necessary. And even if employees in a particular situation didn't have to pay more, since everybody knows medical coverage is expensive, they'd be silly if they asked their employer to spend dollars on coverage they didn't need instead of spending on something more to their liking. So where is the incentive for employers to provide their employees with unnecessary coverage? There isn't one. And as far as the tax advantages of employer provided health care, the employer is ambivalent, he gets no more of a deduction for providing health care than he would if he paid the same amount out in straight salary. And while it is cheaper for an employee to receive employer provided health care coverage than to buy it himself, as I pointed out above, there is no incentive for the employee to ask for more than he thinks necessary. No more coverage, no less coverage, just the right amount. And there is one final common sense repudiation of the claim that employers provide too much coverage to their employees.... for all of you who get coverage through your employers, how many of you feel you're getting too much? What's that, none of you do? I thought so.
How can Obama both predict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and sentenced to death AND claim that he isn't prejudging the outcome of the trial?
Here's why Obama's latest approval rating of 53% is worse than it seems...
Obama is over 50% only because he has overwhelming support from Democrats as neither a majority of Independents (45%) nor Republicans (18%) approve of the job he is doing. In other words, he is supported by his liberal base and no one else. And he needs support from somewhere else, in particular the Independents. In any given race, it is presumed that the Democratic candidate will get support from the Democrats and the Republican candidate will get support from the Republicans... making the Independents the constituency whose support is critical to winning election. And he doesn't have that support right now. They don't support him on his handling of foreign policy in general and they support his handling of Afghanistan even less. I'll infer from the poll results that they're not thrilled with his handling of the economy either. Just as Lyndon Johnson was reported to have said "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost middle America", so too if Obama if losing middle America, then he's losing his chances of getting a second term. Having support from your own party is good, but it ain't good enough. Tuesday, November 17, 2009
In business, there are two kinds of decisions: those that are made with an eye towards the bottom line and those that are made for reasons of ego.
And it is often hard for an outside observer to determine which decisions were made because the decision maker thought it would lead to improved profits and which decisions were made because the decision maker just wanted to do so. For example, take CNN's decision to not only sever ties with Lou Dobbs, but to reportedly pay him $8 million to go away. Presumably, Dobbs's show was a net positive to CNN's bottom line, bringing in advertising revenue that exceeded the costs of producing the show. So forcing out Dobbs is going to cost CNN not only the net profit it was making but also the $8 million in goodbye money it paid Dobbs. What does CNN get in return that could justify the hit to the bottom line? It has a time slot that it needs to fill... and with someone or something that would bring in as much money as it was getting with Dobbs. It is possible that CNN has such a personality in mind and thinks this new program can make more than Dobbs. But since Dobbs' ratings were higher than for many of the other CNN shows, let's presume that CNN had other shows that produced less of a profit, so bottom line economics would have CNN putting the new show in Dobbs's slot and moving Dobbs to a slot currently occupied by a show making less money. But CNN didn't do that, they forced Dobbs out altogether. Is it possible that CNN felt its overall profitability was being hurt by Dobbs, that even though Dobbs was profitable, he was having a negative impact on their other shows, resulting in a net negative for Dobbs? Maybe, and if that is the case, we should expect to see viewership rising for CNN's other shows - and with it, ad revenue - once all the viewers boycotting CNN because of Dobbs come back to CNN. But my guess is that isn't the case, that CNN's anemic ratings weren't due to viewers upset that CNN gave Dobbs a platform but rather because CNN's shows just aren't that good. And if that is the case, then CNN will have turned out to have made this decision on ego grounds: they're going to feel emotionally better not having Dobbs.
There's been some fun poked at the Obama Administration's claims that stimulus money was spent to create jobs in Congressional districts.... that don't exist.
Most of the criticism is focused on the jobs aspect. My question involves the money itself: if the money didn't go to those non-existent districts, then where did it go? As it was reported spent, presumably it isn't in government bank accounts, so where is it? Is it simply a case of the Obama Administration mis-identifying the district in which the money was spent? Or is the money truly missing? Or was it diverted to someone's pocket? Monday, November 16, 2009
Legal Translation 101:
Lawyer says: 'client did not have either an attorney or a manager present when he signed the contract' and 'they had a cadre of lawyers so they had a one-sided agreement'. Lawyer means: my client is an idiot who shouldn't be held responsible for his own actions.
Yes, it is good that GM lost less money last quarter than in previous quarters, but it is not necessarily a sign that GM is 'turning its business around'... just as reports that there were fewer layoffs last month than in previous months isn't necessarily a sign that the economy is turning around.
A company that is losing $1 billion is in better shape than a company that is losing $5 billion, just as an economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month is in better shape that an economy that is shedding 600,000 jobs a month. But a reduction in the 'burn rate' can't be extrapolated into a projection of profitability in the case of GM or growth in jobs in the case of the economy as a whole. Let's start with GM: they lost less money due to a combination of expense cuts and a small growth in the number of cars sold. A lot of companies can cut their way to profitability, but GM doesn't have that option as their union contracts limit GM management's ability to keep cutting. Thus, GM profitability is likely to depend on GM selling a lot more cars than it is now. And that is going to be tough to do. With economies down across the globe, growth in one area will likely be offset with declines elsewhere. Other car companies are going to be competing for the customers that exist. And GM's customer base is going to take a hit due to boycotts over GM getting a bailout and GM slashing brands and dealerships. Add to that GM having a bad reputation in terms of product quality and I don't see where the growth is going to come from that GM needs to be profitable. As for the economy, getting businesses to step back from the ledge and stop cutting jobs is one thing. But it is a different game altogether to get businesses optimistic enough to go out and start hiring... and hiring is what drives economic growth over the long term. And what is the prognosis for businesses starting to feel so good about the future that they're going to start hiring? Not good in my mind. The health care reform battle scares businesses, they don't know the extent to which they'll be forced to spend more on their employee's health care... so why hire anyone new until things get sorted out? They also don't see a business friendly Washington, they feel Washington is more likely to pass additional business-unfriendly regulations and tax hikes than anything they feel would be considered pro-growth. They see stimulus money going to state and local governments and not the private sector. They see a White House whose most frequent visitor was a labor leader who wants to make it even easier to organize unions at union-free businesses. So my guess is that GM is nowhere near becoming long-term profitable... and the economy is nowhere near growing again. Reductions in losses are nice... but they're not growth... and I don't see the foundation for real positive news on either front. Thursday, November 12, 2009
Obama started running for President years ago. He won the Democratic nomination the summer of last year. He won election over a year ago. He took office close to 10 months ago.
At all of those times, he knew the economy was in trouble. At all of those times, he knew that we weren't 'winning' in Afghanistan. Plenty of time to start thinking on what he wanted to do to address both of those problem areas. He signed on to a stimulus plan that was supposed to turn around the economy. He fired the commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with someone more to his liking. And while he continues to 'dither' on what to do about Afghanistan, he is convening a forum on joblessness in December where he will reportedly listen to ideas as to how best rescue the economy. Not a bad idea.... seven months ago! It isn't as if he - or anyone else - should have been thinking that the stimulus plan was working (truly he didn't believe his Administration's hype about 'jobs saved or created', did he?). He's known for months that unemployment was going up and expected to go even higher, with hundreds of thousands of monthly layoffs. He's known for months that businesses and individuals are pessimistic and he should have known that pessimistic businesses don't hire and pessimistic individuals don't buy. Back when Obama signed the stimulus into law, there should have been some thinking and planning about what to do if the plan didn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve. Only a fool goes into an operation unprepared for the possibility that Plan A isn't going to work... it's only prudent to have a Plan B in mind (as well as a Plan C and possibly a Plan D). Mechanics have a Plan B ('if replacing the alternator doesn't work, we'll replace the entire engine'). Generals have a Plan B ('we will sweep around the front, if we run into resistance, we'll fall back and call for airstrikes'). Car salesmen have a Plan B ('I'll start with emphasizing how nice they look in the car, if that doesn't work, I'll throw in a free oil change'). The only people who don't have Plan Bs in mind are those who are delusional to the point where they can't imagine their ideas not working. Perhaps Obama could have spent some of the time he's spent golfing and taking his wife out on dates and going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Olympics and traveling the world apologizing for the United States on something else.... like coming up with a Plan B? And even if he didn't want to spend the time on it, with hundreds of White House staffers, as well as staff he could have drawn from other agencies and departments, there wasn't a shortage of people that Obama could have asked to start preparing his some options if Plan A didn't work... if only Obama had thought that coming up with a Plan B was a good idea. So with the economy continuing to suffer, where is Obama's Plan B? Apparently, he doesn't have one. Apparently, he is just now starting to gather ideas that could go into formulating a Plan B. Correction, he is going to wait until December to start gathering ideas. Add to that the time necessary to sift through those ideas and coalesce them into a coherent proposal and the time necessary to work that proposal through a Congress that is going to grow increasingly preoccupied with the fall elections and it is pretty clear that we're not going to see anything for months and months to come... and given that no program is going to have instantaneous results, even more months until we start to see the benefits of whatever they end up coming up with. And to add insult to injury, not only does he not have a Plan B, he is apparently just now concluding that he needs a Plan B, that Plan A isn't working (common sense deduction on my part: if he had done so earlier, then he would have issued his call for a forum earlier as well, right?). Wow.
Let's examine Obama's rejection of all the Afghanistan war options presented to him in the context of regular Joe Smith making a decision.
The easiest decisions for Joe to make are those where Joe (1) knows what he wants to accomplish, (2) has the necessary resources available to him, and (3) doesn't have to get permission from someone else, and (4) has the experience and knowledge to choose from the various options for following through. For example, if Joe is deciding on what he's going to do on vacation, it is pretty straightforward if Joe knows where he wants to go and what he wants to do while there, has the money and the time that he needs to go there, doesn't have to ask permission from a boss or spouse, and has enough experience to decide from the various trip packages which one best suits his objectives. It isn't so easy, and understandably so, if Joe just can't decide what he wants to do or has to persuade a reluctant spouse that it would be fun, or doesn't have the money or can't get the time off or has no idea what is involved in, for example, sailing around the world or taking a safari to Africa. For Obama and Afghanistan, some of these issues shouldn't be a factor: he has pretty much an unlimited budget, he doesn't have to ask anybody's permission. While he himself doesn't have expertise in military operations, with his military advisers, he has the equivalent of a travel agent who does have the expertise to fill in where he can't. So what's missing, what accounts for his dithering, why is he still unable to make a decision? One possibility is that Obama doesn't trust his travel agents, that he suspects they're trying to sell him a bad, overpriced experience, that they care more about themselves than in helping him enjoy his vacation experience, that they're not listening to him, that they're trying to sell him a trip to Finland instead of the trip to Bermuda that he said he wanted. But I am skeptical about this as a possibility. Obama handpicked his travel agents (i.e., military advisers). He hasn't had a bad experience with them that makes him suspect them now. In fact, he hasn't had any experience with them. Maybe there is someone whispering in his ear telling him bad things about his advisers, but if this were so, why hasn't Obama gone and picked himself another set of advisers. Another possibility is that he doesn't know what he wants to accomplish. To paraphrase someone, you can't get there if you don't know where you want to go. But that's unlikely. He's talked enough about what he wants to accomplish - kill Al Qaeda, deny the Taliban the ability to regain control and/or terrorize the population and have a friendly, democratic government willing to help keep America safe - that I dismiss this as a possibility. Another possibility is that he is mentally or emotionally unable to make the decision and issue the orders... so he looks to put it off as long as possible. As I thought Bush held off going after Iran because he wasn't emotionally able to deal with the casualties - and the public criticism - from another conflict, maybe Obama is holding off because he feels that until he makes a decision he can avoid thinking of this as his fight and thus avoid the guilt that comes from having soldiers die carrying out his orders. I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine it being for a good reason. Tuesday, November 10, 2009
While 9/11 took place during Bush's presidency, it was agreed that he shouldn't take all of the blame, that he hadn't enough time in office to completely undo the triple sins of the Clinton Administration: not taking terrorism seriously enough, intelligence agencies that couldn't and wouldn't talk to one another and a 'law enforcement' approach that worried more about probable cause and warrants and maintaining walls between agencies than in gathering and sharing and acting on the intelligence that could have prevented the attacks from taking place.
So... the same logic dictates that Bush should receive a lot of the blame for what happened at Fort Hood. Obama's been in office a bit under 10 months, not much longer than Bush was on 9/11. And it wasn't Obama that put in the rules and attitudes that kept authorities from learning and acting on the intelligence that could have prevented this attack from taking place. While one usually associates the Democrats with pushing PC thinking that keeps people from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being labeled a bigot and that keeps people in the military from doing the same for fear of being seen as not sufficiently supportive of the diverse military Army Chief of Staff Casey is so proud of, this isn't an attitude that sprung up only in January of this year (and if anyone can provide evidence that Obama reversed a Bush policy that would have prevented this attack, I stand ready to back off). Bush was a huge proponent of the 'we're not at war with Muslims' mantra that did so much to discourage critical examination of suspicious behavior of Muslims; it was members of the Bush Administration who criticized the actions taken against the 'flying imans'. Bush was the President when the attitudes in the military were set and hardened. Bush promoted and retained those who are now in top spots at the Pentagon, it isn't as if these guys all went soft only after Bush left office. Bush was the President when agencies were supposed to give up their turf wars to instead focus on sharing information with one another; Bush presided over a huge government re-organization that was supposed to eliminate screw ups such as this. Bush was the President whose Vice President famously said they didn't want to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud.... as it turns out, the smoking gun was a smoking gun. Hasan was able to do what he did because the people and policies Bush put in place were not up to the task. And for a President whose supporters claimed kept us safe ever since 9/11, I think the Fort Hood shootings is pretty good evidence that the reason we weren't attacked isn't because we were detecting and preemptively acting against threats such as Hasan... we weren't attacked in spite of what Bush was doing and not because of him.
Did Obama actually say the killings at Fort Hood were "incomprehensible"?
Per the dictionary, incomprehensible means, as one might think, unable to be understood... so I have to ask, how stupid is Obama if he can't understand what happened? A nut went off and killed 13 people and wounded more than thirty others. What part of that is incomprehensible? That nuts kill people? That sometime nuts are able to kill a bunch of people before they're stopped? Or is Obama referring not to the act itself but rather the motivation(s) of the nut? Sorry, move along, there's nothing here that is incomprehensible. Whether he was driven by (in no particular order and without endorsing any) radical Islam, fear of being shipped overseas, vicarious PTSD, the alleged hazing he received as a Muslim or anything else, again, what is so incomprehensible about those? There is NOTHING incomprehensible about any of this. I know it and the soldiers at Fort Hood who had the 'honor' of listening to Obama know this. They might have been surprised that it happened, but they have no problem understanding what happened... and with more information, they'll have no problem understanding why it happened. Jeez, for a guy who's supposed to be the cat's meow when it comes to eloquent speeches, sometimes Obama - even with TOTUS present - just really screws the pooch.
CNN is having their 'Hero of the Year' vote right now, and in typical CNN/liberal style, their 'heroes' are, as far as I can tell, all people who have done nice things but not things that I would call heroic.
A hero is someone who voluntarily puts his own life at risk to save others. A hero is not merely someone who saves other people. For example, by my definition, Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who did a heck of a job landing his stricken airplane in the middle of the Hudson River isn't a hero... because his life was already at risk, he didn't put it at risk. And a hero definitely isn't someone who does good deeds. Yeah, I know the dictionary definition could be interpreted that way, so CNN is saved by the technicality, but I think the word ought to be saved for the very small number of people who truly do heroic acts. Saved, for example, for someone like Fort Hood police officer Kimberly Munley, who didn't have to charge into the shooting zone, who never would have been disciplined or second guessed had she stayed outside and waited for backup, but who instead risked her life in order to save the lives of others. And where is Munley among the nominees on the CNN site? Nowhere to be found. Disappointing, but not surprising. And unfortunately, there's no ability to cast write-in votes for Officer Munley. And the MSM wonders what they're doing wrong, why their readership and, in the case of CNN, their viewership, well, how do I put it, that's right, s***s and keeps falling. Any business that is that out of touch with its customers and prospects is going to find itself with fewer customers... and the MSM, for all of their talk that they are somehow special, is no different.
I didn't vote for Tim Kaine four years ago, mostly because I tend not to vote for Democrats, in part because Kaine is anti-death penalty and I figured he would issue blanket clemency to everybody on death row.
So I need to applaud his decision to not let Beltway sniper off the hook. Muhammad is the poster child for someone deserving execution and it's nice to see that Kaine - as he promised during the campaign, a promise I didn't believe - isn't going to let his personal opposition to the death penalty stand in the way of justice.
Slate's legal writer Dahlia Lithwick is a good liberal, so on cue she takes shots at conservative Clarence Thomas "Now, as Cookie Monster well knows, asking questions is a very good way to find out about things. Someone should tell Justice Clarence Thomas", an obvious dig at Thomas famously not asking questions at oral arguments.
And Lithwick's fawning over liberals keeps her from pointing out that asking questions at oral arguments about issues that one could - and should - have known well before oral arguments isn't a great way of impressing Cookie Monster... that is, of course, if the clueless Justice is the great liberal hope, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who not only once but twice asks questions I would be embarrassed to not have known the answer prior to oral arguments (asking whether educational and vocational training are available to the LWOP kids, and why one of the petitioner's co-perpetrators' sentences were dramatically lower than his). If Ginsberg had prepped for this case, as one ought to be safe in presuming, and if these issues were important to her, then why didn't she find out the answers ahead of time? Neither question is such that it could only have been answered in oral arguments. And neither question, as far as I can tell, is relevant to the question before the court that day. But to suggest a liberal fave is not that bright? Not for Lithwick. Monday, November 09, 2009
The dog not barking.... Chapter too many to count.
A continuing series documenting the number of times the GOP fails to take advantage of the opportunities their opponents give them. For example, Obama fails to attend the celebration of the collapse of the Berlin Wall... and who on the GOP rose to the podium to criticize him for having time to speak with our enemies but not for celebrating victories over Communism? Or how about Obama making derogatory comments aimed at those protesting against Obamacare? He's gotten criticized by right-leaning bloggers, but who among the elected Republicans rose to criticize Obama? Right, no one. Or Obama's inappropriate use of the shootings at Fort Hood to encourage Democratic Representatives to vote for Obamacare? Or the Obama Administration's use of bogus numbers to justify its stimulus? To quote Bob Dole, where is the outrage? The GOP can't expect people who don't follow the minutia of politics to pick up on this stuff out of thin air, they need to jump in front of some microphones and start writing some newspaper op-eds. To mangle a metaphor, it's as if the GOP is at bat, Obama is floating softballs down the middle of the plate and the GOP not only isn't hitting the ball out of the park, they're not even swinging. And not only is the GOP not stepping up to the plate, they've got RNC head Michael Steele acting like an idiot. Even if what he says is true, what good does it do the GOP for Steele to bring it up?
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...
I figured the WSJ article "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It" had to be a parody or farce... but it isn't. The author's argument is that those with money 'owe' it to the recipients (to no surprise, including organizations such as that which employ the author). He argues that charitable organizations should be forced to give away more of their resources on an annual basis, that donors are being stingy (this one alone amazes me, the claim that people donating money are stingy), that the process of doling out money should be changed to make it easier for those asking for money to ask for money, that money be given on a long term basis and to organizations which the author deems worthy. But the fatal flaw in the author's arguments is that the money isn't his and thus it isn't up to him or other would-be recipients of charity to dictate the terms of that charity. Whether an individual giving away his or her own money or a foundation giving away money in accordance to its charter, those who have the money have the right to dictate the terms by which they give it away. If someone wants to give their money to help cause X or cause Y, it isn't for this schmuck to tell them no, they have to give it to somebody else because he deems them more worthy. If a foundation wants to give away money on an annual basis, in part because doing so allows them to monitor that it is being used in accordance with the foundation's mission, that is their prerogative. If organizations such as that which employ the author don't like the terms by which they're being offered money, they're free to turn it down and look elsewhere for funding.... and not b***h that they're not being given enough of someone else's money.
Isn't German Chancellor Merkel thanking Gorbachev for his part in the collapse of the Berlin Wall somewhat akin to Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo thanking Philadelphia Eagle cornerback Sheldon Brown for blowing the coverage that allowed Dallas to score the winning touchdown?
It isn't as if Gorbachev set out to preside over the dismantling of the Soviet Union, of which the collapse of the Berlin Wall was the defining image. Gorbachev was the political equivalent of a doctor who subjected a somewhat ill patient to an experimental treatment (perestroika) that only succeeds in killing the patient... and getting thanked by those mentioned in the will.
It will be interesting if the conservatives who called for investigating who leaked classified information on NSA interception of terrorist communications also call for an investigation into the (apparent) leak of classified information that the intelligence agencies were aware that the Fort Hood shooter had attempted to contact Al Qaeda?
Larry Johnson wasn't released by the Chiefs because of the gay slurs he allegedly made, he was released, in order, because the Chiefs suck and aren't going anywhere and because he sucks and isn't worth the money the Chiefs were otherwise obligated to pay him.
Does anybody doubt that if the Chiefs were in the hunt for the playoffs and/or Johnson was performing at 1,000 yard levels that they wouldn't have kept him? Sunday, November 08, 2009
Just a reminder in case anyone needs reminding...
We wouldn't be facing government takeover of health care if: BUSH HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS PRESIDENT and/or MCCAIN HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS A CANDIDATE and/or THE CONGRESSIONAL GOP HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS THE MAJORITY If any of the above were true, does anybody think that Obama would be President? Or is he was, that the Democrats would have the margins in Congress that they have? I don't know how much time Bush spent thinking about his legacy. But to the extent he did, he probably would like to be remembered as the President who made us safer by bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. But not only did he fail to do that, his legacy should be that of having screwed things up so bad (granted, per above, not on his own) that the Democrats were given a once in a lifetime chance to wreak their agenda on the country. Friday, November 06, 2009
At what point is society justified in taking action against someone who has not committed a crime?
A lot of conservative blogs are complaining (and here) that authorities did nothing about the Fort Hood shooter despite having ample evidence that "military and medical officials recognized what was going on with this major and chose to do nothing about it". But none of his (alleged) actions amounted to a crime. It isn't a crime to be Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings, nor is it a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings who had received a poor performance rating at his last post. It is possible that there is a point at which there are so many concerns that it becomes more prudent to act preemptively, but unlike the movie 'Minority Report', doing so can never be shown to be 100% justified... so where is the line drawn? It isn't as if every soldier with the above characteristics is a terrorist waiting to strike. And it isn't as if every terrorist is going to have those characteristics. So is it being Muslim that triggers the discharge? Being Muslim and not wanting to go overseas? Or does being Muslim have nothing to do with it, that not wanting to go overseas and spending time on the firing range will be more determinative of latent terrorists than the other characteristics attributed to the shooter? And keeping in mind that there (thankfully) haven't been enough examples to build a statistically reliable model for predicting which soldiers are terrorists, any model is going to be based on nothing more than someone's hunch. Are we comfortable with taking action against someone based on a hunch? It's one thing to monitor someone on a hunch, it's quite another to take action against them on a feeling that something is wrong with them. And add to this the very real issue of medical doctors who look for ways to avoid having to repay the military for having paid for their not-so-inexpensive medical education, perhaps by posing as unstable and/or a poor performer, and I think it is quite justifiable that the military was being careful before jumping to conclusions that this guy was a threat and kicking him out of the military and/or seeking to court-martial him. Thursday, November 05, 2009
One often solves multi-variable algebra equations (such as 3X + Y = 27) by first rephrasing one of the variables in terms of the other and inserting it into the equation (not sure I'm describing it well but please bear with me).
And this approach can work elsewhere as well. Take for example the Wall Street Journal editorial headline "Voters fear that liberal policies are endangering economic recovery. Now replace 'liberal policies' with 'take from me to give to others' and replace 'economic recovery' with 'my job security, health care and retirement prospects' and you have "Voters fear taking from me to give to others are endangering my job security, health care and retirement prospects"... in other words, a apt description of what is happening across the country... and as such, voters aren't going to be too happy with those who are proposing to do just that. I've argued before that most people are willing to help others... but only to the extent doing so doesn't involve too great a sacrifice (obvious exceptions include the military and police). Put another way, charity is a luxury, something that is indulged only after the basic necessities are taken care of. While someone may do without steak, very few people will agree to go to go without food so someone they're not related to can eat. Very few people will willingly give up a portion of their paycheck to save the job of someone else. Yes, there's a degree of selfishness involved, in that people look to take care of themselves before they help someone else, but it's also basic human nature. And liberal policies are viewed by most people as benefiting someone other than themselves. People don't view welfare programs and subsidized housing as something that benefits them, they (and rightly so, based on the numbers, there are fewer people on welfare and receiving subsidized housing than those who don't) view these programs as helping someone else. Card check union organizing? Doesn't help me. Providing health care to those without coverage? Ditto, it benefits someone else, not me. Pushing banks to loan money to people with bad credit ratings and/or no real income? Not me, I have a job and decent credit. In fact, I'm not sure of a single liberal program that benefits the majority of people in this country. Social Security? Nope, most people aren't getting checks. Medicare? Medicaid? Sorry, no. Minimum wage laws? Not even close. And right now, an awful lot of the public doesn't feel their basic necessities are being taken care of. And of these people, those who look to the government to take care of them (example: the woman in the Obama video who said something along the lines of that Obama was going to take care of her mortgage) are going to have no problem with what Obama is doing. But for everybody else, who either doesn't look to the government or would but has no confidence the government is up to the task), they're feeling mighty vulnerable... and people who are worried about having a job, having to face higher health care premiums, a house that has dropped in value and a 401(k) that isn't going to let them retire on a beach aren't much in the mood to support policies that amount to taking even more money out of their pocket to give to someone - and less deserving - else. And voters view conservative policies as 'taking care of me before I take care of someone else'. It's the safe harbor one turns to in times of uncertainty. When one doesn't feel safe, you lock up the criminals, you don't run the risk of rehabilitation gone wrong. And when one isn't sure there is going to be a job, let alone a raise, that's when they become a bit more reluctant to see their taxes go up. When their businesses are facing layoffs, they're not excited about higher corporate taxes and regulations that make it layoffs even more likely. This isn't to say that there aren't 'compassionate conservatives' or people who claim to be liberals who first look out for themselves, I'm commenting on the way the public defines 'liberal policies' and 'conservative policies'. So, you ask, how did liberal Obama win last year with all of the uncertainty going on? Doesn't his election disprove your theory? Well, I respond, it's not theory, it's proven fact. And remember Obama did a heck of job (along with his sycophantic media friends) of hiding his liberal views, he painted himself as 'post-partisan', the public didn't consider themselves as voting for a liberal (and as a side note, didn't most of the Democrats who took GOP seats describe themselves as somewhat conservative?. And just as nature abhors a vacuum, even in troubled times, if no one represents the conservative viewpoint, then the public isn't going to turn to what isn't there, and McCain certainly didn't paint himself as the safe harbor conservative people wanted. McCain not only ran as the non-conservative conservative, a position that appealed to few people, he did a terrible job of it. Ta da.
If taxes were a big deal in both the Virginia and New Jersey races for governor, considering that state taxes are usually lower than federal (income and payroll) taxes), wouldn't it stand to reason that taxes (and, in particular, raising them) would be an even bigger issue on the national stage?
A 10% hike in state income taxes or a similar boost in the state sales tax is going to hurt a whole lot less than a 10% in federal income taxes.
I don't think health insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions... or, more to the point, I don't think people with insurance should have their premiums raised to provide medical coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If our elected representatives want to provide medical care to people with pre-existing conditions who don't have the money to pay for that care themselves, then they ought to acknowledge this and write the check directly. But if our elected representatives want to provide this coverage, it is inconsistent to, as is being proposed, delay coverage for six months. If Congress says it isn't right that people with pre-existing conditions can't get someone else to cover most of the cost of treating those conditions... doesn't Congress have the obligation to pay for that treatment from Day One? What rationale justifies saying to someone 'yes, you shouldn't have to pay for that treatment yourself, but we're not going to start paying for six months?'. And it doesn't make medical sense either. Delaying coverage for six months will only lead to people holding off on getting care during the gap... which will lead to people needing more care once they get coverage. If keeping people from getting sick and needing care is a key component to reducing health care outlays, how does encouraging someone to do without treatment for six months going to help? Wednesday, November 04, 2009
You can run but you can't hide.... no, that doesn't quite work to describe why White House efforts to distance themselves from yesterday's vote isn't going to work.
Voters will decide whether the losses were because of Obama, despite Obama or had nothing to do with Obama, but they're going to decide on their own and not merely follow the story line pushed by the Obama Administration... or, for that matter, spin pushed by jubilant Republicans. Nor, for that matter, are voters going to blindly accept Michael Steele's pronouncement that 'voters rejected Obama's policies'.
Lessons from yesterday:
Sarah Palin excites hard conservatives but does no good with anybody else. She probably alienates the moderate voters whose support the GOP needs. A public fight within the GOP may be good for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's ratings, but it doesn't help get GOP - or conservative - candidates elected. Such fights only reinforce the mushy middle's fear that conservative candidates do not represent their interests. McDonnell's victory shows a conservative can win... but by emphasizing conservative issues that resonate with the moderates (such as taxes and government spending) and not the issues that excite conservatives but scare the moderates (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.). A note: the last GOP governor in Virginia, Jim Gilmore, won by running on a very explicit anti-tax platform. The results should be a nail in the coffin that claimed the 2008 results were an endorsement of liberal policies and candidates and a repudiation of all things Republican and conservative. Obama's win, as well as that of the other Democrats who unseated GOP incumbents, was due more to voter antipathy towards Bush and incumbents in general than it was due to a seismic shift in voter philosophy. The vote wasn't a repudiation of Obama specifically, but it was a rejection that conservatism is dead or that the voters have bought into a big government, big spending model. The results should also shut up those conservatives who argue that targeting conservatives is the key to victory. Granted, GOP candidates can't win without conservatives showing up to vote, but that isn't enough, neither McDonnell nor Christie would have won if they didn't capture the majority of self-described independent voters... and as I wrote above, the key to these voters is to focus on what they want to hear, not what the conservatives want to tell them. A nod to the non-barking dog: what wasn't present during this campaign were Republicans caught up in scandal or exhibiting extreme incompetence (I'm excluding Scozzafava on this one). There weren't any GOP representatives caught texting inappropriate messages to teens. There wasn't a Bush mangling the aftermath of a natural disaster. There weren't any GOP candidates caught being unfaithful to their wives (Sanford happened too long ago to have an impact during this cycle). Granted, politics is local, but it sure helps GOP candidates if their fellow Republicans can keep from making a***s of themselves. And neither were there any GOP candidates or other officeholders scaring voters with racially insensitive comments or taking controversial stances on hot-button issues. There weren't any GOP figures off making waves on immigration or proposing to outlaw abortion or demanding that every schoolkid be forced to memorize the Bible or stuff like that. The mushy middle doesn't identify themselves as Republicans because they don't want to 'tarnish' themselves by being too closely affiliated with those they consider wacko... and the less airtime the wackos get, the easier it is to convince these moderates to vote for Republicans. Those are the lessons I think were taught yesterday. Of course, everybody will read into yesterday what they want to see. Palin supporters will claim her support helped Doug Hoffman more than it hurt... but it's hard to argue with the statistics that had him coming in second. Obama supporters will claim yesterday was a bunch of one-off local events, with no significance to the national stage. One outcome I am pretty confident of (and depressed about at the same time): yesterday's results are confirmation of the polls that indicate a majority of the public doesn't approve of what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do. Up to yesterday, Obama and the Democrats have tried to ignore the polls showing opposition to their health care reform and their environmental policies and their spending and stimulus plans, claiming that the polls didn't accurately reflect the mood of the people. But it's hard to argue with election results. And while they'll try to claim (see above) that yesterday's results don't mean anything to the Democratic agenda, they're going to find it harder to deny that their policies run counter to what the public wants. But rather than tailor back their platform, I believe they're going to double down and push even harder. Most of the Democrats are in safe seats, they fear having to face an even more liberal in the primary than they fear their GOP challenger. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election for another three years. So while they figure some of their colleagues may take a hit next fall (still a long way off), they know they'll never again have the numbers with which to force through their agenda. Thankfully, there is no way to analyze yesterday's results and conclude the public disapproved of Republican opposition to Obama... so any fear that the GOP might have had of being seen on the wrong end of the issues ought to have dissipated.... giving them the excuse to stand together in opposition to Obama... and while GOP opposition by itself isn't enough, it is enough to deny any vulnerable Democrats the safety of claiming their support of Obama had bi-partisan backing. The key to defeating Obama's agenda was always in the hands of the not-so-liberal Democrats on the Hill... and I doubt that many of them slept soundly last night. Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The lesson from the NY23 race is NOT that the GOP should nominate only conservatives but rather that there is no need for the GOP to nominate a liberal Republican in districts where there is sufficient support for a conservative nominee to win. But where there isn't enough support, nominating conservative candidates is political suicide.
And the lesson from the Virginia Governor's race is NOT that it is enough to nominate conservative candidates but rather that conservative candidates need to keep from scaring off the moderate voters whose votes are needed. McDonnell is definitely a conservative but he campaigned on issues that not only didn't scare off moderate voters but actually resonated with them.
It's never government spending that is the problem, it's always a 'lack of revenue'...
The DC area subway system is short of money and the Washington Post dutifully reports that a falloff in subway riders is responsible. Instead of a 3% jump in ridership, due to the recession and the aftermath of a subway crash earlier this year, actual ridership has fallen 6%. Of course, if the Metro system hadn't based their spending plans on a 'I have a dream of more riders', and instead had set spending levels on a more conservative estimate of ridership, they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage. Or if they had not figured on spending ALL of the revenue they hoped to get and instead had given themselves a cushion, then they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage. Normally, I don't like it when governments look to raise taxes and fees when they run short of money, but since subway riders pay but a fraction of the true cost of their rides, I have no problem with raising fares. But that alone isn't going to solve Metro's cash problems, they're not planning on raising fares enough to cover the shortfall. It would be nice if they took a knife and cut some spending, but that just isn't in the DNA of a government bureaucrat. Monday, November 02, 2009
Trading on insider information is basically illegal... but where is the harm that justifies calling the foul?
Let's look at two ways in which an 'insider' takes advantage of their inside information: someone with inside information buys stock in advance of the release of good news and someone with inside information sells stock in advance of the release of bad news. In both cases, the 'insider' gets a better price than they would had they not acted until the information become public knowledge. In the former, the insider gets to buy at a lower price, for the latter, they get to sell at a higher price. The insider certainly benefits, but who gets hurt? As counter intuitive as it might seem as the markets are often thought of as a zero sum game (in which one's gain has to be offset by someone else's loss) , just because someone benefits doesn't mean that someone else suffered. Let's start with the insider who buys in advance of the release of good news that will drive the stock price higher. They're buying from someone who wants to sell and at a price the seller is willing to accept. The seller is not being forced to sell, nor is the seller being forced to sell at a lower price than they want, the seller is putting in his sell order at the then-current price and taking his cash to do with whatever they want. They're getting what they wanted, so how are they being hurt? Sure, they're not going to reap the benefit of the good news, but they weren't planning on holding the stock anyway. They're losing out because the good news hasn't been made public, but they're not losing because someone else was buying on the basis of that news. In fact, the seller may actually benefit from the insider buying stock as, were that buyer not buying stock, the selling price of those shares might actually be even lower (it would depend on the amount of stock being purchased and whether it was enough to 'move' the markets, but in no case, would someone buying stock put downward pressure on a stock price). Now let's look at the insider who sells in advance of bad news. This situation is almost a perfect mirror of the above example. The insider is selling stock to a willing buyer at the price the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer isn't paying any more than he wants to pay, he's not being forced to buy stock he doesn't want to buy. As with the above, the buyer is hurt because he doesn't know of the bad news, but he're not being hurt because an insider is selling. And as with the above, the buyer may actually be getting a better price than he would otherwise have to pay as the insider selling stock puts some downward pressure on the stock price; absent the insider selling, the asking price for those shares might be a tick higher. So I don't see where insider trading harms the 'innocent' buyers and sellers. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Who else is old enough to remember when Newt Gingrich was leading the charge against the GOP establishment? When he blasted then-minority leader Bob Michel for being too cozy with the Democrats? When there was no way he'd support a candidate as liberal as Dede Scozzafava?
And now he's become the establishment, encouraging voters to support candidates not on the basis of their views but rather because they have an (R) next to their name. Sunday, November 01, 2009
What does it mean for a candidate to be endorsed by a union of government workers?
In pretty much all cases, it means that the candidate is the candidate who is most in favor of raising taxes, expanding the size of the government work force and diminishing any effective public control over the activities of the particular union. In other words, a union endorsement ought to serve as a call for conservative and moderate voters to vote for the other candidate. Government workers can be divided into four groups: police, fire, teachers and everybody else. Each group is primarily concerned with whether a candidate is going to support increasing the size of their workforce and giving raises to their members. If the candidate is, they get the endorsement. There are some side issues. The police endorsement may hinge in part on whether a particular candidate has a history of demonizing the police. The teachers dislike candidates who dare to interfere in the curriculum. But it almost always comes down to which candidate is more willing to throw money at the public workers. Of course, the union never describes it as such. They always claim the candidate they endorse is, for example, 'the best for the kids'. But anyone who believes that teachers are more interested in the kids they teach than in their own wallets is also apt to buy beachfront property in Arizona and bridges in Brooklyn. The same for anyone who thinks government clerks and bureaucrats are really interested in providing as much public service as can for as little money as possible. Doubt it? Imagine there was a pill that would immediately bestow someone with all the knowledge they would gain from 12 years of public school. Do you think the teachers would be in favor? Or a pill that eliminated all crime and, with it, the need for a police department? How many police officers, for all of their talk about wanting to 'protect and serve' the public, would be supportive.. compared to the number who would do away with the pill in order to keep their jobs? Or if there existed a pocket sized fire extinguisher that could put out a ten-alarm fire? I imagine there would be a few firemen willing to break a few laws in order to make sure that device never made it to market. For all their talk, the public is way down on their list of concerns. Not surprisingly, they care less about us than they care about their own paychecks, their own pensions and their ability to go about their day with as little interference from outsiders as possible. So when I hear a candidate brag about their having been endorsed by a public workers union, I hear a candidate telling me they are putting the interests of public workers ahead of my interests. In other words, I hear them telling me to vote for the other candidate.
Democrats decry the claim that their health care plans would result in government rationing of health care, and they're particularly upset over the suggestion that 'death panels' would deny care to the chronically sick and the elderly.
But why should the public believe them, especially in the rationale they're using to limit the use of flex health spending accounts because, in part, "... it would help curb overuse of medical care" and that such plans create "an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs" (My italics). Isn't that the exact thing critics are worried about, that government will use its power to decide what is and what isn't 'pressing needs' and to limit access to care for anything they decide isn't that important? Of course, the Democrats could simply remove the requirement that health spending account money be spent within a designated period, thus removing the need to spend money on care that they don't think is so pressing... but that wouldn't raise any tax revenue, would it?
|