So according to a Justice Department memo dated May 30, 2005 the use of enhanced interrogation techniques - including waterboarding - on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed aka KSM, caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.
As a resident of Los Angeles, I say "more waterboarding please."
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Party Like It's 1997
The Dow dropped to 7115 today, it's lowest level since 1997. While that in and of itself is scary, this is the line from the AP story that really put it in perspective.
It's as if the decade's dot-com surge, collapse and subsequent recovery never occurred.
Woah. That's heavy man.
I suppose if President Bush were still in power, the MSM would be blaming him. Actually, they're still blaming him even though he's no longer president.
At what point will the MSM wake up and realize that this is President Obama's problem and that he's only making it worse between his pessimistic prognostications about the economy and his economic policies.
Maybe it's unfair to declare someone a failure this early into their administration but geez, this is really starting to look like amateur hour at the Improv.
It's as if the decade's dot-com surge, collapse and subsequent recovery never occurred.
Woah. That's heavy man.
I suppose if President Bush were still in power, the MSM would be blaming him. Actually, they're still blaming him even though he's no longer president.
At what point will the MSM wake up and realize that this is President Obama's problem and that he's only making it worse between his pessimistic prognostications about the economy and his economic policies.
Maybe it's unfair to declare someone a failure this early into their administration but geez, this is really starting to look like amateur hour at the Improv.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Dukes of Moral Hazzard
A reader comment from the Wall Street Journal in response to the Op-Ed "Dukes of Moral Hazzard."
I made a mistake. I got a mortgage that didn't overextend me and probably bought the right piece of property so it's not going upside down. As a reward I get to pay for TARP I, TARP II, the stimulus plan, mortgage nationalizations, bank nationalizations, and the AIG nationalization. What all else Obama will think up to punish me?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
President Obama is rewarding bad behavior while he engages in reckless spending and a doubling of the fiscal year debt in only 4 weeks on the job. I don't think that's the hope and change people were expecting.
I made a mistake. I got a mortgage that didn't overextend me and probably bought the right piece of property so it's not going upside down. As a reward I get to pay for TARP I, TARP II, the stimulus plan, mortgage nationalizations, bank nationalizations, and the AIG nationalization. What all else Obama will think up to punish me?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
President Obama is rewarding bad behavior while he engages in reckless spending and a doubling of the fiscal year debt in only 4 weeks on the job. I don't think that's the hope and change people were expecting.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Are We All Swedes Now?
Last week, Rep. Barney Frank (who helped get us into this financial mess by insisting that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound up until the day they failed) and his cronies on the House Banking Committee spent time beating up on the bank CEO’s and wondering what they are doing with the money given to them by Congress. Why aren’t they lending more of it? Is Barney Frank really that dumb? Wait, don’t answer that.
Why wouldn’t banks lend money? Let’s look at some possible reasons.
a) The banks are all run by greedy bastards who want to take taxpayer money and do whatever they want with it
b) The banks are discriminating against good people who qualify for loans
c) The banks are holding the money they received from Congress in reserve because they are actually broke and can’t make loans
Clearly, judging from the questions that Rep Frank and his colleagues asked the bank CEO’s, they’re operating from the viewpoints of choice “a” and “b.”
I think the answer is “c” and I don’t even think it’s close.
We’ll know for sure in April when they have to release first quarter earning statements. I’m betting that some of those banks are going to be worth less than what Congress loaned them.
At which point, you will have to seriously talk about nationalizing some of those banks or simply letting them fail. Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini, professors at New York University's Stern School of Business, make a good case for Nationalization of the banks in a Washington Post article “Nationalize the Banks. We’re all Swedes Now.”
My biggest concern is how would you stop a bank run once you declare a big bank insolvent? You’ll have to guarantee deposits but shareholders will be all but wiped out. And if shareholders know that the bank is going to be declared insolvent, what’s to stop them from taking all of their money out before that happens? Even just the hint of insolvency could start a bank run. Citigroup and Bank of America are large institutions that would affect the whole system if they went down. Last year, Senator Chuck Schumer hinted that there might be a problem with Indy Mac and before you knew it, that bank was dead as customers rushed to take their money out. Washington Mutual suffered a bank run from May through July of last year and ended up being bought by Chase.
My other concern is that once government gets its hands on something, it doesn’t like to let it go. Bank nationalization, combined with a high corporate tax rate, and whatever other stringent regulations a Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is likely to push through, might also leave investors sitting on the sidelines or fleeing for other countries.
I’m not saying that bank nationalization couldn’t work if it’s done right. But given the administration’s behavior so far – the $787 billion stimulus bill, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner’s lack of a coherent plan to spend the rest of the TARP funds, the apologists in the foreign policy arena - I have very little faith in the current administration to pull it off.
Why wouldn’t banks lend money? Let’s look at some possible reasons.
a) The banks are all run by greedy bastards who want to take taxpayer money and do whatever they want with it
b) The banks are discriminating against good people who qualify for loans
c) The banks are holding the money they received from Congress in reserve because they are actually broke and can’t make loans
Clearly, judging from the questions that Rep Frank and his colleagues asked the bank CEO’s, they’re operating from the viewpoints of choice “a” and “b.”
I think the answer is “c” and I don’t even think it’s close.
We’ll know for sure in April when they have to release first quarter earning statements. I’m betting that some of those banks are going to be worth less than what Congress loaned them.
At which point, you will have to seriously talk about nationalizing some of those banks or simply letting them fail. Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini, professors at New York University's Stern School of Business, make a good case for Nationalization of the banks in a Washington Post article “Nationalize the Banks. We’re all Swedes Now.”
My biggest concern is how would you stop a bank run once you declare a big bank insolvent? You’ll have to guarantee deposits but shareholders will be all but wiped out. And if shareholders know that the bank is going to be declared insolvent, what’s to stop them from taking all of their money out before that happens? Even just the hint of insolvency could start a bank run. Citigroup and Bank of America are large institutions that would affect the whole system if they went down. Last year, Senator Chuck Schumer hinted that there might be a problem with Indy Mac and before you knew it, that bank was dead as customers rushed to take their money out. Washington Mutual suffered a bank run from May through July of last year and ended up being bought by Chase.
My other concern is that once government gets its hands on something, it doesn’t like to let it go. Bank nationalization, combined with a high corporate tax rate, and whatever other stringent regulations a Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is likely to push through, might also leave investors sitting on the sidelines or fleeing for other countries.
I’m not saying that bank nationalization couldn’t work if it’s done right. But given the administration’s behavior so far – the $787 billion stimulus bill, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner’s lack of a coherent plan to spend the rest of the TARP funds, the apologists in the foreign policy arena - I have very little faith in the current administration to pull it off.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner
There is a scene in the movie QUIZ SHOW near the end where Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) goes before a Senate Committee and eloquently apologizes for his role in the quiz show scandals. When he is finished, one Senator after another praises him for his courage in making the statement. Then a Senator from New York chimes in and says that while he's happy that he made the statement, he can't praise him for making the statement because he thinks a man of Charles Van Doren's intellect should not be praised for simply telling the truth.
This is kind of how I feel about Tom Daschle withdrawing his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services. While I'm glad Daschle did the right thing in withdrawing, he could have done the right thing years ago by simply paying his taxes.
However, compared to Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury despite his failure to report income and pay taxes on it until the vetting process discovered it, Tom Daschle appears principled. Geithner should be ashamed of himself.
This is kind of how I feel about Tom Daschle withdrawing his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services. While I'm glad Daschle did the right thing in withdrawing, he could have done the right thing years ago by simply paying his taxes.
However, compared to Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury despite his failure to report income and pay taxes on it until the vetting process discovered it, Tom Daschle appears principled. Geithner should be ashamed of himself.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rush Limbaugh vs. The Stimulus
Since President Obama has declared that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republicans, Rush has decided to play along and offer his own version of a stimulus proposal in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.
It's definitely worth reading.
It's definitely worth reading.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
More Stimulus Nonsense
I know that everybody out there is saying that based on the results of the 2008 election, the Republicans are going to be out of power for a long time. I disagree. Right now, the Republicans have a great shot to set themselves up for retaking Congress in 2010 if they do one simple thing - vote against the $825 billion stimulus boondoggle that is making it's way along Capitol Hill.
The single biggest thing that John McCain did wrong was not running against the bailout when the economy went south. Instead, he suspended his campaign, went to Washington DC under the guise of we must make a deal, and then got burned when the original bill went down in flames. Whomever thought that letting John McCain go to Washington DC to try to make a deal gave him bad advice. I'm not a political operative, yet I could have told you that a Democratic Congress that was desperate in its attempt to recapture the White House was not going to let John McCain take any credit for any deal that was ever going to get made. And since McCain had no plan to offer, it made him look unpredictable and flighty. Then after railing against corporate fat cats, he votes "yes" on the stimulus anyway. At that point, to borrow a phrase from TMQ, I wrote "game over" in my notebook regarding the election.
Had McCain actually had a plan that did not include fleecing the American taxpayer and had he presented this plan to Congress and had the Democrats rejected it, then he could have run against the bailout. That I think would have resonated more with the American public than airing commercials about Obama and his ties to Bill Ayers.
But we'll never know.
As for this "stimulus" bill, according to a Wall Street Journal editorial, their estimate, after reading the entire bill which I doubt many members of Congress have actually done, only $90 billion actually go towards infrastructure projects that Obama and the Democrats have been touting. The rest is just giveaways to things such as Amtrak, global warming studies, the NEA (not that I don't think they deserve funding but in a stimulus bill? puh-lease), carbon capture studies, well, you get the idea. Some projects won't even be funded until year 3 or 4 of the spending plan. How does that stimulate the economy?
Now if this bill was all about upgrading infrastructure, like the power grid and such, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat because those things need to be upgraded. But this bill contains more pork than a package of Farmer John bacon.
Republicans have put forth their own plan. They should hold as many press conferences between now and the vote and highlight the fact that their proposal contains no new spending and puts money back in the hands of the people who actually work. Then they should vote "no" on the bill that the Democrats wrote and so eagerly want to pass.
And then when the country is still running giants deficits in 2010 and President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are talking about hiking taxes about the time inflation hits, the Republicans will run against the "stimulus bill" and sweep back to power.
Of course, if the stimulus bill works (and if it does I will change my middle name to "bin Laden" and re-register as a socialist), then the Republicans will be running against a very popular Democratic party. However, if I were a Republican Congressman, that's a chance I'd be willing to take. Put another way: if you vote for the bill and it works, the Democrats will not let you take any credit anyway, so you may as well stick to your principles and vote "no."
The single biggest thing that John McCain did wrong was not running against the bailout when the economy went south. Instead, he suspended his campaign, went to Washington DC under the guise of we must make a deal, and then got burned when the original bill went down in flames. Whomever thought that letting John McCain go to Washington DC to try to make a deal gave him bad advice. I'm not a political operative, yet I could have told you that a Democratic Congress that was desperate in its attempt to recapture the White House was not going to let John McCain take any credit for any deal that was ever going to get made. And since McCain had no plan to offer, it made him look unpredictable and flighty. Then after railing against corporate fat cats, he votes "yes" on the stimulus anyway. At that point, to borrow a phrase from TMQ, I wrote "game over" in my notebook regarding the election.
Had McCain actually had a plan that did not include fleecing the American taxpayer and had he presented this plan to Congress and had the Democrats rejected it, then he could have run against the bailout. That I think would have resonated more with the American public than airing commercials about Obama and his ties to Bill Ayers.
But we'll never know.
As for this "stimulus" bill, according to a Wall Street Journal editorial, their estimate, after reading the entire bill which I doubt many members of Congress have actually done, only $90 billion actually go towards infrastructure projects that Obama and the Democrats have been touting. The rest is just giveaways to things such as Amtrak, global warming studies, the NEA (not that I don't think they deserve funding but in a stimulus bill? puh-lease), carbon capture studies, well, you get the idea. Some projects won't even be funded until year 3 or 4 of the spending plan. How does that stimulate the economy?
Now if this bill was all about upgrading infrastructure, like the power grid and such, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat because those things need to be upgraded. But this bill contains more pork than a package of Farmer John bacon.
Republicans have put forth their own plan. They should hold as many press conferences between now and the vote and highlight the fact that their proposal contains no new spending and puts money back in the hands of the people who actually work. Then they should vote "no" on the bill that the Democrats wrote and so eagerly want to pass.
And then when the country is still running giants deficits in 2010 and President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are talking about hiking taxes about the time inflation hits, the Republicans will run against the "stimulus bill" and sweep back to power.
Of course, if the stimulus bill works (and if it does I will change my middle name to "bin Laden" and re-register as a socialist), then the Republicans will be running against a very popular Democratic party. However, if I were a Republican Congressman, that's a chance I'd be willing to take. Put another way: if you vote for the bill and it works, the Democrats will not let you take any credit anyway, so you may as well stick to your principles and vote "no."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Campbell Brown Pleasantly Surprised Me
Well, since I called Campbell Brown out for doing something wrong, I want to give her credit for doing something right. President Obama signed a law saying that if you were a lobbyist, you cannot work in his administration in the area you once lobbied for and you can't lobby his administration if you leave your job. Except then he applied for a waiver form his own law because his nominee to be Deputy Defense Secretary used to work for Raytheon, a really big defense contractor. I scoffed that this was politics as usual and I don't have a problem with lobbyists per se, as I think that everyone has a right to petition the government to be heard, but for the new "hope and change" president, this seemed like a really cynical move of "well, the rules apply unless I need them to be broken."
Campbell Brown takes issue with President Obama.
It's not as strongly worded as I would have done it, but at least some person in the MSM noticed and registered disappointment.
Campbell Brown takes issue with President Obama.
It's not as strongly worded as I would have done it, but at least some person in the MSM noticed and registered disappointment.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Closing Guantanamo
Predictably, President Obama signed an executive order yesterday to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay where 245 terrorists, oops, I mean suspected terrorists and enemy combatants are held. While the left and the MSM are drooling over this and think it's a great, I think it's a bad idea with no upside.
For starters, where do you put them if not Guantanamo Bay? It's remote. It's not located on US soil. It has the advantage of being surrounded by water on one side and Cuba on the other. Neither one is very inviting if a prisoner were to escape. But if you put them in a federal prison in the US, all of a sudden that prison becomes a high value terrorist target. And they're now on US soil which means they're subject to the laws of the the US Constitution. But they didn't commit a crime in the US. I don't think legally we'd be allowed to hold them without charging them with a crime. And then they are provided the protections of the US system of justice. How do you prosecute a guy you picked up for tossing hand grenades at you in Iraq? There is no CSI Iraq who took fingerprints or such back at the scene during a battle.
So let's say that President Obama figures all this out and actually manages to close Gitmo. What happens when one of those prisoners who was released for lack of evidence - because they got stuck into the American justice system - shows up in the United States and blows something up. What then? How do you go in front of the American people and say oops, I closed Gitmo and it appears that the person who took innocent American lives was one of those people that was released for lack of evidence, but it was still the right thing to do?
One of the things that you have to give former President George W. Bush credit for is that there was not another attack on US soil after 9/11. That's incredible. After 9/11, no one thought that we could go 7 years without another attack. Another attack was taken for granted. It wasn't "if" it was going to happen but "when" it was going to happen. If you're President Obama, why do you want to increase the odds that it will happen on your watch? So you can be better liked by Europe? Before I close it down, I would call every foreign leader who criticized Gitmo and ask them if they would be willing to take some of the people being held there into their country. If their answer was "no" then I would politely tell them to "f off, we're keeping the place open until you change your mind."
I'd rather be safe and have Europe dislike us than have an outpouring of sympathy towards us in the wake of another 9/11.
For starters, where do you put them if not Guantanamo Bay? It's remote. It's not located on US soil. It has the advantage of being surrounded by water on one side and Cuba on the other. Neither one is very inviting if a prisoner were to escape. But if you put them in a federal prison in the US, all of a sudden that prison becomes a high value terrorist target. And they're now on US soil which means they're subject to the laws of the the US Constitution. But they didn't commit a crime in the US. I don't think legally we'd be allowed to hold them without charging them with a crime. And then they are provided the protections of the US system of justice. How do you prosecute a guy you picked up for tossing hand grenades at you in Iraq? There is no CSI Iraq who took fingerprints or such back at the scene during a battle.
So let's say that President Obama figures all this out and actually manages to close Gitmo. What happens when one of those prisoners who was released for lack of evidence - because they got stuck into the American justice system - shows up in the United States and blows something up. What then? How do you go in front of the American people and say oops, I closed Gitmo and it appears that the person who took innocent American lives was one of those people that was released for lack of evidence, but it was still the right thing to do?
One of the things that you have to give former President George W. Bush credit for is that there was not another attack on US soil after 9/11. That's incredible. After 9/11, no one thought that we could go 7 years without another attack. Another attack was taken for granted. It wasn't "if" it was going to happen but "when" it was going to happen. If you're President Obama, why do you want to increase the odds that it will happen on your watch? So you can be better liked by Europe? Before I close it down, I would call every foreign leader who criticized Gitmo and ask them if they would be willing to take some of the people being held there into their country. If their answer was "no" then I would politely tell them to "f off, we're keeping the place open until you change your mind."
I'd rather be safe and have Europe dislike us than have an outpouring of sympathy towards us in the wake of another 9/11.
Puffballs with Chris Matthews and Total Bias, Complete Bull with Campbell Brown
Okay, so it was completely obvious that Chris Matthews was on the Obama bandwagon during the primary season last year when he announced to his audience that he gets a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks. So it came as no surprise the other day when Matthews criticized as Rush Limbaugh as unpatriotic for saying that he hopes Obama fails.
And last night, Campbell Brown who hosts "No Bias, No Bull" on CNN (and for those who complain that Fox News isn't "fair and balanced" as their slogan claims, I call bulls*** on No Bias, No Bull) also got into the act and denounced Limbaugh as "off key" with the "mainstream media" and "congressional Republicans" thus concluding that his view is "a big mistake."
Do Chris Matthews and Campbell Brown even know who they are talking about? This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. He's a conservative ideologue. He's often disagreed with congressional Republicans and he certainly disagrees with the mainstream media, which is overwhelming liberal. He believes in conservative principals. Obama believes in liberal principals. For Rush Limbaugh, having Obama fail means that he would fail to implement liberal policies that Limbaugh disagrees with. By that definition, I hope Obama fails on a lot of issues as well.
And where were the two of you the last 8 years when people openly criticized President Bush and openly hoped that he'd fail, when they rooted for failure in Iraq? Did you criticize those people as unpatriotic? No, you did not. Instead, you sounded the trumpet from the highest tower than Bush was selected not elected, a moron who was shredding the Constitution and blundering into an illegal war in Iraq. You criticized people who suggested that not supporting the president during a time of war was unpatriotic and said you were simply speaking truth to power and that it was your job as the media to be the watchdog. You never gave George W. Bush a chance. And you now have the audacity to call Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic for hoping that Barack Obama, a man whose views are the complete total opposite of his, fails to implement his liberal policies.
Shame on the two of you. You can't even cover up your blatant Obama bias and your hypocritical stance on this issue is despicable. You two represent what is the worst about America - free speech for me but not for thee.
And last night, Campbell Brown who hosts "No Bias, No Bull" on CNN (and for those who complain that Fox News isn't "fair and balanced" as their slogan claims, I call bulls*** on No Bias, No Bull) also got into the act and denounced Limbaugh as "off key" with the "mainstream media" and "congressional Republicans" thus concluding that his view is "a big mistake."
Do Chris Matthews and Campbell Brown even know who they are talking about? This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. He's a conservative ideologue. He's often disagreed with congressional Republicans and he certainly disagrees with the mainstream media, which is overwhelming liberal. He believes in conservative principals. Obama believes in liberal principals. For Rush Limbaugh, having Obama fail means that he would fail to implement liberal policies that Limbaugh disagrees with. By that definition, I hope Obama fails on a lot of issues as well.
And where were the two of you the last 8 years when people openly criticized President Bush and openly hoped that he'd fail, when they rooted for failure in Iraq? Did you criticize those people as unpatriotic? No, you did not. Instead, you sounded the trumpet from the highest tower than Bush was selected not elected, a moron who was shredding the Constitution and blundering into an illegal war in Iraq. You criticized people who suggested that not supporting the president during a time of war was unpatriotic and said you were simply speaking truth to power and that it was your job as the media to be the watchdog. You never gave George W. Bush a chance. And you now have the audacity to call Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic for hoping that Barack Obama, a man whose views are the complete total opposite of his, fails to implement his liberal policies.
Shame on the two of you. You can't even cover up your blatant Obama bias and your hypocritical stance on this issue is despicable. You two represent what is the worst about America - free speech for me but not for thee.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What I Hope For
Well, now that President Obama has officially taken the oath of office at the coronation, I mean, inauguration, I'd like to take this opportunity to wish him well. He has a lot of challenges ahead of him: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia (can't forget them), out of control entitlement programs, the economy, and last but not least - tax and spend Democrats controlling Congress.
I will support him on issues where we have common ground and oppose, but not obstruct, him on issues where we disagree. I hope that he doesn't think that more government is the solution to all of our problems. I hope that he realizes that higher taxes are not the way to revive a sluggish economy. I hope he doesn't starting spending our tax dollars on a boondoggle stimulus bill. And I hope he realizes that the power of the individual is what makes America great, not the power of the government.
Yes, it's a lot of hoping but a man can dream, can't he?
I will support him on issues where we have common ground and oppose, but not obstruct, him on issues where we disagree. I hope that he doesn't think that more government is the solution to all of our problems. I hope that he realizes that higher taxes are not the way to revive a sluggish economy. I hope he doesn't starting spending our tax dollars on a boondoggle stimulus bill. And I hope he realizes that the power of the individual is what makes America great, not the power of the government.
Yes, it's a lot of hoping but a man can dream, can't he?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Secretary of Defense: Peaceniks Need Not Apply
The anti-war left is at it again. It's not enough that their man, Barack Obama, won the election. They want a say in who he selects as his Secretary of Defense also.
And who do they want? You can read the whole thing here. But here's an excerpt.
"Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice."
So they want an anti-war voice to be Secretary of Defense. Boy do I think that is misguided and I'll tell you why. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be looking out for America and keep her safe. That means that they have to be thinking about war and how to conduct it, even if it is only hypothetical. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about what would happen if we had to fight a particular war against a particular enemy. I want my Secretary of Defense to be thinking about aging nuclear warheads and what can be done to repair them. I want my Secretary of Defense to have a vast knowledge of history and conflicts and battle tactics. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about how to make the military more effective.
What I do not want is for my Secretary of Defense to be some peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out person who is afraid to go to war. I want my Secretary of Defense prepared to go to war, yet I hope we never have to call on him to actually go. And since Robert Gates has been brought on to be Secretary of Defense, the war in Iraq has turned around. I think it would be foolish to turn him loose now. In fact, it would say a lot to me about Barack Obama's judgement if he kept him around, at least for the next year or so.
As for those peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out people, send them to the State Department. They can mend fences overseas with countries that allegedly hate us.
And who do they want? You can read the whole thing here. But here's an excerpt.
"Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice."
So they want an anti-war voice to be Secretary of Defense. Boy do I think that is misguided and I'll tell you why. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be looking out for America and keep her safe. That means that they have to be thinking about war and how to conduct it, even if it is only hypothetical. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about what would happen if we had to fight a particular war against a particular enemy. I want my Secretary of Defense to be thinking about aging nuclear warheads and what can be done to repair them. I want my Secretary of Defense to have a vast knowledge of history and conflicts and battle tactics. I want my Secretary of Defense to always be thinking about how to make the military more effective.
What I do not want is for my Secretary of Defense to be some peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out person who is afraid to go to war. I want my Secretary of Defense prepared to go to war, yet I hope we never have to call on him to actually go. And since Robert Gates has been brought on to be Secretary of Defense, the war in Iraq has turned around. I think it would be foolish to turn him loose now. In fact, it would say a lot to me about Barack Obama's judgement if he kept him around, at least for the next year or so.
As for those peace loving, anti-war, let's all hug it out people, send them to the State Department. They can mend fences overseas with countries that allegedly hate us.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Thoughts on Governor Palin
I want to start by saying that I am a fan of Governor Sarah Palin. I am one of those people who thinks that Sarah Palin has a bright future in politics outside of Alaska if she decides to pursue it. While I think that she probably didn't have enough experience with some of the issues that come up in a presidential campaign, I also saw that she was a quick learner. She more than held her own in the debate with Senator Biden, especially since she didn't have the luxury of having the media cover for any gaffes, like they did for him (e.g. France and the US kicked Hamas out of Syria? When?) Unfortunately, in today's business of "gotcha journalism" you have to figure out how to say the equivalent of "I don't know but I assure you that I will" without actually saying those words.
I also think the McCain campaign did her no favors, particularly in the national security/foreign policy area, by insisting that being commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard gave her foreign policy experience. To me, it would have been better to point out that until Barack Obama made his European tour this summer, he hadn't met a foreign leader either. And if Barack Obama felt so sure of his foreign policy credentials, why did he feel the need to choose Senator Biden as his running mate, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee? Also, Harry Truman, Calvin Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt had limited foreign policy when they were Vice Presidents and they turned out okay.
But I digress and we could discuss the errors of the McCain campaign ad naseum but we will not do it in this post.
When I glanced at the "Today" show this morning, I caught a few moments of Matt Lauer's interview with Governor Sarah Palin and her family. The tone in the interview was much more respectful than what was shown towards her on the campaign trail. Now that the election is over, I suspect that the main stream media are feeling guilty for treating her badly and are trying to make some kind of amends. I think they know that they have lost credibility with half of the American people. I also think they know she is a ratings goldmine and they want those numbers, especially given how their viewership keeps eroding quarter after quarter.
The tone of the interview made me curious about Greta Van Susteren's interview with Governor Palin as well. So I went and watched all four parts of it here. I would urge you all to do the same.
One of the things that I took away from that interview is that Sarah Palin has thick skin. The media treatment of her was downright sexist and totally disgusting. We got a glimpse of that treatment during the Democratic primary when we witnessed how the media treated Hillary Clinton. But it was open season on Sarah Palin. I think if I had woken up every morning for the last nine weeks and read nothing but the worst lies and terrible stories that misrepresent my positions, not to mention the ad hominem attacks put out by bloggers, the main stream media, and bloggers working for the main stream media (Andrew Sullivan, I'm looking in your direction), I would have eventually gone postal on someone.
Governor Palin also made the point that if people wanted to know the truth about something, they could have asked her. Instead, the media would put out a story to misrepresent her position (e.g. that she slashed funding for unwed mothers) without bothering to correct it later (she actually increased funding by threefold rather than fivefold). I did notice this through out the campaign and that's when I firmly started to believe that the media had crossed a line. They were no longer interested in the facts or her record. They simply did not want anyone to stand in the way of Barack Obama's election.
Another example that the media ignored during the campaign, but one that I thought showed good judgement, was a bill she vetoed in Alaska that would have denied benefits to partners of gay state employees. Sarah Palin is against gay marriage but for civil unions. One would think that she would have signed the bill no questions asked, considering her personal stance. However, the question she asked the Attorney General when the bill came to her was 'is this constitutional?' It didn't matter whether she agreed with it or not, it mattered to her whether it was in violation of the Alaskan Constitution or not. This shows to me that she is less interested in pushing a personal agenda and more interested in governing according to the law.
Personally, I think if more politicians took that cue, we'd be a lot better off as a country. Then again, I think most politicians think that the US Constitution is something that can be championed when it supports their point of view or ignored when it conflicts with their point of view. It's nice to see Governor Palin isn't one of those people.
I also think the McCain campaign did her no favors, particularly in the national security/foreign policy area, by insisting that being commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard gave her foreign policy experience. To me, it would have been better to point out that until Barack Obama made his European tour this summer, he hadn't met a foreign leader either. And if Barack Obama felt so sure of his foreign policy credentials, why did he feel the need to choose Senator Biden as his running mate, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee? Also, Harry Truman, Calvin Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt had limited foreign policy when they were Vice Presidents and they turned out okay.
But I digress and we could discuss the errors of the McCain campaign ad naseum but we will not do it in this post.
When I glanced at the "Today" show this morning, I caught a few moments of Matt Lauer's interview with Governor Sarah Palin and her family. The tone in the interview was much more respectful than what was shown towards her on the campaign trail. Now that the election is over, I suspect that the main stream media are feeling guilty for treating her badly and are trying to make some kind of amends. I think they know that they have lost credibility with half of the American people. I also think they know she is a ratings goldmine and they want those numbers, especially given how their viewership keeps eroding quarter after quarter.
The tone of the interview made me curious about Greta Van Susteren's interview with Governor Palin as well. So I went and watched all four parts of it here. I would urge you all to do the same.
One of the things that I took away from that interview is that Sarah Palin has thick skin. The media treatment of her was downright sexist and totally disgusting. We got a glimpse of that treatment during the Democratic primary when we witnessed how the media treated Hillary Clinton. But it was open season on Sarah Palin. I think if I had woken up every morning for the last nine weeks and read nothing but the worst lies and terrible stories that misrepresent my positions, not to mention the ad hominem attacks put out by bloggers, the main stream media, and bloggers working for the main stream media (Andrew Sullivan, I'm looking in your direction), I would have eventually gone postal on someone.
Governor Palin also made the point that if people wanted to know the truth about something, they could have asked her. Instead, the media would put out a story to misrepresent her position (e.g. that she slashed funding for unwed mothers) without bothering to correct it later (she actually increased funding by threefold rather than fivefold). I did notice this through out the campaign and that's when I firmly started to believe that the media had crossed a line. They were no longer interested in the facts or her record. They simply did not want anyone to stand in the way of Barack Obama's election.
Another example that the media ignored during the campaign, but one that I thought showed good judgement, was a bill she vetoed in Alaska that would have denied benefits to partners of gay state employees. Sarah Palin is against gay marriage but for civil unions. One would think that she would have signed the bill no questions asked, considering her personal stance. However, the question she asked the Attorney General when the bill came to her was 'is this constitutional?' It didn't matter whether she agreed with it or not, it mattered to her whether it was in violation of the Alaskan Constitution or not. This shows to me that she is less interested in pushing a personal agenda and more interested in governing according to the law.
Personally, I think if more politicians took that cue, we'd be a lot better off as a country. Then again, I think most politicians think that the US Constitution is something that can be championed when it supports their point of view or ignored when it conflicts with their point of view. It's nice to see Governor Palin isn't one of those people.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
President Obama's Greatest Challenge
As he takes office, President Obama will face a great many challenges and there will likely be no honeymoon period afforded to him. So what do I think will be his greatest challenge?
The Economy? No, the economy will right itself in spite of what President Obama may do to taxes, trade, tariffs, and unionization. The only thing that remains to be seen is how long the downturn lasts. He can help it along by lowering taxes or at the very least not raising them. But what John McCain said on the campaign trail was correct - the fundamentals of the economy are strong. It will bounce back.
Health care? Good luck beating the insurance lobby. They came out in full force in 1993 for the "Hillary Care" hearings and I have no doubt that they'll be back for round two.
Energy? No, it won't be his biggest challenge. We might continue subsidizing expensive alternative energy sources, but we're doing okay right now.
The war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. I think as long as General Petraeus is in charge, who is an honorable and reputable man (despite what Moveon.org might think), President Obama will listen to him and heed his advice. By the way, the American people gave the military the highest job approval rating at 71%. Who ranked the lowest? That would be Congress at 12%.
Which leads me to what I think will be President Obama's greatest challenge - standing up to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Neither one of those two is likely to draw favorable leadership comparisons to either Tip O'Neill or Lyndon Johnson. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to regard tuesday's election results as a mandate for pursuing an aggressive liberal policy according to an article in today's New York Times.
They are going to try and send President Obama one far left bill after another. If he signs them, I doubt he'll be re-elected in 2012. President Clinton's first two years in office, when he had a Democratic House and Senate, were very different from his last six years, when he had a Republican controlled House. He was drifting to the left in his first two years and then tacked back towards the center when the Republicans regained control.
The last six years of President Clinton's administration were far more successful than the first two - balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts - and we owe some thanks to Newt Gingrich for that. It's possible that if the Republicans had run someone younger and more dynamic than Bob Dole, they might have recaptured the White House in 1996. But the Dole / Kemp ticket, while comprised of honorable men, felt old and stodgy compared to Clinton/Gore.
Will President Obama resist the temptation to drift left with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Only time will tell.
The Economy? No, the economy will right itself in spite of what President Obama may do to taxes, trade, tariffs, and unionization. The only thing that remains to be seen is how long the downturn lasts. He can help it along by lowering taxes or at the very least not raising them. But what John McCain said on the campaign trail was correct - the fundamentals of the economy are strong. It will bounce back.
Health care? Good luck beating the insurance lobby. They came out in full force in 1993 for the "Hillary Care" hearings and I have no doubt that they'll be back for round two.
Energy? No, it won't be his biggest challenge. We might continue subsidizing expensive alternative energy sources, but we're doing okay right now.
The war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. I think as long as General Petraeus is in charge, who is an honorable and reputable man (despite what Moveon.org might think), President Obama will listen to him and heed his advice. By the way, the American people gave the military the highest job approval rating at 71%. Who ranked the lowest? That would be Congress at 12%.
Which leads me to what I think will be President Obama's greatest challenge - standing up to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Neither one of those two is likely to draw favorable leadership comparisons to either Tip O'Neill or Lyndon Johnson. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to regard tuesday's election results as a mandate for pursuing an aggressive liberal policy according to an article in today's New York Times.
They are going to try and send President Obama one far left bill after another. If he signs them, I doubt he'll be re-elected in 2012. President Clinton's first two years in office, when he had a Democratic House and Senate, were very different from his last six years, when he had a Republican controlled House. He was drifting to the left in his first two years and then tacked back towards the center when the Republicans regained control.
The last six years of President Clinton's administration were far more successful than the first two - balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts - and we owe some thanks to Newt Gingrich for that. It's possible that if the Republicans had run someone younger and more dynamic than Bob Dole, they might have recaptured the White House in 1996. But the Dole / Kemp ticket, while comprised of honorable men, felt old and stodgy compared to Clinton/Gore.
Will President Obama resist the temptation to drift left with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Prop 1A
In California, it seems that we voters love to pass ballot propositions that cost us money. Lots of money. While I voted against every proposition that that wanted to raise taxes or sell bonds to raise money, which we eventually have to repay, a lot of my fellow Californians did not.
A familiar refrain from the left is that we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war. Forget the fact that cutting taxes has actually led to more revenue being taken in by the federal government, let's just take their argument at face value and say fine, we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war.
So, for all you lefties out there, here's my question to you. Should we be spending more money when the state of California is broke and already running a deficit for next year? Isn't that counter productive?
Look at Prop 1A. We're spending money for a high speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles that will not be operable for something like 15 years.
And since Measure K failed, which would have legalized prostitution in San Francisco, please explain we need a high speed train to San Francisco?
A familiar refrain from the left is that we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war. Forget the fact that cutting taxes has actually led to more revenue being taken in by the federal government, let's just take their argument at face value and say fine, we shouldn't be cutting taxes when we're in a war.
So, for all you lefties out there, here's my question to you. Should we be spending more money when the state of California is broke and already running a deficit for next year? Isn't that counter productive?
Look at Prop 1A. We're spending money for a high speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles that will not be operable for something like 15 years.
And since Measure K failed, which would have legalized prostitution in San Francisco, please explain we need a high speed train to San Francisco?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Voting Libertarian
When I voted this morning, I decided to do something that I normally don't do. I decided to use my vote as a protest against the two party system. Now had I been in a swing state, you can be sure I would have cast my ballot for McCain/Palin. But since I live in California which Obama is going to win handily, I decided to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. I do not expect him to win.
I'm going to be hoping and praying for McCain to win tonight. The last thing I want is a liberal Democratic Congress with no checks on them from the White House. Yes, the economy might restrain their spending in the short term but there is plenty of other things they can screw up - like card check for unions, judicial appointments where the judges don't feel bound by the limits of the Constitution, unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq or simply cutting off the funding, etc. You get the picture.
However, I feel that the Republican party has forgotten its small government principles over the last 8 years. And it seems that they never met a spending bill that they didn't like during the time they controlled Congress and the White House. On the other hand, it seems that the Democrats have forgotten their foreign policy credentials since the Jimmy Carter administration. I have a theory that since the Vietnam War occurred under a Democratic Administration and it basically caused the downfall of that administration, the Democratic Party as a whole is fearful of becoming militarily involved in any conflict. In fact, what was President Clinton's policy in Bosnia? No troops, only bombs.
So, given the fact that I think the two party system is in need of repair, I voted Libertarian. Will the politicians get the message? Only time will tell.
I'm going to be hoping and praying for McCain to win tonight. The last thing I want is a liberal Democratic Congress with no checks on them from the White House. Yes, the economy might restrain their spending in the short term but there is plenty of other things they can screw up - like card check for unions, judicial appointments where the judges don't feel bound by the limits of the Constitution, unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq or simply cutting off the funding, etc. You get the picture.
However, I feel that the Republican party has forgotten its small government principles over the last 8 years. And it seems that they never met a spending bill that they didn't like during the time they controlled Congress and the White House. On the other hand, it seems that the Democrats have forgotten their foreign policy credentials since the Jimmy Carter administration. I have a theory that since the Vietnam War occurred under a Democratic Administration and it basically caused the downfall of that administration, the Democratic Party as a whole is fearful of becoming militarily involved in any conflict. In fact, what was President Clinton's policy in Bosnia? No troops, only bombs.
So, given the fact that I think the two party system is in need of repair, I voted Libertarian. Will the politicians get the message? Only time will tell.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Selfishness
So now I'm selfish because I want to keep more of the money I make and give less of it to the federal government. So says Barack Obama.
The relevant excerpt here:
"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Sure Barack Obama loves rich people. Who else would he have to tax if not rich people? He couldn't tax the poor people because that wouldn't make a good campaign slogan. So instead he claims that if you don't want your taxes raised, you must be selfish because who doesn't want to help poor people or make sure that everybody has a shot, right?
Except the tax code was never thought of as a way of redistributing wealth. It was not thought up as an instrument of social change. It was designed to fund the expense of running the government. It first appeared during the Civil War years to fund, you guessed it, the Civil War. It was repealed shortly thereafter. It came back in 1894 to offset the reduction in the tariff rates but then it really came back around World War I. The rates were relatively low then, but they rose with a vengeance during World War II and stayed high with few exceptions until President Ronald Reagan's time in office when the top tax rate plunged from 70% to 38.5%.
Everybody knows that they must pay some tax in order for government to function. But paying taxes is not a form of charity. If I choose to give or share my money to someone who didn't work for it, e.g. to the homeless guy down the street, to my sibling or buddy who is a little short on his rent this month, or to a charity, that is my choice and I can decide how much to give. I do give to various charities throughout the year. Lately my charities have been almost exclusively military veterans groups who make the lives of our troops or their families a little bit easier. And that's my choice.
When the federal government takes my money and then gives it to someone who didn't work for it, then I have no choice. And it seems as if Barack Obama doesn't understand that concept.
The relevant excerpt here:
"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.
"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
Sure Barack Obama loves rich people. Who else would he have to tax if not rich people? He couldn't tax the poor people because that wouldn't make a good campaign slogan. So instead he claims that if you don't want your taxes raised, you must be selfish because who doesn't want to help poor people or make sure that everybody has a shot, right?
Except the tax code was never thought of as a way of redistributing wealth. It was not thought up as an instrument of social change. It was designed to fund the expense of running the government. It first appeared during the Civil War years to fund, you guessed it, the Civil War. It was repealed shortly thereafter. It came back in 1894 to offset the reduction in the tariff rates but then it really came back around World War I. The rates were relatively low then, but they rose with a vengeance during World War II and stayed high with few exceptions until President Ronald Reagan's time in office when the top tax rate plunged from 70% to 38.5%.
Everybody knows that they must pay some tax in order for government to function. But paying taxes is not a form of charity. If I choose to give or share my money to someone who didn't work for it, e.g. to the homeless guy down the street, to my sibling or buddy who is a little short on his rent this month, or to a charity, that is my choice and I can decide how much to give. I do give to various charities throughout the year. Lately my charities have been almost exclusively military veterans groups who make the lives of our troops or their families a little bit easier. And that's my choice.
When the federal government takes my money and then gives it to someone who didn't work for it, then I have no choice. And it seems as if Barack Obama doesn't understand that concept.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Senators Respond To My Bailout Emails
Back in September, I emailed both of my Senators - Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer - and urged them to vote "no" on the economic bailout bill that was being debated in the Senate. It's not that I didn't think economic help was needed, it's just that I had no confidence in the Senate to deliver it in the right form. I also thought that there were other solutions that could have been taken without putting $700 billion of taxpayer money at risk. But it passed both the House and the Senate with flying colors. Then the stock market continued to tank for the next 3 weeks. So much for school of thought that we needed to pass the bill in order to keep the stock market from falling further.
I heard back from Senator Boxer first. It was a form letter of course. What did you expect? She's a busy Senator after all. Here is some of it.
The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.
Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal - and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.
The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.
So let me get this straight. They brought you a blank check for $700 billion and ask you to sign it with no questions asked. You found that unacceptable. I'm with you so far.
But then you turn around and pass an $850 billion bill laden with pork projects and say that you made major improvements to a bad bill and it protects the American taxpayer. Sorry, you've lost me on that one. You're up for re-election in 2010. I will remember and vote accordingly.
As for Senator Feinstein, this is from her letter, which arrived just yesterday.
It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.
This today is indeed a tough vote.
I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.
So let me quickly begin.
This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.
It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.
My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.
Why she thanks Senator Chris Dodd, who helped get us into this mess and took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, is beyond me. It couldn't be partisanship, could it? It couldn't be that they're both from the same political party, the Democratic party, could it? Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's some arcane Senate rule where you must praise the chairman of the committee that wrote the bill. At any rate, the bigger issue is that she received 91,00 calls and emails and 86,000 of them were opposed to the bailout (perhaps some were duplicates or called more than once but she doesn't say). That's 94%. I'll give her credit for owning her vote by ignoring what 94% of her constituents wanted her to do.
But it means that I'll be watching her even closer from now on. Senator Feinstein, you're up for re-election in 2012. I'm sure it will be a tough vote for me as well, but I'm confident I'll make the right decision for the nation.
I heard back from Senator Boxer first. It was a form letter of course. What did you expect? She's a busy Senator after all. Here is some of it.
The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.
Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal - and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.
The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.
So let me get this straight. They brought you a blank check for $700 billion and ask you to sign it with no questions asked. You found that unacceptable. I'm with you so far.
But then you turn around and pass an $850 billion bill laden with pork projects and say that you made major improvements to a bad bill and it protects the American taxpayer. Sorry, you've lost me on that one. You're up for re-election in 2010. I will remember and vote accordingly.
As for Senator Feinstein, this is from her letter, which arrived just yesterday.
It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.
This today is indeed a tough vote.
I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.
So let me quickly begin.
This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.
It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.
My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.
Why she thanks Senator Chris Dodd, who helped get us into this mess and took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, is beyond me. It couldn't be partisanship, could it? It couldn't be that they're both from the same political party, the Democratic party, could it? Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's some arcane Senate rule where you must praise the chairman of the committee that wrote the bill. At any rate, the bigger issue is that she received 91,00 calls and emails and 86,000 of them were opposed to the bailout (perhaps some were duplicates or called more than once but she doesn't say). That's 94%. I'll give her credit for owning her vote by ignoring what 94% of her constituents wanted her to do.
But it means that I'll be watching her even closer from now on. Senator Feinstein, you're up for re-election in 2012. I'm sure it will be a tough vote for me as well, but I'm confident I'll make the right decision for the nation.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Share the Wealth. . . Well, Sort Of
This is just too funny and felt I had to share it with the rest of the Congress. John Q. Citizen decided to conduct his own experiment with Barack Obama's "redistribute the wealth" plan.
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/10/25/redistribution-of-wealth-experiment-3/
Sufficient to say, it works out better in theory better than in practice.
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/10/25/redistribution-of-wealth-experiment-3/
Sufficient to say, it works out better in theory better than in practice.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Ask What Your Country Can Do For You
I was having a conversation with a friend today about this article about Barack Obama. The article, written by two conservatives, lays out the case against voting for Barack Obama, using his own words. My friend, who was already voting for McCain before reading this article, was even more irked after reading the article. She wondered what has happened to standards in this country if people are actually thinking about voting for Obama, given what he stands for. And if you don't know what he stand for, I urge you to go read the article.
Obama has been compared to JFK for his charisma and ability to give a great speech but upon further examination, really comes up short in my opinion. Clearly, the most famous line in JFK's inaugural address was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That seems to be a great way to sum up the spirit of the country at that time.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case today.
Instead, it seems to be "Demand that your country do for you what you once did for yourself. And then complain when it doesn't do more or happen fast enough."
I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit in which this country was founded on.
Obama has been compared to JFK for his charisma and ability to give a great speech but upon further examination, really comes up short in my opinion. Clearly, the most famous line in JFK's inaugural address was "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That seems to be a great way to sum up the spirit of the country at that time.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case today.
Instead, it seems to be "Demand that your country do for you what you once did for yourself. And then complain when it doesn't do more or happen fast enough."
I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit in which this country was founded on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
