Go Steelers!

Full out partisanship now brought to you on this site.

http://steelers.com/index.html

Refusing blame and taking credit

The Iraqi provincial elections were peacefully conducted, under relatively free and fair conditions. They absolutely have a long way to go, but they've come a long way to a democratic state in a very short period (just look how long it took the U.S. to have free and open elections), and President Bush deserves at least the credit for envisioning this. President Obama, however, seems to be the one in the limelight, and feels free to lecture the Iraqis after having repeatedly said we have failed in Iraq.

Mr Obama urged the newly elected councils to "get seated, select new governors, and begin work on behalf of the Iraqi people who elected them".

On a different note, the promise of the Obama campaign to retire Hillary Clinton's debt has gone unfulfilled. The new Secretary of State still has a nearly $6M debt to vendors. It's a little awkward for a Sec. State to explain and enforce US policy overseas when she can't pay up. I hope this is one campaign promise that the President does keep. He certainly owes her that much.

Michael Steele for RNC Chair

The AP and NPR have reported that Michael Steele has been elected over 6 balloting attempts to be the next RNC chair. He's an interesting man: socially conservative, moderately conservative fiscally but with some populist leanings, and the first African-American to head the RNC. He's been called to reclaim the party's strength with young voters.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/880960.html

A reply from Sen. Bill Nelson: Nope, not going to change a thing

Early this week, I wrote to Sen. Bill Nelson (D, FL), one of my two state senators. Sen. Mel Martinez is the other, and I have also written him. I demanded that unless the pork was removed from the stimulus bill, that he vote against it. I didn't actually hold out hope that he would bother, but was particularly disturbed by his reply, which I have pasted below. In essence, the Senator says that he understands that overspending and deficits can be bad, but since this plan (in his estimation) is targeted only on jobs-creation and helping people keep their homes (where he gets that, I have no idea after reading most of the bill), it's not a problem. Much of the letter is pandering drivel, but I'm guessing that this is what many in the Senate are thinking. I'm planning on writing the Senator back to protest being treated like a mindless four-year old, and to reiterate my original objections. I'm not sure what's worse: the drivel from my Senator or the lack of any answer from my Representative. Any thoughts on what to include?

Bill@billnelson.senate.gov

10:30am

Please do not reply to this e-mail. If you need to send another message to Senator Nelson, please use the form on his Web site: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email

Thank you for contacting me about the economic stimulus package.

The American people are hurting. They are losing their homes, their jobs, their businesses and their life savings. Economists across the political spectrum agree that the government needs to take bold and immediate action to stimulate the economy and curb the risk of a protracted economic recession.

The economic stimulus package will provide critical tax relief, shore up unemployment benefits and food stamps, improve access to health care, and promote energy independence. I believe the stimulus package is narrowly targeted to spend and invest in ways that will get the economy moving again.

I understand your concerns about the stimulus package. Last year I voted against spending $700 billion to bail out Wall Street because the bill lacked meaningful relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and didn't include adequate protections for American taxpayers. I am committed to reducing wasteful spending and improving transparency in Federal funding. For too long have we ignored the consequences of a burgeoning Federal deficit.

As Congress considers measures to put the economy on the right track, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

Lilly Ledbetter and Mary Kay

Uppity Woman had a wonderful and timely blog on the signing today of the Lilly Ledbetter law that extends the filing time for employment discrimination lawsuits. It's a decision I utterly agree with, and one on which our new President is something of a hypocrite as pointed out by Uppity.

The whole thing reminds me of a report on NPR yesterday about increasing numbers of women turning to independent businesses, especially Mary Kay and Avon. As the daughter of a former Mary Kay rep., and a user of both businesses, I found this interesting and timely.

Oink! Can I have a do-over please?

The breakdown, of the 'stimulus,' err, Santa's wish-list, passed by the House of Representatives yesterday (without one Republican vote and without 12 Dems, brave souls), in the Wall Street Journal today is astounding. I'll be there at least some voters out there wishing they could have a do-over from last Nov. 2. I just 'loved' Nancy Pelosi's grin as she announced the votes last night - she looked like she was in rictus. This thing is pure pork, and I've already written my Senators to demand they vote against it without substantial revision. We probably do need a stimulus, something this bill ain't.

Here's an excerpt:

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

We're sorry, so sorry ...

Can't you just hear Brenda Lee singing her classic song when you read this? Apparently Ahmadinejad thinks that we will apologize for opposing nuclear development by Iran. Maybe we'll even apologize for Pres. Carter's decision to give refuge to the Shah. At least, that's what he thinks he can push on the new Obama Administration. Hopefully, Mr. Hope and Change will have the guts to stand up to him. Otherwise, get ready for rug burns.

Maybe They'll Have to Apologize .... to Bush

The New York Times has posted an article with the title, Early Voting in Iraq is Mostly Smooth. The usual problems with a young state exist, but an actual democratic election seems to be underway. Any bets on when they'll post an apology for their coverage of the prior administration?

Change we can believe in?

On President Obama's first full day in office, he signed strict new 'transparency' rules, including regulations on the revolving door between K Street and government. Apparently those rules were signed a little too quickly because he turned around two days later to request an exception to these new rules to allow William Lynn to be the new Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist until last month. This about face turned out to be too much for Campbell Brown on CNN, who pleaded with the Obama Administration to enact 'actual transparency.' On a slightly less serious note, The Technology Liberation Front is griping that the administration is violating transparency commitments by not immediately posting documents related to meetings with non-governmental entities.

So what do you think? Is this the kind of change the voters were hoping for?

In the meanwhile, the proposals for a 'Bad Bank,' to absorb all bad (or potentially bad) holdings by major banks (in the hopes of freeing up the credit markets) have now risen to as high as $6 trillion. These allocations would be on top of the stimulus proposals (running between $700 billion and $1 trillion), and on top of the allocations from last year. At this rate, the debt burden from the 2008 - 2010 fiscal years won't be paid for at least six generations. That's not the kind of change I'm hoping to pass on down to my child and future generations.

Fearing fear

The oaths are over, and today's inauguration was indeed majestic. As Michael Reagan just said on ABC, it's President Obama's day, and he's earned it. Well, he's certainly earned the day. I don't know that I like the concept that he's 'earned' a $170M day secured by 40,000 personnel. That seems incredibly excessive, but at least the Inaugural Commission has promised to release donor names for those who gave more than $200.00.
I find myself thinking of Fred Barnes article in the Weekly Standard, titled "The Only Thing We Have to Fear." The article focuses on the big concerns that many of us have with the policy proposals that came out during the Obama campaign and subsequently. The first 'thing to fear' caught and held my attention throughout the rest of the article; we're afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about. Not in a general sense - he's a smart person and an excellent speaker. No, we are worried that he doesn't understand the fiscal and policy fallout that will occur if he enacts all he has said, and that he doesn't even have a solid plan in place (witnessed by the many changes to numbers of jobs, financing of the stimulus plan, tax rates, etc.). The rest of the article continued to ring true for me.
However, the main concept in the article; that we should be afraid; is not helpful and is unhealthy. It's our job as conservatives of all stripes to respect the office (and the man if possible), and provide opposition and challenge. Letting ourselves become paralyzed with fear will not help the party to rebuild, will not help advance our cause, and will make us seem like whiners, rather than an intelligent opposition. So don't be afraid, but be wary, cautious and willing to see if just maybe some of our worst fears are ungrounded.

A timely (and appropriate) pardon

The New York Times published an article today on President Bush's last use of his authority to commute and pardon, by reducing the sentences of two border agents convicted of shooting an unarmed and fleeing drug dealer. The dealer apparently had 743 pounds of marijuana, and the agents shot him while he was 'running away.' It's true that they shot an unarmed man who was fleeing, and that there was no imminent danger to themselves or fellow agents. It's also true that the long-term effect was to protect the American public, and to keep our borders secure. Even Sen. Feinstein seemed to troubled by the continued prosecution of these agents. I think it's an appropriate use of his authority to pardon. It's surely a better use of that authority than the pardon of Mark Rich.

Back and weirded out

The Moderate Conservative is back after a nearly two month break, and feeling like I've entered an alternative universe. My party is in disarray and retreat (Mel Martinez, why the h--- are you leaving after one term?!), and for some reason, I find myself identifying with the writing of Camille Paglia at Salon.com. Of course, she perpetually sounds like a liberal whose lost her bearings, and whose common sense makes her sympathetic to more conservative leanings. Just look at her article from right after the election (title link).

I hope I wasn't the only one disappointed by the pre-inaugural concert broadcast today on PBS on HBO (huh?). Not the music - most of that was pretty fun; it was the thematic sense gained from the music, speeches, prayer (by the lovely Gene Robinson), etc. The theme seemed to be one of, heah! Everything's good because we've intelligently elected the next Messiah, who has arisen to make all well. It all culminated with Pete Sieger singing "This land is your land ..." It's a song I enjoy, but was proclaimed to be the greatest song ever written about America. Help! Get me out of this time-space warp please!

On a happy note, the Steelers are hanging on to a razor-thin lead in the AFC championship. Just four minutes to go, and we're back in the Superbowl! Wait, no, we just won! Another touchdown with 4:24 to go. I love the long-haired dude whose name I can never remember, and I love Ben!

Bailout kings

As Pres-Elect Obama looks at a $500B - (by some estimates) $1trillion rescue package, it's important to look at the fundamental differences between idea of an economic stimulus and a 'bailout.' Obama's plan calls for a massive government jobs creation program (2.5 million on government-funded and regulated infrastructure, green-technologies, and other jobs), a large tax credit program, and a rescue of mortgage-holders going down the river. While Obama wouldn't specify numbers in today's news conference (he says he wants his new economic team to propose to him first), one thing is certain. A stimulus of this size would create a massive deficit and long-term debt, far beyond what we're looking at already. Obama acknowledged this fact in his news conference, but made not commitments as to how this debt would be dealt with, other than the shop-worn promise to look at the budget line-by-line. I don't think he's going to find $2 trillion (an estimate of all of the stimulus & rescue packages combined) to cut from the budget, so several generations are going to be footing this bill. He seems to have moderated his position on eliminating the Bush tax cuts somewhat, hinting that they may be allowed to expire on schedule rather than be eliminated.

Obama was asked about what he thought of the Citigroup bailout and proposed rescue of Detroit, and managed to dance mightily around these questions as well. In case you haven't turned on the news in the last couple of nights, Citigroup lost over half its stock value in less than a week after investors decided they were probably exaggerating the stability of their positions. The government promised to guaranteed a $306-billion loan package, which made Wall-Street happy, but may or may not be of long-term benefit. Sec. Paulson seemed uncertain of why this bailout will work in the long-run, and gave the same basic explanation provided with the AIG rescue - too big to fail. Probably true, but it's a bit disconcerting when there seems to be no clear plan for execution and success. Obama seems to think that as long as it looks like it could be successful, it's worth trying.

When Obama was asked about the Detroit bailout, he took the Nancy Pelosi line of 'we can't let them fail, but they need a good plan.' The Guardian had an interesting look at this on Sunday, comparing the successful rescue of Chrysler in the 1980s with the failed rescue of the UK's Leyland auto company which involved a government takeover. Two important facts jumped out of that article: in the case of Chrysler, Lee Iacocco was an expert who had already cleaned house and made an intensive restructuring plan before coming to Congress for the loan; the Leyland takeover involved major, intensive government-management of all aspects of the company, dooming it to failure. Neither Congress nor the federal government have good track records of managing much of anything. They need to leave that to the experts in individual fields, and deal with basic governance. My problem with the current proposed rescue is that Congress just promised the big-three a $25B loan in September, and rather than justifying how it will be used and how they'll restructure, the auto-industry is turning right around, hat in hand to ask for more. The auto industry has demonstrated failed planning and structure for years now, and shows no sign of turning that around.

There are certainly economists of all stripes right now recommending a further economic stimulus, but there's a big difference between a stimulus and a bailout. A bailout rescues someone or something, maybe with strings attached, but with no real means of ensuring operational change. A stimulus provides incentives to change, maybe with shot of cash, but leaves it to the market, or the individual, to correct mistakes. A stimulus doesn't make the assumption that government can and should be the major employer, manager and baby-sitter of record. That's just what the packages on the table will do - seems like a bailout to me.

The Dems Shop 'til We Drop

You have to love the 'audacity of hope' among the Congress and the big-three auto companies. Despite massive resistance nationally, and among many Congressional Republicans and the White House, they are pushing not one, but two competing plans to bail out the auto industry. Wagoner's testimony not-withstanding, the auto industry certainly doesn't deserve the bailout. They've already been bailed out on several occasions, and have continued to waste resources and time. The only ad that was on t.v. for Chevy over the past two weeks was for, you guessed it, a big-ole truck. The industry still doesn't seem to understand that it has dug its own grave and is now heading for the earth's molten core.

Don't get me wrong. It is very clear that bankruptcies among the major auto firms (as GM now claims it is heading for despite claiming adequate cash reserves and predicting a recovery just two months ago) will have a tremendous impact on the economy. But the big-three have become like that annoying uncle who's a hapless (and bad) gambling addict. They just keep coming back for a little more, swearing that this time they'll straighten up and fly right. And if you believe that one, there's a really cool bridge waiting for you in Brooklyn. Mitt Romney is right: bankruptcy is the only thing that will straighten out the industry. Whatever survives will emerge stronger, leaner and ready for competition. That's a much better scenario than the addicted uncle spending the nights on your couch, and it's a whole lot better than bailing him out again and again. Then again, Barney Frank and Harry Reid seems to find the uncle endearing. Maybe they can shop for a new couch on their own - mine's full up and I hate shopping.

Funny politics

Needed a pallet and brain-cleanser.

Enjoy!

Fluidity: The Ever Changing Bailout Plan

Henry Paulson defended himself before Congress today, arguing that the original concept of the bailout plan (excuse me, economic recovery plan), which largely involved buying up 'toxic securities' (tied to unknown amounts of bad mortgages), is no longer the best solution to the credit and financial crises. Paulson now argues that $700 billion in tax dollars should be used to buy partial ownership stakes in the banks themselves. Nationalization of banks in the good 'ole USA? The idea boggles the mind. Perhaps it'll mean better management; at least AIG won't use any more of the loan to take its Exec's on nice spa trips; but I can't help thinking that this trip down socialism's memory lane it just going to keep getting darker.

In the meanwhile, AIG is getting another $40B, while American Express convinced the Fed. to allow them to become a real bank in record time, which may now use that status to request a share of the pie. And to top it all off, the Dynamic Duo of Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, backed by that happy socialist, Barney Franks, is demanding to bailout the auto industry, mortgage-holders, and just about anything not nailed down, while increasing spending at an enormous pace, deficit-be-damned.

Most of us are sensible enough to cut back on spending when times get tough - to be a little more thrifty. Not the Congress. They seem to think that increasing spending, increasing taxes, and taking over private industry is just the ticket to fix the economy. Now where have we heard this before?

How nice: a bald, toothless, hypoallergenic dog for the Obamas

Well now, don't you think this is just a perfect fit for the President-Elect, who is about to meet a manufactured challenge brought on by a world eager to test the new kid on the block? Gird your loins, puppy!

If you can read this, thank a veteran

No, I'm not slamming teachers with the article title. I'm grateful for my daughter's teacher, and all she does. But I'd like you to think for a minute about what today's remembrance means. From the sacrifice of citizen-soldiers, we gained a country to call our own. From the sacrifice of our armed forces in WWI and WWII, Europe was freed from tryanny. From the sacrifice of our service members, people all over the world were kept safe. If it weren't for the willingness of ordinary men and women to defend their country and her liberty, we would not have the right to vote as we choose, read what we will, speak what we think, believe, worship or learn. These rights were bought, and bought dearly.

Thank a veteran today.

The Chicago Machine Rolls On: MSM Finally Does Some Reporting

In a sign that the MSM may be recovering a modicum of dignity, reporting on the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as the next Chief of Staff is not nearly all rosy. The Chicago Tribune (title article) reported on his deep ties to the corrupt Chicago Daley Machine (you know, the one that produced our President Elect). ABC News reported on the fact that Emanuel was director of Freddie Mac during the time it was cooking the books. Hmmm, since Pres.-Elect Obama is one of the largest recipients of money from them, I guess having the guy who donated to you makes sense. Even the NY Times seems a little troubled. It's a bit late, guys, to convince us you weren't thoroughly rolled, but maybe this indicates the honeymoon won't extend for four years.

Risk sensitivity and voters

While sitting in an Ecological Modeling Class the other day, I had a revelation about why normally sane, rational people were so caught up in the Obamamania. They are economic risk-takers. Risk-sensitivity theory is based on modeling the behavior of consumers based on their preferences when faced with a choice between a 50/50 chance of a high payoff (vs. no or low payoff) and a 100% chance of a moderate payoff. These models are the whole reason for the targeting of low-income and low-education consumers by lotto boards; people with lower incomes and lower educations often (note, not always - no model is perfect) choose the riskier option. They will spend money on the chance of a high payoff, knowing they're more likely to get no or a low payoff. Those who have more, tend to be more cautious and choose the 'certainty' option. They are more likely to choose the 100% option of a moderate payoff.

This sounds to me to be very close to what happened on Tuesday. Only in this case, I think we'd have to add into the 'low-income' category, those who perceive themselves (perhaps 2nd hand) as suffering. These voters were willing to take a gamble on someone who has no experience, a murky background, and offers 'pie-in-the-sky' rhetoric over a true American hero with more experience in his little finger. The Obama-lovers were "risk prone." To get themselves away from what they perceive as the source of their woes (the Republican Party), they gambled. Even with this gambling addiction sweeping our country, and the Obama campaign doing its darndest to buy the election, John McCain would still have won if it weren't for the addition of those 'we hate him so much we'll doom the entire country' Republicans who NEVER SHOWED UP TO VOTE. I'm really angriest at them. How dare they thumb their noses at all of us. Now we all have to find out what the gamble will bring us.