Newt is fading and Rick Santorum is rising as the final "anyone but Mitt" candidate. The fact that he is the last person in the race who has not achieved this distinction says a lot about his qualifications. He is a former senator with no executive experience. He is also a fierce social conservative.
Personally, I think that Santorum would be a disaster for the Republican party. His views on sex and marriage mirror those from the first half of the 20th century. In his book, It Takes a Family, he makes his positions clear. He is against premarital sex, contraceptives for married couples, divorce and women working outside of the home. His position on gay marriage earned him a Google-bombing. While it is perfectly acceptable for someone to hold these opinions, he has implied that the government should enforce them. That puts him at odds with most of the country. He is just plain unelectable.
He has also hurt the Republican Party. They scored some points against Obamacare forcing religious institutions to pay for services that they do not agree with but now Santorum has changed the conversation away from religion to birth control with his opinion that birth control is harmful to women.
Between them, my wife and daughter have violated about everything that Santorum believes about women should behave. I can't support a candidate who would disapprove of my family and I expect that most of the country agrees with me on this.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Pipeline Hysterics
This week has seen an hysterical effort to bury the Keystone pipeline (pun intended). Its opponents are insisting that a) the oil from tar sands is so dirty that it will push us past a tipping point and b) the pipeline itself is a threat to a major aquifer. Neither of these is the real reason for the push.
The tar sands will be turned into oil regardless of the pipeline. Some of it already is being transported and refined in the US. Canada has made it clear that they will build a pipeline to the coast and send the oil to China to refine if we will not take it. The oil itself is only 5% "dirtier" than lighter oils. Further, the US is already criss-crossed with oil pipelines. There is nothing special about this one.
So why the push? Environmentalists are trying to draw line in the (tar) sand. They do not want any new sources of oil developed regardless of other considerations. Jobs? Reduced reliance on foreign oil? These are inconsequential. On Monday the leader of the push, Bill McKibben, went on the Colbert Report and said that he is trying to get everyone into clean plug-in hybrids. This is a $39,000 car, after subsidies. A comparable gasoline-powered car would be the Chevy Cruz which starts at $16,800. So, Bill McKibben is trying to entice you into a $22,000 upgrade.
All of this is to stop global warming.
Funny thing about that - it seems to have stopped on its own. The news reports for 2011 were scary - it was the 11th hottest year on record and hotter than every year in the 20th century except 1998. Put another way, 2011 was the second coolest year of the 21st century.
In the meantime, oil continues to be vital to modern civilization. We power our cars with it. Much of modern life is based on petroleum-based plastics. It is even used to make some of our medicines. Cutting ourselves off from this without a replacement because of the possibility of global warming would be, at best, wrenching.
But the activists don't care. Their convictions are stronger than science or reason.
The tar sands will be turned into oil regardless of the pipeline. Some of it already is being transported and refined in the US. Canada has made it clear that they will build a pipeline to the coast and send the oil to China to refine if we will not take it. The oil itself is only 5% "dirtier" than lighter oils. Further, the US is already criss-crossed with oil pipelines. There is nothing special about this one.
So why the push? Environmentalists are trying to draw line in the (tar) sand. They do not want any new sources of oil developed regardless of other considerations. Jobs? Reduced reliance on foreign oil? These are inconsequential. On Monday the leader of the push, Bill McKibben, went on the Colbert Report and said that he is trying to get everyone into clean plug-in hybrids. This is a $39,000 car, after subsidies. A comparable gasoline-powered car would be the Chevy Cruz which starts at $16,800. So, Bill McKibben is trying to entice you into a $22,000 upgrade.
All of this is to stop global warming.
Funny thing about that - it seems to have stopped on its own. The news reports for 2011 were scary - it was the 11th hottest year on record and hotter than every year in the 20th century except 1998. Put another way, 2011 was the second coolest year of the 21st century.
In the meantime, oil continues to be vital to modern civilization. We power our cars with it. Much of modern life is based on petroleum-based plastics. It is even used to make some of our medicines. Cutting ourselves off from this without a replacement because of the possibility of global warming would be, at best, wrenching.
But the activists don't care. Their convictions are stronger than science or reason.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Obama Paradox
President Obama presents a paradox. He does not actually like being president. He hates politics. He and his wife hate Washington DC. Obama has complained for years about his inability to accomplish his goals. He essentially quit governing mid-Summer and went into campaign mode where it is more important to score political points and please constituent groups than to actually accomplish anything.
So why is he trying so hard to keep his job?
Obama's 2013 budget is an example. To quote Dana Milbank
and
And this is from one of the Washington Post's stable of left-leaning columnists.
Like Obama's proposed stimulus package last Fall, this was never meant to be a serious budget. It is a campaign platform. It raises taxes on the rich, cuts payments to doctors, and rewards heavily unionized groups (construction and teachers).
So, Obama neglects his duties as President to produce a real budget and instead issues a budget that he knows will never be considered to make his case for reelection to a job that he his dislikes and is not very good at.
Hence the paradox.
So why is he trying so hard to keep his job?
Obama's 2013 budget is an example. To quote Dana Milbank
The White House's budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts and omits all kinds of painful decisions. Even then, the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago — and it is a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign document.
and
As such, the rollout couldn't have been more purely political if it had included a balloon drop.
And this is from one of the Washington Post's stable of left-leaning columnists.
Like Obama's proposed stimulus package last Fall, this was never meant to be a serious budget. It is a campaign platform. It raises taxes on the rich, cuts payments to doctors, and rewards heavily unionized groups (construction and teachers).
So, Obama neglects his duties as President to produce a real budget and instead issues a budget that he knows will never be considered to make his case for reelection to a job that he his dislikes and is not very good at.
Hence the paradox.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Religion and Dirty Tricks
During George W. Bush's presidency the left ran articles warning that his Middle East policies were influenced by his being an evangelical Christian. Supposedly Bush's support for Israel was nothing more than an attempt to satisfy the preconditions for the End Times. People who actually knew Bush said that this was ridiculous but the accusations still received wide play.
I am seeing the same sort of thing about Mitt Romney - that he is trying to fulfill some Mormon prophesy. The source of this and other rumors against Romney is probably the Obama campaign.
The Clintons assembled an efficient dirty tricks squad. It was used effectively to deflect revelations about Bill's many affairs. Hillary used it in her run for president four years ago. The rumor that Barrack Obama is a secret Muslim was traced back to her campaign. Obama inherited the squad and used it against McCain and Palin. Their attacks on McCain never went beyond "He's old" but their attacks on Palin were spectacularly effective. She was introduced as McCain's running mate just before the Republican convention and by the end of the convention she was denying that she had faked her pregnancy.
Last Summer the Obama campaign let it be known that they considered Romney their most dangerous opponent. Their counter-strategy was to define Romney as "different" and "strange" meaning Mormon.
And here we are, months later with stories circulating about how strange the Mormons are. Granted, Mormons do have some strange beliefs, but by that standard then so do Gingrich and Santorum. Since both are practicing Catholics then both believe that an old German in Rome with connections to the Nazis has a direct line to God.
All of this is incredibly un-American. The Founders were so against a religious test for holding office that they put it in the main body of the Constitution instead of the Bill of Rights.
That is what the whisper campaign against Romney amounts to - a religious test. And it is exactly what the Obama campaign said they would do.
I am seeing the same sort of thing about Mitt Romney - that he is trying to fulfill some Mormon prophesy. The source of this and other rumors against Romney is probably the Obama campaign.
The Clintons assembled an efficient dirty tricks squad. It was used effectively to deflect revelations about Bill's many affairs. Hillary used it in her run for president four years ago. The rumor that Barrack Obama is a secret Muslim was traced back to her campaign. Obama inherited the squad and used it against McCain and Palin. Their attacks on McCain never went beyond "He's old" but their attacks on Palin were spectacularly effective. She was introduced as McCain's running mate just before the Republican convention and by the end of the convention she was denying that she had faked her pregnancy.
Last Summer the Obama campaign let it be known that they considered Romney their most dangerous opponent. Their counter-strategy was to define Romney as "different" and "strange" meaning Mormon.
And here we are, months later with stories circulating about how strange the Mormons are. Granted, Mormons do have some strange beliefs, but by that standard then so do Gingrich and Santorum. Since both are practicing Catholics then both believe that an old German in Rome with connections to the Nazis has a direct line to God.
All of this is incredibly un-American. The Founders were so against a religious test for holding office that they put it in the main body of the Constitution instead of the Bill of Rights.
That is what the whisper campaign against Romney amounts to - a religious test. And it is exactly what the Obama campaign said they would do.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Obama and Birth Control
After days of controversy, President Obama announced a change in policy on mandatory insurance coverage. There is no change in what is covered but somehow it will be the insurance companies' responsibility to cover it instead of religious institutions. Presumably the insurance companies will raise everyone else's rates a bit to make up the difference. This satisfies Planned Parenthood and similar groups. No word yet on how the Catholic Church will react.
This entire controversy is typical of the Progressives. I complained yesterday about people who insist that Obama is a pragmatic centrist but this roots of this lie in the Progressive world view.
To put it simply, the Progressives believe that they are the smartest people who ever lived and the recipients of special knowledge. Because of this, they know better than the rest of us what choices we should make. Their goal is to keep expanding government power so that they can force us to do what is right. This includes such things as what car we drive, what light bulbs we use, down to what foods we eat. There can be no argument to this because they are acting in our best interests and just don't understand.
If you don't care for a massive intrusion by the government into every aspect of your life then you are not a Progressive.
This entire controversy is typical of the Progressives. I complained yesterday about people who insist that Obama is a pragmatic centrist but this roots of this lie in the Progressive world view.
To put it simply, the Progressives believe that they are the smartest people who ever lived and the recipients of special knowledge. Because of this, they know better than the rest of us what choices we should make. Their goal is to keep expanding government power so that they can force us to do what is right. This includes such things as what car we drive, what light bulbs we use, down to what foods we eat. There can be no argument to this because they are acting in our best interests and just don't understand.
If you don't care for a massive intrusion by the government into every aspect of your life then you are not a Progressive.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Obama the Centrist?
Four years ago many Obama supporters insisted that he was really a pragmatic centrist who was playing to the left. They insisted that as soon as he got into office he would settle down. Some people still insist on this but it is getting harder.
Obamacare is an example where he moved from a centrist position to a more extreme one as soon as he took office. During the campaign he mocked Hillary Clinton's plan because it contained an individual mandate then proceeded to ram through a plan based on this.
The Keystone pipeline is a more recent example. It passed environmental review and the State Department had deemed it as vital to US interests but it was opposed by environmentalists who see the development of tar sand-based oil in apocalyptic terms. Since the pipeline was supported by unions whose money Obama needs for his election campaign, the President tried to put the decision off until after the election by proposing an alternate route. When the Republicans forced his hand, he cancelled the pipeline although he threw the unions a crumb with the promise to reconsider if a new application was submitted. Some Obama supporters are still convinced that he would have eventually approved the pipeline if only the nasty Republicans hadn't interfered.
The Keystone pipeline is one of many examples where Obama has put his environmental agenda ahead of the common good. Another example is the new millage standards for cars. Previously these were passed by Congress but they were not as aggressive as the Obama administration desired so he took matters into his own hands. The standards are now determined by the EPA. The administration insists that they are forcing us to drive more efficient cars for our own good but the end result will be smaller cars that cost a great deal more and the total elimination of the low-end car market.
If this sounds familiar, it is the same justification the administration uses when defending the incandescent light bulb ban. This was passed by the Democratic Congress during the Bush administration but has strong support from the Obama administration.
When bailing out GM and Chrysler in 2009, Obama side-stepped bankruptcy laws, giving preference to unions over secured creditors. He publicly denounced anyone who objected as greedy.
The most recent example is the ruling that church-based hospitals and schools have to carry coverage that includes birth control and abortions regardless of the supporting institution's beliefs.
This was a major blow to the many Catholics who supported Obama and insisted that, as a pragmatic centrist, he would never trample on their 1st Amendment rights.
The administration has begun a counter-attack saying that access to birth control is too important to be left to the churches' control. Considering the Constitutional implications, this is a very scary precedent.
For a former instructor of Constitutional law, Obama seems surprised at the separation of powers in our government. As recently as this week he complained about the system making it hard for him to institute major changes. His record reflects this since, as I showed, he has implemented major policies without regard for Congress or the Constitution.
These are not the actions of a pragmatic centrist. They are the actions of a frustrated ideologue.
Obamacare is an example where he moved from a centrist position to a more extreme one as soon as he took office. During the campaign he mocked Hillary Clinton's plan because it contained an individual mandate then proceeded to ram through a plan based on this.
The Keystone pipeline is a more recent example. It passed environmental review and the State Department had deemed it as vital to US interests but it was opposed by environmentalists who see the development of tar sand-based oil in apocalyptic terms. Since the pipeline was supported by unions whose money Obama needs for his election campaign, the President tried to put the decision off until after the election by proposing an alternate route. When the Republicans forced his hand, he cancelled the pipeline although he threw the unions a crumb with the promise to reconsider if a new application was submitted. Some Obama supporters are still convinced that he would have eventually approved the pipeline if only the nasty Republicans hadn't interfered.
The Keystone pipeline is one of many examples where Obama has put his environmental agenda ahead of the common good. Another example is the new millage standards for cars. Previously these were passed by Congress but they were not as aggressive as the Obama administration desired so he took matters into his own hands. The standards are now determined by the EPA. The administration insists that they are forcing us to drive more efficient cars for our own good but the end result will be smaller cars that cost a great deal more and the total elimination of the low-end car market.
If this sounds familiar, it is the same justification the administration uses when defending the incandescent light bulb ban. This was passed by the Democratic Congress during the Bush administration but has strong support from the Obama administration.
When bailing out GM and Chrysler in 2009, Obama side-stepped bankruptcy laws, giving preference to unions over secured creditors. He publicly denounced anyone who objected as greedy.
The most recent example is the ruling that church-based hospitals and schools have to carry coverage that includes birth control and abortions regardless of the supporting institution's beliefs.
This was a major blow to the many Catholics who supported Obama and insisted that, as a pragmatic centrist, he would never trample on their 1st Amendment rights.
The administration has begun a counter-attack saying that access to birth control is too important to be left to the churches' control. Considering the Constitutional implications, this is a very scary precedent.
For a former instructor of Constitutional law, Obama seems surprised at the separation of powers in our government. As recently as this week he complained about the system making it hard for him to institute major changes. His record reflects this since, as I showed, he has implemented major policies without regard for Congress or the Constitution.
These are not the actions of a pragmatic centrist. They are the actions of a frustrated ideologue.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Morning in Detroit
The Superbowl ad, Half-time in America, has caused some controversy and with good reason. The ad compliments President Obama's State of the Union speech where he took credit for Chrysler's resurgence and for an increase in manufacturing in America. The ad is also reminiscent of President Reagan's 1984 reelection ad, Morning in America. The big difference of course, is that the Reagan campaign paid for Morning in America but Chrysler paid for Half-time in America (with money lent to them by the US government).
Obama's opponents are dismayed at seeing an ad that helps Obama be paid for by a corporation.
The ad is also more than a little misleading. Like the other Chrysler ads run over the last year, it implies that this is an American company making cars in Detroit. The Obama administration sold Chrysler to Fiat, an Italian company and they have plants in Canada and Mexico as well as in the US.
It is also relevant that some of Obama's advisers wanted to see Chrysler closed in order to give more business to GM. Chrysler is the smaller of the two companies and had been losing money for years before the downturn. We still do not know if Fiat can make a long-term go of Chrysler.
And let's not forget that without President Bush's bailout, Chrysler would have been out of business before Obama came to office.
One final point - Ford produced some ads trumpeting that they recovered without government assistance. The White House made them pull these ads. If we are going to have car companies running ads giving the country pep talks based on government assistance then their competitors should be free to run ads trumpeting that they did not need a bailout.
Obama's opponents are dismayed at seeing an ad that helps Obama be paid for by a corporation.
The ad is also more than a little misleading. Like the other Chrysler ads run over the last year, it implies that this is an American company making cars in Detroit. The Obama administration sold Chrysler to Fiat, an Italian company and they have plants in Canada and Mexico as well as in the US.
It is also relevant that some of Obama's advisers wanted to see Chrysler closed in order to give more business to GM. Chrysler is the smaller of the two companies and had been losing money for years before the downturn. We still do not know if Fiat can make a long-term go of Chrysler.
And let's not forget that without President Bush's bailout, Chrysler would have been out of business before Obama came to office.
One final point - Ford produced some ads trumpeting that they recovered without government assistance. The White House made them pull these ads. If we are going to have car companies running ads giving the country pep talks based on government assistance then their competitors should be free to run ads trumpeting that they did not need a bailout.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Obama and the Recovery
Between now and November we are going to hear a lot about the economy. President Obama's supporters will say that he prevented the recession from deepening into a depression. This is nonsense. The real crisis came in the Fall of 2008 when several large banks threatened to go bankrupt, taking the world economy with them. The Bush administration dealt with this and kept GM and Chrysler afloat until they could go through bankruptcy (which the Obama administration handled).
When it was making its case for the stimulus, the White House projected that the recession would end during the Summer of 2009. The purpose of the stimulus was to help with the recovery, especially since unemployment always trails recovery. Sure enough, the recession officially ended June, 2009 but the recovery since then has been so weak that many people feel that we are still in recession.
So the big question is Did Obama botch the recovery?
The first round of fact-checkers points to the stimulus and the jobs that it created/saved as calculated through Keynesian economics. But there is a lot more to managing a recovery than throwing money at it.
Recent White House memos indicate that the $800 billion figure was the biggest amount that the White House figured it could get through Congress. A big chunk of that was meant to implement the President's agenda. Another third provided a two-year bail-out for the states. The administration couldn't think of anything else to spend money on so the final third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts.
Less noticed is the Obama administration's handling of banks and monetary policy. According to the book Confidence Men, Obama had two choices for his economic team. Team A was led by Paul Volcker. They believed that we needed to purge the system of toxic mortgages and get the banks out of the business of selling debt. This would cause short-term pain would allow finances to bottom out and begin growing again.
Instead, Obama went with Team B led by Larry Summers. They believed that the system was too delicate for big changes. Instead the government needed to prop up the existing systems until they regained confidence. This had the political advantage of being less disruptive.
The result of Obama's various policies are still being felt. The stimulus may have saved jobs but only for two years. States that were bailed out in 2009 and 2010 finally had to make cuts in 2011 which resulted in a drag on the recovery.
Another significant drag is house prices. They are continuing to drop for the 4th year. New housing accounts for a large portion of the economy but people are reluctant to build houses when they might lose value before they are completed.
Obama has hurt other sectors of the economy, also. He has discouraged domestic oil production (yes, it is up but only because increases on private land were bigger than reductions on federally owned land). New EPA regulations are raising the cost of electricity. The Affordable Care Act (health care reform) will make it more expensive for small businesses to hire people.
Currently the unemployment rate is the dropping but this is misleading because it only counts people actively looking for work. Today's workforce is 5 million smaller than at its peak. If these people decide to start looking for work then the unemployment rate will jump.
While the official inflation rate is still low, prices are rising and consumers know it. This is especially true in food and energy prices. Wages are not rising so this slows the recovery even more.
Obama has a strong ideology and, when forced to choose between ideology and the common good, always goes for ideology. Accordingly, in numerous small ways he has hurt the recovery.
When it was making its case for the stimulus, the White House projected that the recession would end during the Summer of 2009. The purpose of the stimulus was to help with the recovery, especially since unemployment always trails recovery. Sure enough, the recession officially ended June, 2009 but the recovery since then has been so weak that many people feel that we are still in recession.
So the big question is Did Obama botch the recovery?
The first round of fact-checkers points to the stimulus and the jobs that it created/saved as calculated through Keynesian economics. But there is a lot more to managing a recovery than throwing money at it.
Recent White House memos indicate that the $800 billion figure was the biggest amount that the White House figured it could get through Congress. A big chunk of that was meant to implement the President's agenda. Another third provided a two-year bail-out for the states. The administration couldn't think of anything else to spend money on so the final third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts.
Less noticed is the Obama administration's handling of banks and monetary policy. According to the book Confidence Men, Obama had two choices for his economic team. Team A was led by Paul Volcker. They believed that we needed to purge the system of toxic mortgages and get the banks out of the business of selling debt. This would cause short-term pain would allow finances to bottom out and begin growing again.
Instead, Obama went with Team B led by Larry Summers. They believed that the system was too delicate for big changes. Instead the government needed to prop up the existing systems until they regained confidence. This had the political advantage of being less disruptive.
The result of Obama's various policies are still being felt. The stimulus may have saved jobs but only for two years. States that were bailed out in 2009 and 2010 finally had to make cuts in 2011 which resulted in a drag on the recovery.
Another significant drag is house prices. They are continuing to drop for the 4th year. New housing accounts for a large portion of the economy but people are reluctant to build houses when they might lose value before they are completed.
Obama has hurt other sectors of the economy, also. He has discouraged domestic oil production (yes, it is up but only because increases on private land were bigger than reductions on federally owned land). New EPA regulations are raising the cost of electricity. The Affordable Care Act (health care reform) will make it more expensive for small businesses to hire people.
Currently the unemployment rate is the dropping but this is misleading because it only counts people actively looking for work. Today's workforce is 5 million smaller than at its peak. If these people decide to start looking for work then the unemployment rate will jump.
While the official inflation rate is still low, prices are rising and consumers know it. This is especially true in food and energy prices. Wages are not rising so this slows the recovery even more.
Obama has a strong ideology and, when forced to choose between ideology and the common good, always goes for ideology. Accordingly, in numerous small ways he has hurt the recovery.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Polygamy
Slate has run a surprising number of articles on polygamy but probably their harshest criticism of it came on Jan. 30, 2012. Entitled The problem with polygamy, the article tells us Polygamy may actually exacerbate inequities in wealth and gender that hurt societies, even if the institution itself appears neutral.
One example given is that it leads to feral males - men who with no wives or children to domesticate them who run wild and turn to crime.
So why bring this up?
One argument in favor of it being a hit piece is the great-grandfather reference. You have four great-grandfathers and most people never met their great-grandparents. Did this particular great-grandfather have any influence on the current candidate?
Next, let's consider the studies. Polygamy is only legal in a limited part of the world, mainly Muslim areas. Any studies of legal polygamy are going to be irrelevant to 19th century Mormons or the few polygamous families currently in the US. The part about unmarried men has absolutely nothing to do with the Mormons. They had the opposite problem. They attracted many more women than men and polygamy was a way of providing for the excess female population. Excess men being unable to find women was the least of their problems.
But this is a problem in the Muslim world which is the main place that polygamy is practiced.
This leads to a huge question - the grandfather of Barack Obama was a polygamist. His Kenyan "grandmother" was one of his grandfather's younger wives. What is more, Obama's father was legally a polygamist. He was still legally married to his first Kenyan wife when he married Obama's mother. Why is Romney's great-grandfather a matter of interest but Obama's grandfather is not?
Sounds like a hit piece to me.
One example given is that it leads to feral males - men who with no wives or children to domesticate them who run wild and turn to crime.
So why bring this up?
These are boom times for memoirs about growing up in, marrying into or escaping from polygamous families. Sister wives appear as minor celebrities in the pages of People, piggybacking on their popular reality TV show. And oh yes, we have a presidential candidate whose great-grandfather was an actual bona fide polygamist.Slate has written about the TV shows before so I suspect that the real reason for bringing it up is the unnamed presidential candidate. This is a chance to remind us how strange and different Romney's background is. Is this a valid topic or a hit piece?
One argument in favor of it being a hit piece is the great-grandfather reference. You have four great-grandfathers and most people never met their great-grandparents. Did this particular great-grandfather have any influence on the current candidate?
Next, let's consider the studies. Polygamy is only legal in a limited part of the world, mainly Muslim areas. Any studies of legal polygamy are going to be irrelevant to 19th century Mormons or the few polygamous families currently in the US. The part about unmarried men has absolutely nothing to do with the Mormons. They had the opposite problem. They attracted many more women than men and polygamy was a way of providing for the excess female population. Excess men being unable to find women was the least of their problems.
But this is a problem in the Muslim world which is the main place that polygamy is practiced.
This leads to a huge question - the grandfather of Barack Obama was a polygamist. His Kenyan "grandmother" was one of his grandfather's younger wives. What is more, Obama's father was legally a polygamist. He was still legally married to his first Kenyan wife when he married Obama's mother. Why is Romney's great-grandfather a matter of interest but Obama's grandfather is not?
Sounds like a hit piece to me.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
The Evolution of the Occupiers
When the Occupy Wall Street movement began last October it was very peaceful and sometimes joyous. This got it a lot of good press. How can you say harsh things about protestors with drums and giant puppets.
But when the movement started it had the collusion of many big-city mayors and other officials. They didn't enforce laws about sleeping in public parks or having demonstrations without a permit.
The encampments stayed and started showing signs of becoming permanent. Several sites began construction of wooden buildings with the intention of spending the Winter and beyond. Sanitation became a problem. The homeless mixed in with the protestors. Drug abuse became common and violent incidents began. The movement lost its luster.
Suddenly the officials decided to start enforcing the laws. This led to violent confrontations. It became obvious that the only way to evict an occupation was to give them a deadline but hold off enforcing it until the dead of night two or three days later.
Most camps were broken up and the movement fragmented. It also turned angry.
Last weekend the Occupiers descended on Oakland (again). They broke into City Hall and vandalized it. Someone grabbed a flag and, at the urgings of the others, set it on fire. The mayor of Oakland who had been an enabler last Fall now wants them to go somewhere else.
Back in New York, a videographer who had been a hero for his live feeds from Zuccotti Park is now considered an enemy of the movement for continuing to show the Occupiers now that they have turned violent.
This evolution was probably inevitable. OWS refused to make any serious, unified demands. What did come out of the camps tended to focus on major, disruptive change to society or forgiveness for college debts. With nothing to show for weeks of effort, the protestors are getting impatient that their unstated demands have not been met.
At the same time, the movement has attracted the anarchist elements that trashed Seattle in 1999. The movement has never made a serious effort to discourage violence which encourages its violent element. This will continue to cost it public support.
This is bad news for President Obama's reelection. He adopted several OWS elements in his State of the Union speech including a threat to take action against colleges if tuition keeps rising. The President did not get a bounce in the polls after his speech which shows that its OWS elements do not resonate with the electorate.
Contrast this with the evolution of the Tea Party. It went from orderly demonstrations to political action and managed to co-opt the Republican Party.
If OWS continues on its current path then we could see a repeat of the 1968 election where a riot broke out outside the Democratic convention and probably cost the Democrats the White House.
But when the movement started it had the collusion of many big-city mayors and other officials. They didn't enforce laws about sleeping in public parks or having demonstrations without a permit.
The encampments stayed and started showing signs of becoming permanent. Several sites began construction of wooden buildings with the intention of spending the Winter and beyond. Sanitation became a problem. The homeless mixed in with the protestors. Drug abuse became common and violent incidents began. The movement lost its luster.
Suddenly the officials decided to start enforcing the laws. This led to violent confrontations. It became obvious that the only way to evict an occupation was to give them a deadline but hold off enforcing it until the dead of night two or three days later.
Most camps were broken up and the movement fragmented. It also turned angry.
Last weekend the Occupiers descended on Oakland (again). They broke into City Hall and vandalized it. Someone grabbed a flag and, at the urgings of the others, set it on fire. The mayor of Oakland who had been an enabler last Fall now wants them to go somewhere else.
Back in New York, a videographer who had been a hero for his live feeds from Zuccotti Park is now considered an enemy of the movement for continuing to show the Occupiers now that they have turned violent.
I probably will get severely injured in these next coming months," he said. "...I pretty much expect to wind up in the hospital. The threats I'm hearing, with words like 'protection' in them, sound awfully Mafioso.
This evolution was probably inevitable. OWS refused to make any serious, unified demands. What did come out of the camps tended to focus on major, disruptive change to society or forgiveness for college debts. With nothing to show for weeks of effort, the protestors are getting impatient that their unstated demands have not been met.
At the same time, the movement has attracted the anarchist elements that trashed Seattle in 1999. The movement has never made a serious effort to discourage violence which encourages its violent element. This will continue to cost it public support.
This is bad news for President Obama's reelection. He adopted several OWS elements in his State of the Union speech including a threat to take action against colleges if tuition keeps rising. The President did not get a bounce in the polls after his speech which shows that its OWS elements do not resonate with the electorate.
Contrast this with the evolution of the Tea Party. It went from orderly demonstrations to political action and managed to co-opt the Republican Party.
If OWS continues on its current path then we could see a repeat of the 1968 election where a riot broke out outside the Democratic convention and probably cost the Democrats the White House.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Apple and Ethics
Everyone loves the late Steve Jobs. President Obama lauded his job-creation during the State of the Union speech. Newt Gingrich gave Jobs as an example of a "good" capitalist in contrast with the evil Mitt Romney. World-wide, sales of Apple's phones, tablets, music players, and computers have made Apple the world's most profitable company.
Between its "I'm an Apple" ads and its Genius Bar, Apple cultivates a counter-culture image. Apple gear is popular among the OWS movement.
But there is a darker side to Apple. Counting suppliers, nearly a million people are employed in creating Apple's products but the vast majority of these jobs are in Asia, most in China. They work long hours for small wages. The suicide rate at the Foxcom factory where Apple's products are assembled is high. Recently a group of employees threatened to jump off of the factory roof unless they got raises.
Apple requires its suppliers to limit hours worked to 60 hours/week but it recently admitted that nearly half of its suppliers exceed this. around 5% of its suppliers use child labor.
Apple is not unique in this. HP uses the same factory and most high-tech electronics come from the same or similar plants. Is it fair to hold Apple to a higher standard? I think so for several reasons.
The first is that when their assembly facilities were in the US they made a point of how environmentally safe their factory was. That lent their products a halo effect which persists to today. Chinese factories are not held to the same standards as US factories to say nothing of the standards that Apple was held to.
Second, Apple is a rich company with some of the highest profit margins in high tech. This should be pushed all the way down the line. The workers who make Apple products should be paid more or have better working conditions than the workers who make lower-margin products. To do otherwise is to exploit the Chinese workers.
Which brings me to my next point - how unseemly this is. Here we have OWS protesting that the system is fixed so that the 1% richest can exploit the 99% but their gadgets of choice put them as part of the world's 1% exploiting Asian workers.
Supposedly the issue is not worker wages, it is the supply chain. China has all of the suppliers concentrated in a small area. They also have access to raw materials, especially rare earth metals. The US used to be a major producer of rare earth metals but the main mine was shut down by the EPA.
Around a year ago President Obama asked Steve Jobs about moving his manufacturing back to the US. Jobs said that those jobs will not be returning to the US. We need to reverse this trend. We need to figure out what is needed to entice manufacturers back to the US. Is it a lack of engineers? Have we made our environmental regulations so restrictive that we have to off-shore our pollution? If so then is this ethical. Should we keep tightening regulations here even if it means more emissions elsewhere in the world?
This is a conversation that the country needs to have, starting with Apple.
Between its "I'm an Apple" ads and its Genius Bar, Apple cultivates a counter-culture image. Apple gear is popular among the OWS movement.
But there is a darker side to Apple. Counting suppliers, nearly a million people are employed in creating Apple's products but the vast majority of these jobs are in Asia, most in China. They work long hours for small wages. The suicide rate at the Foxcom factory where Apple's products are assembled is high. Recently a group of employees threatened to jump off of the factory roof unless they got raises.
Apple requires its suppliers to limit hours worked to 60 hours/week but it recently admitted that nearly half of its suppliers exceed this. around 5% of its suppliers use child labor.
Apple is not unique in this. HP uses the same factory and most high-tech electronics come from the same or similar plants. Is it fair to hold Apple to a higher standard? I think so for several reasons.
The first is that when their assembly facilities were in the US they made a point of how environmentally safe their factory was. That lent their products a halo effect which persists to today. Chinese factories are not held to the same standards as US factories to say nothing of the standards that Apple was held to.
Second, Apple is a rich company with some of the highest profit margins in high tech. This should be pushed all the way down the line. The workers who make Apple products should be paid more or have better working conditions than the workers who make lower-margin products. To do otherwise is to exploit the Chinese workers.
Which brings me to my next point - how unseemly this is. Here we have OWS protesting that the system is fixed so that the 1% richest can exploit the 99% but their gadgets of choice put them as part of the world's 1% exploiting Asian workers.
Supposedly the issue is not worker wages, it is the supply chain. China has all of the suppliers concentrated in a small area. They also have access to raw materials, especially rare earth metals. The US used to be a major producer of rare earth metals but the main mine was shut down by the EPA.
Around a year ago President Obama asked Steve Jobs about moving his manufacturing back to the US. Jobs said that those jobs will not be returning to the US. We need to reverse this trend. We need to figure out what is needed to entice manufacturers back to the US. Is it a lack of engineers? Have we made our environmental regulations so restrictive that we have to off-shore our pollution? If so then is this ethical. Should we keep tightening regulations here even if it means more emissions elsewhere in the world?
This is a conversation that the country needs to have, starting with Apple.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Command Economy
According to his State of the Union speech, here is what President Obama would like to accomplish. He wants to redesign the American economy:
Three years ago he was going to rebuild the economy based on education, health care, and green jobs. It's tough to rebuild an economy when you change its basis every two or three years.
It sounds great to say that manufacturing jobs are coming back to America but is it true? Steve Jobs didn't think so a year ago when he told Obama that the jobs are not coming back to America. One reason is that the supply chain has moved off-shore. Another reason can be found in the story of the iPhone production line. Apple's workers live in dormitories at the plant. Steve Jobs changed the design of the iPhone at the last minute, substituting a glass screen instead of the planned plastic one. That meant that the first glass screens started arriving around midnight. Apple's managers woke the workers, handed them a cup of tea and a biscuit and sent them to work assembling phones. Not only couldn't you find American workers who would be willing to take a job with these conditions but Obama's government would close them down if they tried.
Obama made several proposals for changing corporate tax codes. He wants to do away with the mythical tax break for moving workers overseas and establish some sort of minimum corporate tax. One ray of light - he also proposed reducing the corporate tax rate. All of this seems needlessly complicated. Just lower the tax rate and eliminate most of the deductions.
Obama wants a better-trained work force. That is a noble goal although it is at odds with his previous goal of sending everyone to college. An educated workforce needs a lot of people who have been trained in trades and specialties that colleges would never touch.
Obama suggests simplifying the current programs for retraining workers. This sounds like a good idea. We will see if he can flesh it out. Otherwise it may just add another level of bureaucracy.
When talking about classrooms, Obama hit one of the teacher union sore points - teaching to the test. He thinks that doing away with standardized testing will help teachers. The reason that most states established tests in the first place was that too many teachers were simply warehousing students and passing them on to the next grade without teaching them anything. Teaching to the test was seen as an alternative to not teaching anything.
Obama did threaten colleges to keep tuition down or face cuts in government grants. This is probably an empty threat.
Back to jobs, this time small businesses:
So much for eliminating tax loopholes. We're only part-way through the speech and he proposed some new loopholes.
Obama gives lots of credit to government funding. He mentions the computer chip in the same breath as federally funded research but Intel created this without federal funding. He also give the government credit for discovering fracking (without using that term). Strangely he fails to mention the role of federal funding in extracting oil from tar sands - possibly because he just killed a pipeline that would have brought this into the US from Canada.
On to Obama's real passion - green energy. He never quite comes out and says it but he wants to promote clean energy by imposing higher government standards on efficiency and clean air.
This part is laughable:
Ok, we are out of Iraq. But a lot of those resources moved to Afghanistan so there isn't much savings. And we can't use the savings to pay down the debt because we still have a huge deficit. We are borrowing $0.40 out of every dollar we spend. So, is the President is proposing that we pay down the debt with borrowed money? And saying that we cut back on deficit spending in one place does not mean that we can borrow and spend elsewhere.
Obama wants to allow people to refinance at lower rates. Fine. But then he mentions a new fee on the largest financial institutions. Again, he is picking winners and losers. What will he do if this breaks Bank of America? Another bailout? He says that he isn't going to do that any more.
He also insists that banks sold people loans that they could not afford. He mentions it multiple times. There is no acknowledgement that the person taking the loan was also at fault. Instead he is going to create a new set of enforcers to hunt down the bankers.
How about some penalties for the people who lied on their mortgage application? Don't you think that they might have contributed to the problem, just a bit?
We are well into the speech but he chose this time to announce his immediate priority - continuing to gut Social Security by continuing the Social Security tax holiday.
He also made a dig at the Bush tax cuts, but only the part that affected the rich and a push for raising the capitol gains tax which has turned into a special subsidy. The fact-checkers have examined the claims about billionaires paying cut-rates and found that it is rare. There are some people, like Governor Romney, whose income mainly comes from capitol gains but it is a very small percentage while the President would have you believe that it is the rule.
Here's another amazing statement:
This from the man blew off Republican concerns about the stimulus and used parliamentary slight of hand to pass health care against strong Republican opposition. Ironically, Rep. Giffords was sitting in the audience. Just a year ago Republicans were being blamed, without any proof, for her shooting, Obama has made it clear since August that he was more interested in scoring political points against the Republicans than actually governing.
An even ore amazing statement:
Obama has spent the last three years snubbing Great Britain. Just last week he snubbed Canada by rejecting the tar oil pipeline. His record on Israel has been the least-supportive since that country was founded.
Maybe the President hopes that we aren't paying attention or, that by saying something he can make it happen. Or maybe he really believes what his teleprompter says. He has bragged before about what a friend he is to Israel.
He closed by reminding us that he got bin Lauden.
We are lucky that he didn't bring it along to wave.
The mission that killed bin Laden is symbolic of Obama's view of the world. He ordered it to happen and it did. There were a few disasters along the way - a top secret helicopter crashed and stripped and international law violated - and his involvement was minimal but he still sees it as his victory.
Obama sees that economy as something that can only operate with heavy government influence. He wants to decide the winners and losers. He wants to help the poor and punish the rich. And he has no conception of the limits of government or his own ability to manage the economy.
Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last — an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.
Three years ago he was going to rebuild the economy based on education, health care, and green jobs. It's tough to rebuild an economy when you change its basis every two or three years.
It sounds great to say that manufacturing jobs are coming back to America but is it true? Steve Jobs didn't think so a year ago when he told Obama that the jobs are not coming back to America. One reason is that the supply chain has moved off-shore. Another reason can be found in the story of the iPhone production line. Apple's workers live in dormitories at the plant. Steve Jobs changed the design of the iPhone at the last minute, substituting a glass screen instead of the planned plastic one. That meant that the first glass screens started arriving around midnight. Apple's managers woke the workers, handed them a cup of tea and a biscuit and sent them to work assembling phones. Not only couldn't you find American workers who would be willing to take a job with these conditions but Obama's government would close them down if they tried.
Obama made several proposals for changing corporate tax codes. He wants to do away with the mythical tax break for moving workers overseas and establish some sort of minimum corporate tax. One ray of light - he also proposed reducing the corporate tax rate. All of this seems needlessly complicated. Just lower the tax rate and eliminate most of the deductions.
Obama wants a better-trained work force. That is a noble goal although it is at odds with his previous goal of sending everyone to college. An educated workforce needs a lot of people who have been trained in trades and specialties that colleges would never touch.
Obama suggests simplifying the current programs for retraining workers. This sounds like a good idea. We will see if he can flesh it out. Otherwise it may just add another level of bureaucracy.
When talking about classrooms, Obama hit one of the teacher union sore points - teaching to the test. He thinks that doing away with standardized testing will help teachers. The reason that most states established tests in the first place was that too many teachers were simply warehousing students and passing them on to the next grade without teaching them anything. Teaching to the test was seen as an alternative to not teaching anything.
Obama did threaten colleges to keep tuition down or face cuts in government grants. This is probably an empty threat.
Back to jobs, this time small businesses:
Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs.
So much for eliminating tax loopholes. We're only part-way through the speech and he proposed some new loopholes.
Obama gives lots of credit to government funding. He mentions the computer chip in the same breath as federally funded research but Intel created this without federal funding. He also give the government credit for discovering fracking (without using that term). Strangely he fails to mention the role of federal funding in extracting oil from tar sands - possibly because he just killed a pipeline that would have brought this into the US from Canada.
On to Obama's real passion - green energy. He never quite comes out and says it but he wants to promote clean energy by imposing higher government standards on efficiency and clean air.
This part is laughable:
In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.
Ok, we are out of Iraq. But a lot of those resources moved to Afghanistan so there isn't much savings. And we can't use the savings to pay down the debt because we still have a huge deficit. We are borrowing $0.40 out of every dollar we spend. So, is the President is proposing that we pay down the debt with borrowed money? And saying that we cut back on deficit spending in one place does not mean that we can borrow and spend elsewhere.
Obama wants to allow people to refinance at lower rates. Fine. But then he mentions a new fee on the largest financial institutions. Again, he is picking winners and losers. What will he do if this breaks Bank of America? Another bailout? He says that he isn't going to do that any more.
He also insists that banks sold people loans that they could not afford. He mentions it multiple times. There is no acknowledgement that the person taking the loan was also at fault. Instead he is going to create a new set of enforcers to hunt down the bankers.
And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
How about some penalties for the people who lied on their mortgage application? Don't you think that they might have contributed to the problem, just a bit?
We are well into the speech but he chose this time to announce his immediate priority - continuing to gut Social Security by continuing the Social Security tax holiday.
He also made a dig at the Bush tax cuts, but only the part that affected the rich and a push for raising the capitol gains tax which has turned into a special subsidy. The fact-checkers have examined the claims about billionaires paying cut-rates and found that it is rare. There are some people, like Governor Romney, whose income mainly comes from capitol gains but it is a very small percentage while the President would have you believe that it is the rule.
Here's another amazing statement:
Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.
This from the man blew off Republican concerns about the stimulus and used parliamentary slight of hand to pass health care against strong Republican opposition. Ironically, Rep. Giffords was sitting in the audience. Just a year ago Republicans were being blamed, without any proof, for her shooting, Obama has made it clear since August that he was more interested in scoring political points against the Republicans than actually governing.
An even ore amazing statement:
The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.
Obama has spent the last three years snubbing Great Britain. Just last week he snubbed Canada by rejecting the tar oil pipeline. His record on Israel has been the least-supportive since that country was founded.
Maybe the President hopes that we aren't paying attention or, that by saying something he can make it happen. Or maybe he really believes what his teleprompter says. He has bragged before about what a friend he is to Israel.
He closed by reminding us that he got bin Lauden.
One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden.
We are lucky that he didn't bring it along to wave.
The mission that killed bin Laden is symbolic of Obama's view of the world. He ordered it to happen and it did. There were a few disasters along the way - a top secret helicopter crashed and stripped and international law violated - and his involvement was minimal but he still sees it as his victory.
Obama sees that economy as something that can only operate with heavy government influence. He wants to decide the winners and losers. He wants to help the poor and punish the rich. And he has no conception of the limits of government or his own ability to manage the economy.
Monday, January 23, 2012
South Carolina and November
Gingrich won the South Carolina primary but the big loser was President Obama. As long as the Republican nomination is in doubt, Obama cannot run a negative campaign. He has to try to be positive. He already has his anti-Romney strategy worked out. The Obama campaign and its auxiliaries in the press, will attack Romney for being a wealthy venture capitalists and for being... different (code words for Mormon). Back when it looked like Romney would would sew up the nomination with South Carolina, I started to see columnists reminding us that Romney's great-grandfather had multiple wives (for what it's worth, so did Obama's father and grandfather). I suspect that Obama's State of the Union address was going to have some veiled references to Romney. But, with the nomination still in doubt, Obama will have to wait.
Worse for Obama, Gingrich's attack on Bain Capitol will make it harder for Obama to attack Romney. Gingrich's attacks already took enormous liberties with reality such as blaming Romney for things that Bain did after leaving Bain. The general rule of thumb is that if a candidate can survive an attack in the primaries then it will be useless in the general election. Think of Clinton's infidelities or Obama's lack of experience.
The same is true if Gingrich is the nominee. By airing an interview with Newt's ex-wife just before the primary, they proved that voters don't care how despicably Gingrich treated his ex-wives. During the 1992 primary it came out that Clinton had cheated on Hillary multiple times but he survived it. Newt can, too.
Another problem for Obama - as long as the nomination is in doubt, the Republicans take center stage on the nightly news and Obama is an afterthought.
An extended primary also helps the candidates hone their message. Romney is a better candidate than he was four years ago. His earlier run helped him. This is Gingrich's first run and he entered late so an extended primary will help him, also.
Worse for Obama, Gingrich's attack on Bain Capitol will make it harder for Obama to attack Romney. Gingrich's attacks already took enormous liberties with reality such as blaming Romney for things that Bain did after leaving Bain. The general rule of thumb is that if a candidate can survive an attack in the primaries then it will be useless in the general election. Think of Clinton's infidelities or Obama's lack of experience.
The same is true if Gingrich is the nominee. By airing an interview with Newt's ex-wife just before the primary, they proved that voters don't care how despicably Gingrich treated his ex-wives. During the 1992 primary it came out that Clinton had cheated on Hillary multiple times but he survived it. Newt can, too.
Another problem for Obama - as long as the nomination is in doubt, the Republicans take center stage on the nightly news and Obama is an afterthought.
An extended primary also helps the candidates hone their message. Romney is a better candidate than he was four years ago. His earlier run helped him. This is Gingrich's first run and he entered late so an extended primary will help him, also.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Obama and the XL Pipeline
The proposed XL Pipeline will bring oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in the southern US. From there it will be sold in the US and exported at a profit to the US. Building the pipeline will be a boon to the (unionized) construction industry. Oil pipelines are nothing new or extraordinary. Most of the oil in this country is moved around via pipeline and there is nothing about the XL pipeline to make it riskier than the other pipelines. The pipeline would also ease relations between the US and Canada which have been strained since Obama became president.
There is opposition to the pipeline. Most of it is based on global-warming guru James Hansen who says that if we allow the tar sands to be refined then it will be "game over" for the planet. There are several problems with this statement. One is that it would take hundreds of years to burn all of the Canadian oil. Another is that Canada says that it will allow China to build a pipeline and refine the oil instead.
The Obama administration wants to please both the construction unions and the environmentalists so it put off the decision on the pipeline until after the election. The excuse is that time was needed for an environmental impact study on alternate routes.
Republicans in Congress are in a hurry for the pipeline to be approved so they tried to force the President's hand and demanded a decision. Obama obliged, sort of. He rejected the pipeline because the environmental impact study has not been completed but allowed that the pipeline could be resubmitted and would be judged in due time. This is a double triumph for the Obama administration. They get to tell the environmentalists that they killed the pipeline while hinting in private to the unions that the pipeline will be approved when it is resubmitted.
This is typical of the way the Obama administration has conducted itself since September. Nothing happens unless it helps the Obama reelection campaign. There is no question that the pipeline would create jobs but the Obama administration would rather score political points than help people.
There is opposition to the pipeline. Most of it is based on global-warming guru James Hansen who says that if we allow the tar sands to be refined then it will be "game over" for the planet. There are several problems with this statement. One is that it would take hundreds of years to burn all of the Canadian oil. Another is that Canada says that it will allow China to build a pipeline and refine the oil instead.
The Obama administration wants to please both the construction unions and the environmentalists so it put off the decision on the pipeline until after the election. The excuse is that time was needed for an environmental impact study on alternate routes.
Republicans in Congress are in a hurry for the pipeline to be approved so they tried to force the President's hand and demanded a decision. Obama obliged, sort of. He rejected the pipeline because the environmental impact study has not been completed but allowed that the pipeline could be resubmitted and would be judged in due time. This is a double triumph for the Obama administration. They get to tell the environmentalists that they killed the pipeline while hinting in private to the unions that the pipeline will be approved when it is resubmitted.
This is typical of the way the Obama administration has conducted itself since September. Nothing happens unless it helps the Obama reelection campaign. There is no question that the pipeline would create jobs but the Obama administration would rather score political points than help people.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Climate and Politics
Michael Gerson has a column in the Washington Post on how climate change has become politicized. At the same time, Wired has an article about the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) adopting a new policy supporting the teaching of evolution and climate change.
Gerson is one of a group of right-leaning moderates who accept climate change theory as established fact. In Gerson's view, the right rejects warming theory largely because the left uses it to advance its agenda. There is some truth to this but it is incomplete. He dismisses the Climategate emails.
This is the hallmark of an information cascade. This happened with dietary fat. For 50 years it was accepted that dietary fat caused heart disease. Finally a major study proved otherwise. It turned out that a small minority of dedicated scientists had pushed the dietary fat/heart disease link to hard that it became the accepted view and any dissent was tamped down. This is happening to some extent with global warming.
As for the Wired article, I would like to know what would be taught in schools. Would they include Al Gore? He has admitted that he finds the IPCC's findings to be too conservative and has his own set of experts. Would they include the IPCC? Sections of their most recent report were copied from environmental group's position papers instead of from peer reviewed journals. Would they include the recent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project which verified that the world has warmed over the last several decades and if they do include it, would they point out that this same study shows that warming stopped around the year 2000? Would they include predictions from the last 20 years of climate science that have failed to materialize (in 2000, NASA's James Hansen predicted that parts of Manhattan would be underwater by now)?
This is the problem with climate science. The field has a number of alarmists who think that the only way to get action is to exaggerate the risk. This totally discredits their cause, especially when it has been co-opted by political extremists.
The earth has warmed in the last century or two but it is still debatable how much of this was caused by humans as opposed to natural cyclical forces. Even more debatable is how much more the climate will warm. All of the warming productions are based on unproven feedback models. Finally, no debate at all has been given to the benefits of a warmer world.
Gerson is one of a group of right-leaning moderates who accept climate change theory as established fact. In Gerson's view, the right rejects warming theory largely because the left uses it to advance its agenda. There is some truth to this but it is incomplete. He dismisses the Climategate emails.
Climate scientists, in my experience, are generally careful, well-intentioned and confused to be at the center of a global controversy. Investigations of hacked e-mails have revealed evidence of frustration — and perhaps of fudging but not of fraud.What the emails actually show is that climate scientists are indeed true believers but some of them have questioned why their predictions are off. More importantly, they act in concert to suppress dissenting opinions. If a peer-reviewed journal publishes a dissenting paper, they get the editor fired.
This is the hallmark of an information cascade. This happened with dietary fat. For 50 years it was accepted that dietary fat caused heart disease. Finally a major study proved otherwise. It turned out that a small minority of dedicated scientists had pushed the dietary fat/heart disease link to hard that it became the accepted view and any dissent was tamped down. This is happening to some extent with global warming.
As for the Wired article, I would like to know what would be taught in schools. Would they include Al Gore? He has admitted that he finds the IPCC's findings to be too conservative and has his own set of experts. Would they include the IPCC? Sections of their most recent report were copied from environmental group's position papers instead of from peer reviewed journals. Would they include the recent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project which verified that the world has warmed over the last several decades and if they do include it, would they point out that this same study shows that warming stopped around the year 2000? Would they include predictions from the last 20 years of climate science that have failed to materialize (in 2000, NASA's James Hansen predicted that parts of Manhattan would be underwater by now)?
This is the problem with climate science. The field has a number of alarmists who think that the only way to get action is to exaggerate the risk. This totally discredits their cause, especially when it has been co-opted by political extremists.
The earth has warmed in the last century or two but it is still debatable how much of this was caused by humans as opposed to natural cyclical forces. Even more debatable is how much more the climate will warm. All of the warming productions are based on unproven feedback models. Finally, no debate at all has been given to the benefits of a warmer world.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Nancy and Michelle
Have we been too hard on Michelle Obama's spending? Here's a comparison from 1981.
When Ronald and Nancy Reagan moved into the White House, Nancy discovered that the official china was in a bad way. The White House did not have enough matching china to serve everyone from matching plates at a state dinner. So she ordered a new set.
There was an immediate uproar over Nancy's free-spending ways. It was pointed out that the money to buy the china was donated but that didn't help. Instead, critics pointed out that the donation was tax-deductible and figured out how much the china actually cost the paying public in lost taxes. At the time the top marginal tax rate was 70% so charitable deductions were worth more as tax deductions.
If getting matching china for state functions was spending too much then what are we to make of the Obamas?
When Ronald and Nancy Reagan moved into the White House, Nancy discovered that the official china was in a bad way. The White House did not have enough matching china to serve everyone from matching plates at a state dinner. So she ordered a new set.
There was an immediate uproar over Nancy's free-spending ways. It was pointed out that the money to buy the china was donated but that didn't help. Instead, critics pointed out that the donation was tax-deductible and figured out how much the china actually cost the paying public in lost taxes. At the time the top marginal tax rate was 70% so charitable deductions were worth more as tax deductions.
If getting matching china for state functions was spending too much then what are we to make of the Obamas?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Venture Capitalism
There have been a lot of attacks on Mitt Romney based on his work at Bain Capital. Here's how Bain worked. They looked for small businesses that were in trouble but had the potential to be turned around. They would buy them, lay off non-productive section and build up new ones. Some of these companies went out of business anyway but many prospered - enough to more than double Bain's investment.
The current complaints about Bain (and Romney) are because some jobs are eliminated along the way. The expectation seems to be that somehow a company can be saved without laying anyone off and that the layoffs must have been motivated by the desire for higher earnings by Bain.
So, how does a compassionate leader handle a turn-around? We have a great example - President Obama's handling of GM and Chrysler. GM is particularly instructive since it is the bigger of the two and Chrysler was sold to a foreign company.
Obama poured money into GM but he also cut out the non-productive sections. Some were put up for sale. If they could not be sold then they were closed. People were laid off - a lot of people. The resulting company was stronger and stands a good chance of surviving.
How is this different from what Bain did? Money was invested but some people still lost their jobs.
Here is an example closer to home for me. The company that my wife works for had a simple business model. They would take out a loan and use the money to buy merchandise and print catalogs. Then they would sell the merchandise, pay off the loan, and bank the profits. They did this quarterly. Then the recession came and credit dried up. So they brought in some outside investors who decided that their business model would no longer work. Instead they came up with a new model. While much of their merchandise was produced outside the company, they did have a line of cookbooks and calendars that they made in-house. The catalog sales arms was closed and a good chuck of the staff laid off. The cookbook and calendar operation was expanded and the remaining part of the company was saved.
So, which is the greater evil - laying off some workers so that a company can survive or keeping everyone employed rught up until the company goes out of business? Most people would agree that some jobs are better than none, even President Obama.
Remember this when you hear about the evils of Bain Capital.
The current complaints about Bain (and Romney) are because some jobs are eliminated along the way. The expectation seems to be that somehow a company can be saved without laying anyone off and that the layoffs must have been motivated by the desire for higher earnings by Bain.
So, how does a compassionate leader handle a turn-around? We have a great example - President Obama's handling of GM and Chrysler. GM is particularly instructive since it is the bigger of the two and Chrysler was sold to a foreign company.
Obama poured money into GM but he also cut out the non-productive sections. Some were put up for sale. If they could not be sold then they were closed. People were laid off - a lot of people. The resulting company was stronger and stands a good chance of surviving.
How is this different from what Bain did? Money was invested but some people still lost their jobs.
Here is an example closer to home for me. The company that my wife works for had a simple business model. They would take out a loan and use the money to buy merchandise and print catalogs. Then they would sell the merchandise, pay off the loan, and bank the profits. They did this quarterly. Then the recession came and credit dried up. So they brought in some outside investors who decided that their business model would no longer work. Instead they came up with a new model. While much of their merchandise was produced outside the company, they did have a line of cookbooks and calendars that they made in-house. The catalog sales arms was closed and a good chuck of the staff laid off. The cookbook and calendar operation was expanded and the remaining part of the company was saved.
So, which is the greater evil - laying off some workers so that a company can survive or keeping everyone employed rught up until the company goes out of business? Most people would agree that some jobs are better than none, even President Obama.
Remember this when you hear about the evils of Bain Capital.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Recess Appointments
An iron-clad law of politics is that whatever dirty tricks you use today will be used against you tomorrow.
According to the Constitution, there are several offices that require Senate approval of Presidential appointees. When the Constitution was written, it was assumed that Congress would be in recess for months at a time and that it would take days or weeks to unexpectedly reassemble. That was reasonable when messages had to be carried by someone on horseback. This created a conflict between the need to fill offices and the difficulty of assembling Congress during a recess. This was bridged through recess appointments. The President can appoint someone for a year allowing plenty of time for a formal confirmation the next time Congress is in session.
For the last century presidents have used recess appointments as a way of getting controversial appointees into office without a Senate approval. A few years ago the Democrats decided to stop the Bush administration from making recess appointments. They did this by never going into recess. During periods of traditional recess, a few senators would stay behind and hold pro-forma sessions in which the only business conducted was a motion to adjourn. Note that the Democrats supported this including Senator Obama.
The Republicans followed this precedent and left the Senate in session at the end of the year. They could do this because each house has to have the assent of the other house in order to declare a recess so the Republican-controlled House could keep the Democratic-controlled Senate in session.
But, when President Obama returned from Vacation he declared that the Senate was in recess and made the appointments anyway.
The dirty tricks are piling on each other. First there was the misuse of recess appointments, then pro-forma sessions, and now a President ignoring the Constitutional definition of a recess and declaring one on his own. This last one was particularly odious because it tromps all over the separation of powers. If allowed to stand then this could mean the end of Senate approval. You know that this will come back to haunt both parties.
This is also one of the worst examples of an imperial presidency imaginable. And it came from a former professor of Constitutional law.
According to the Constitution, there are several offices that require Senate approval of Presidential appointees. When the Constitution was written, it was assumed that Congress would be in recess for months at a time and that it would take days or weeks to unexpectedly reassemble. That was reasonable when messages had to be carried by someone on horseback. This created a conflict between the need to fill offices and the difficulty of assembling Congress during a recess. This was bridged through recess appointments. The President can appoint someone for a year allowing plenty of time for a formal confirmation the next time Congress is in session.
For the last century presidents have used recess appointments as a way of getting controversial appointees into office without a Senate approval. A few years ago the Democrats decided to stop the Bush administration from making recess appointments. They did this by never going into recess. During periods of traditional recess, a few senators would stay behind and hold pro-forma sessions in which the only business conducted was a motion to adjourn. Note that the Democrats supported this including Senator Obama.
The Republicans followed this precedent and left the Senate in session at the end of the year. They could do this because each house has to have the assent of the other house in order to declare a recess so the Republican-controlled House could keep the Democratic-controlled Senate in session.
But, when President Obama returned from Vacation he declared that the Senate was in recess and made the appointments anyway.
The dirty tricks are piling on each other. First there was the misuse of recess appointments, then pro-forma sessions, and now a President ignoring the Constitutional definition of a recess and declaring one on his own. This last one was particularly odious because it tromps all over the separation of powers. If allowed to stand then this could mean the end of Senate approval. You know that this will come back to haunt both parties.
This is also one of the worst examples of an imperial presidency imaginable. And it came from a former professor of Constitutional law.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Social Mobility
Writing in the Washington Post, Herold Meyerson complains that America is no longer the land of opertunity.
It should come as no surprise that the liberal Meyerson's prescription for this is more government in the form of retraining for workers and a limit on how much anyone can make. But, is this valid? Will duplicating Scandinavian social democracies make the US a better place? Is big government responsible for Scandinavian success or is there more to it?
There are a few differences that immediately spring to mind when comparing the US and Scandinavia. The US is a massive country, straddling a continent with a highly diverse population. In contrast, Denmark, Norway, and Finland are a small part of Europe. While each of these countries is unique from the others, their populations are more homogenous than the US. Also, these countries are blessed with abundant oil resources which help to finance their governments.
A huge difference between the US and these other countries seems to have been avoided - single parent families. In the US, this is the biggest predictor of social mobility. If you are raised by two parents then you are much more likely to advance. This is far more important than union membership which is one of the factors Meyerson advocates. But, in unions, advancement is usually based on seniority rather than merit.
But these issues pale to insignificance when you look at the article Meyerson referenced. the study looks at nine countries and ranks them according to how closely a son's earnings are tied to his father's. As Meyerson points out, the US is ranked near the bottom and the three Scandinavian countries are near the top. He neglected to mention the other five countries and where they fall in the rankings. The one country worse than the US is the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Canada is almost tied with Finland as a high-mobility country. Falling in the middle rankings are France, Germany, and Sweden. Are we to believe that Canada is a social democracy but the UK and France are not?
When the entire ranking is viewed then it become much harder to prove a relationship between social mobility and social democracies. And, as been pointed out for decades, big government programs like welfare tend to institutionalize poverty. Adding more government is likely to make problems in the US worse rather than cure them.
The best way to measure a nation's merit-based status is to look at its intergenerational economic mobility: Do children move up and down the economic ladder based on their own abilities, or does their economic standing simply replicate their parents'? Sadly, as the American middle class has thinned out over recent decades, the idea of America as the land of opportunity has become a farce. As a paper by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution has shown, sons' earnings approximate those of their fathers about three times more frequently in the United States than they do in Denmark, Norway and Finland, and about 11 / 2 times more frequently than they do in Germany. The European social democracies — where taxes, entitlements and the rate of unionization greatly exceed America's — are demonstrably more merit-based than the United States.
It should come as no surprise that the liberal Meyerson's prescription for this is more government in the form of retraining for workers and a limit on how much anyone can make. But, is this valid? Will duplicating Scandinavian social democracies make the US a better place? Is big government responsible for Scandinavian success or is there more to it?
There are a few differences that immediately spring to mind when comparing the US and Scandinavia. The US is a massive country, straddling a continent with a highly diverse population. In contrast, Denmark, Norway, and Finland are a small part of Europe. While each of these countries is unique from the others, their populations are more homogenous than the US. Also, these countries are blessed with abundant oil resources which help to finance their governments.
A huge difference between the US and these other countries seems to have been avoided - single parent families. In the US, this is the biggest predictor of social mobility. If you are raised by two parents then you are much more likely to advance. This is far more important than union membership which is one of the factors Meyerson advocates. But, in unions, advancement is usually based on seniority rather than merit.
But these issues pale to insignificance when you look at the article Meyerson referenced. the study looks at nine countries and ranks them according to how closely a son's earnings are tied to his father's. As Meyerson points out, the US is ranked near the bottom and the three Scandinavian countries are near the top. He neglected to mention the other five countries and where they fall in the rankings. The one country worse than the US is the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Canada is almost tied with Finland as a high-mobility country. Falling in the middle rankings are France, Germany, and Sweden. Are we to believe that Canada is a social democracy but the UK and France are not?
When the entire ranking is viewed then it become much harder to prove a relationship between social mobility and social democracies. And, as been pointed out for decades, big government programs like welfare tend to institutionalize poverty. Adding more government is likely to make problems in the US worse rather than cure them.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Obama in 2012
As the 4th year of President Obama's first term begins, his supporters must be asking themselves "What happened?" Obama was supposed reverse the country's swing to the right and usher in a new period of Progressive government.
At first glance, Obama's resume looked perfect for this job. He had a far-left voting record and an activist background. His keynote speech in 2004 was the high point of the Democratic national convention. People regularly fainted at his campaign rallies just from being in the same space. He was the first Democrat in a generation to win more than 50% of the vote. Children sang to him in videos and celebrities pledged themselves to his cause. He came into office with large Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. He modeled his cabinet on Lincoln's and his first 100 days on FDR.
Three years later his approval ratings are setting record lows. The country has moved to the right instead of the left. He lost his majority in the House and stands to lose the Senate in the next election.
How did this happen?
A closer look at Obama's resume shows that this was inevitable. He only had two years experience in Federal government when he began his run. He was the most junior member of the Senate. Even in Illinois he was known more for the number of times he voted "present" than for the legislation he introduced. He had no experience in the private sector and had never managed anything larger than his presidential campaign.
Obama was known as a great public speaker but that was based almost exclusively on his 2004 keynote speech. While well-received, none of his later speeches were memorable. Worse, it became obvious that he could not even give a decent speech without a teleprompter. Despite this, his response to every event seems to be to give a new speech.
With no executive experience and a highly partisan chief of staff, Obama outsourced all of his legislation to Congress.
From the beginning, Obama was sure that his path to immortality lay in passing health care reform. At the same time, he did not have the skills to make overcome the many special interest groups. Rather than tackling the main issue of the day - rising costs - he opted to push for health insurance reform. This was his major thrust for a year and it was a disaster. The expectation was that the legislation might be opposed at the beginning but once it began going into effect it would become popular. While that might be true, the biggest provisions will not take effect for two more years. In the meantime, it is, at best, divisive and, at worst, unpopular. Currently there is a 20% gap between those who want it repealed and those in favor.
The worst thing about the push for health care reform was how out of touch it made him appear. The country's top priorities were jobs and the economy but Obama only seemed to care about health care. Three years after taking office, unemployment remains high and drops in the unemployment index reflect people dropping out of the workforce rather than new jobs being created.
Obama's foreign policy has had some mild successes and many setbacks. His biggest successes have come from continuing Bush policies that he ran against.
Iraq is a success at the moment but the troops were recalled sooner than planned because the Iraqis refused to grant continued immunity to the troops. The surge in Afghanistan is not working well. Bin Laden was killed but the raid embarrassed Pakistan and accelerated the deterioration of our relationship with the Afghans.
Obama made overtures to Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Relations with Russia continue to deteriorate. Iran is becoming increasingly belligerent. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is blaming the US for his cancer.
At a speech a few weeks ago Obama said that he had to keep from patting himself on the back over his support for Israel. Most others see him at the most hostile president to Israel since its inception.
Obama's support for the Arab Spring may bite him in the future. Currently the biggest beneficiaries have been anti-American Islamists.
Economically, the country continues an anemic recovery. If the economy should suddenly spring back to life then Obama stands a strong chance of reelection but this would need to happen in the next six months or less. Every day that passes without a strong recovery reduces Obama's chances of reelection. The Obama administration has exhausted its tools for promoting a recovery and there is still a chance that Europe will go into a recession and pull the rest of the world down with it.
With few accomplishments to run on, Obama plans on running against a do-nothing Congress. Accordingly he stopped making any attempts at running the country in favor of running for President.
During his August vacation his administration leaked that he would be proposing a new jobs bill. This was a campaign ploy. He gave a national address without naming specifics then took to the road with the call "Pass the bill!" before the bill ever reached Congress. His actual proposed legislation was never serious since it contained points that the Republicans could never pass. He poisoned the Super-Committee negotiations the same way - by threatening a veto of any resolution that did not include $1 trillion in new taxes on the rich.
The coming year will be nasty. Obama will continue to refuse to compromise with the Republicans in Congress in the hope that this will also tar the presidential nominee. His staff already admitted that their attack on Romney will be to make oblique references to his religion as "not being like the rest of us." With no popular accomplishments to run on, Obama has no choice but to run a negative campaign. No more hope and change, just mud.
At first glance, Obama's resume looked perfect for this job. He had a far-left voting record and an activist background. His keynote speech in 2004 was the high point of the Democratic national convention. People regularly fainted at his campaign rallies just from being in the same space. He was the first Democrat in a generation to win more than 50% of the vote. Children sang to him in videos and celebrities pledged themselves to his cause. He came into office with large Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. He modeled his cabinet on Lincoln's and his first 100 days on FDR.
Three years later his approval ratings are setting record lows. The country has moved to the right instead of the left. He lost his majority in the House and stands to lose the Senate in the next election.
How did this happen?
A closer look at Obama's resume shows that this was inevitable. He only had two years experience in Federal government when he began his run. He was the most junior member of the Senate. Even in Illinois he was known more for the number of times he voted "present" than for the legislation he introduced. He had no experience in the private sector and had never managed anything larger than his presidential campaign.
Obama was known as a great public speaker but that was based almost exclusively on his 2004 keynote speech. While well-received, none of his later speeches were memorable. Worse, it became obvious that he could not even give a decent speech without a teleprompter. Despite this, his response to every event seems to be to give a new speech.
With no executive experience and a highly partisan chief of staff, Obama outsourced all of his legislation to Congress.
From the beginning, Obama was sure that his path to immortality lay in passing health care reform. At the same time, he did not have the skills to make overcome the many special interest groups. Rather than tackling the main issue of the day - rising costs - he opted to push for health insurance reform. This was his major thrust for a year and it was a disaster. The expectation was that the legislation might be opposed at the beginning but once it began going into effect it would become popular. While that might be true, the biggest provisions will not take effect for two more years. In the meantime, it is, at best, divisive and, at worst, unpopular. Currently there is a 20% gap between those who want it repealed and those in favor.
The worst thing about the push for health care reform was how out of touch it made him appear. The country's top priorities were jobs and the economy but Obama only seemed to care about health care. Three years after taking office, unemployment remains high and drops in the unemployment index reflect people dropping out of the workforce rather than new jobs being created.
Obama's foreign policy has had some mild successes and many setbacks. His biggest successes have come from continuing Bush policies that he ran against.
Iraq is a success at the moment but the troops were recalled sooner than planned because the Iraqis refused to grant continued immunity to the troops. The surge in Afghanistan is not working well. Bin Laden was killed but the raid embarrassed Pakistan and accelerated the deterioration of our relationship with the Afghans.
Obama made overtures to Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Relations with Russia continue to deteriorate. Iran is becoming increasingly belligerent. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is blaming the US for his cancer.
At a speech a few weeks ago Obama said that he had to keep from patting himself on the back over his support for Israel. Most others see him at the most hostile president to Israel since its inception.
Obama's support for the Arab Spring may bite him in the future. Currently the biggest beneficiaries have been anti-American Islamists.
Economically, the country continues an anemic recovery. If the economy should suddenly spring back to life then Obama stands a strong chance of reelection but this would need to happen in the next six months or less. Every day that passes without a strong recovery reduces Obama's chances of reelection. The Obama administration has exhausted its tools for promoting a recovery and there is still a chance that Europe will go into a recession and pull the rest of the world down with it.
With few accomplishments to run on, Obama plans on running against a do-nothing Congress. Accordingly he stopped making any attempts at running the country in favor of running for President.
During his August vacation his administration leaked that he would be proposing a new jobs bill. This was a campaign ploy. He gave a national address without naming specifics then took to the road with the call "Pass the bill!" before the bill ever reached Congress. His actual proposed legislation was never serious since it contained points that the Republicans could never pass. He poisoned the Super-Committee negotiations the same way - by threatening a veto of any resolution that did not include $1 trillion in new taxes on the rich.
The coming year will be nasty. Obama will continue to refuse to compromise with the Republicans in Congress in the hope that this will also tar the presidential nominee. His staff already admitted that their attack on Romney will be to make oblique references to his religion as "not being like the rest of us." With no popular accomplishments to run on, Obama has no choice but to run a negative campaign. No more hope and change, just mud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)