http://http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3864246
"Life of Reilly"
by Rick Reilly
"Approximately 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs last year. One of them couldn't have been happier about it.
Superfan Lionel Rodia celebrates with the Phillies after their World Series win in October.
His name is Lionel Rodia, of suburban Philadelphia, and if they ever build a national Fan Hall of Fame, what he did in Game 5 of last year's World Series should get his face on the logo."
Read the whole thing...you won't believe it..
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama and Palin to share a stage...I don't think Palin willbe a force in 2012
http://http//www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18161.html
"In what could be a preview of the 2012 presidential race, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington, Politico has learned.
The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee, making her first trip to the nation’s capital since the election, will join the president at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.
The president is scheduled to address the black tie crowd at the Capital Hilton. Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said in an email that Palin would be speaking at the dinner. "
Last night I was talking with a lefty blogger and centrist political cartoonist about Palin. They both thought she would be a force in the 2012 race.
I tend to doubt it.
Here's why: A high level Republican political operative (speaking not for attribution) at a dinner I attended had recently had a private lunch with the Governor. He said that although she was charming, and thoughtful she was not well read. He said "Most of you here are far more well read than she is."
Now Palin drew huge crowds and great support from GOP right wingers. I was thoroughly impressed with her presence and style of campaigning.
Watching her in an interview recently she said over and over that she wanted to "progress" the country. Just poor grammar. Can this be fixed...of course. But I'm not convinced that in a battle against a man with the rhetorical style of President Obama, she would come off well, and major GOP donors, consultants and others who make early decisions (if she does not improve dramatically) will line up behind her.
UPDATE:
Here's an interesting round-up of opinions on Palin.
http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/01/28/sarah-palin-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/
"In what could be a preview of the 2012 presidential race, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington, Politico has learned.
The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee, making her first trip to the nation’s capital since the election, will join the president at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.
The president is scheduled to address the black tie crowd at the Capital Hilton. Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said in an email that Palin would be speaking at the dinner. "
Last night I was talking with a lefty blogger and centrist political cartoonist about Palin. They both thought she would be a force in the 2012 race.
I tend to doubt it.
Here's why: A high level Republican political operative (speaking not for attribution) at a dinner I attended had recently had a private lunch with the Governor. He said that although she was charming, and thoughtful she was not well read. He said "Most of you here are far more well read than she is."
Now Palin drew huge crowds and great support from GOP right wingers. I was thoroughly impressed with her presence and style of campaigning.
Watching her in an interview recently she said over and over that she wanted to "progress" the country. Just poor grammar. Can this be fixed...of course. But I'm not convinced that in a battle against a man with the rhetorical style of President Obama, she would come off well, and major GOP donors, consultants and others who make early decisions (if she does not improve dramatically) will line up behind her.
UPDATE:
Here's an interesting round-up of opinions on Palin.
http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/01/28/sarah-palin-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/
MoDo is ON today!
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28dowd.html?em
"As President Obama spreads his New Testament balm over the capital, I’m longing for a bit of Old Testament wrath.
Couldn’t he throw down his BlackBerry tablet and smash it in anger over the feckless financiers, the gods of gold and their idols — in this case not a gilt calf but an $87,000 area rug, a cache of diamond Tiffany and Cartier watches and a French-made luxury corporate jet?"
"....Prodded by an appalled Senator Carl Levin, Tim Geithner — even as he was being confirmed as Treasury secretary — directed Treasury officials to call the Citiboobs and tell them the new jet would not fly.
“They woke up pretty quickly,” says a Treasury official, adding that they protested for a bit. “Six months ago, they would have kept the plane and flown it to Washington.”
"...Thain should never rise above the level of stocking the money in A.T.M.’s again. Just think: This guy could well have been Treasury secretary if John McCain had won.
Bartiromo pressed: What was wrong with the office of his predecessor, Stanley O’Neal?
“Well — his office was very different — than — the — the general décor of — Merrill’s offices,” Thain replied. “It really would have been — very difficult — for — me to use it in the form that it was in.”
Did it have a desk and a phone?
How are these ruthless, careless ghouls who murdered the economy still walking around (not to mention that sociopathic sadist Bernie Madoff?) — and not as perps?
Bring on the shackles. Let the show trials begin. "
"As President Obama spreads his New Testament balm over the capital, I’m longing for a bit of Old Testament wrath.
Couldn’t he throw down his BlackBerry tablet and smash it in anger over the feckless financiers, the gods of gold and their idols — in this case not a gilt calf but an $87,000 area rug, a cache of diamond Tiffany and Cartier watches and a French-made luxury corporate jet?"
"....Prodded by an appalled Senator Carl Levin, Tim Geithner — even as he was being confirmed as Treasury secretary — directed Treasury officials to call the Citiboobs and tell them the new jet would not fly.
“They woke up pretty quickly,” says a Treasury official, adding that they protested for a bit. “Six months ago, they would have kept the plane and flown it to Washington.”
"...Thain should never rise above the level of stocking the money in A.T.M.’s again. Just think: This guy could well have been Treasury secretary if John McCain had won.
Bartiromo pressed: What was wrong with the office of his predecessor, Stanley O’Neal?
“Well — his office was very different — than — the — the general décor of — Merrill’s offices,” Thain replied. “It really would have been — very difficult — for — me to use it in the form that it was in.”
Did it have a desk and a phone?
How are these ruthless, careless ghouls who murdered the economy still walking around (not to mention that sociopathic sadist Bernie Madoff?) — and not as perps?
Bring on the shackles. Let the show trials begin. "
Rahal-Letterman out of IRL...lacks sponsor for 2009 tour
http://http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/29/sports/AP-CAR-IRL-Rahal-Team-Sidelined.html
This is really too bad. Bobby Rahal is an ex-Indy champion driver and having a celebrity if David Letterman's wattage in the IRL was extraordinarily helpful to the sport.
This is really too bad. Bobby Rahal is an ex-Indy champion driver and having a celebrity if David Letterman's wattage in the IRL was extraordinarily helpful to the sport.
UGA to fire hoops coach
11AM presser.
Not sure any Bulldogs will notice....even though they had that great run last year to SEC in the tournament, it's just not a hoops school.
Can't imagine why any great high school hoopster would go to UGA instead of Tech.
UPDATE:
It's official:
Filed at 11:24 a.m. ET
ATHENS, Ga. (AP) -- Dennis Felton was fired as Georgia's basketball coach Thursday, one day after the team lost by 26 points at Florida for its seventh straight defeat.
Assistant coach Pete Herrmann will be the interim coach the rest of the season. He takes over a team that is 9-11 and 0-5 in the Southeastern Conference.
Not sure any Bulldogs will notice....even though they had that great run last year to SEC in the tournament, it's just not a hoops school.
Can't imagine why any great high school hoopster would go to UGA instead of Tech.
UPDATE:
It's official:
Filed at 11:24 a.m. ET
ATHENS, Ga. (AP) -- Dennis Felton was fired as Georgia's basketball coach Thursday, one day after the team lost by 26 points at Florida for its seventh straight defeat.
Assistant coach Pete Herrmann will be the interim coach the rest of the season. He takes over a team that is 9-11 and 0-5 in the Southeastern Conference.
Limbaugh Stimulus Plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
"...Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
In Today's Opinion Journal
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can...."
"...Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
In Today's Opinion Journal
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can...."
The Rangel Rule
Share This Page
Slashdot
Del.icio.us
Google
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Yahoo
Facebook
Washington, Jan 28 -
IRS Penalties and Interest Eliminated for All U.S. Taxpayers under new “Rangel Rule” Legislation
(WASHINGTON, DC) – All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.
Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote “Rangel Rule” on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.
Slashdot
Del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Furl
Yahoo
Washington, Jan 28 -
IRS Penalties and Interest Eliminated for All U.S. Taxpayers under new “Rangel Rule” Legislation
(WASHINGTON, DC) – All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.
Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote “Rangel Rule” on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.
Barry Bonds
News reports today have said that the Feds have a urine sample from Bonds that contains evidence of steroid usage.
Bonds has been indicted by the US Attorney in San Francisco on perjury charges for his testimony before a grand jury. The trial is set to begin this spring.
It is possible that at the time this sample was obtained, steroids might have been legal under the rules of Major League baseball, which was very late in regulating their usage.
But if the government can prove Bonds lied, he's going to prison.
All together now ...."It's not the crime, it's the coverup."
Bonds has been indicted by the US Attorney in San Francisco on perjury charges for his testimony before a grand jury. The trial is set to begin this spring.
It is possible that at the time this sample was obtained, steroids might have been legal under the rules of Major League baseball, which was very late in regulating their usage.
But if the government can prove Bonds lied, he's going to prison.
All together now ...."It's not the crime, it's the coverup."
A surprising defense of Geithner in WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318805587026591.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Had he been judged under the current code of political justice, Timothy Geithner would be home in New York, phoning old IMF friends for a job. Instead, the former tax scofflaw is U.S. Treasury Secretary. Call it the Geithner Exception. I'm for it. Before it fades from memory, Mr. Geithner's near-death experience deserves a closer look.
....Washington is falling to the level of a Web-based video game. Everyone is expendable. Treasury secretaries and presidential advisers are a dime a dozen. Put differently: The job-protected and gerrymandered lifers are driving out the competition. More often than not, Washington's worst people are destroying its better people....
Had he been judged under the current code of political justice, Timothy Geithner would be home in New York, phoning old IMF friends for a job. Instead, the former tax scofflaw is U.S. Treasury Secretary. Call it the Geithner Exception. I'm for it. Before it fades from memory, Mr. Geithner's near-death experience deserves a closer look.
....Washington is falling to the level of a Web-based video game. Everyone is expendable. Treasury secretaries and presidential advisers are a dime a dozen. Put differently: The job-protected and gerrymandered lifers are driving out the competition. More often than not, Washington's worst people are destroying its better people....
John Yoo in WSJ
Saw John Yoo speak at the Federalist Society a while back but after he had left DOJ.
There also was a quite sympathetic profile of him in Esquire (a bit surprising considering the Manhattan centric, left leaning characters of that mag.)
He writes today about Gitmo in the WSJ.
"...He's (President Obama) also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
There also was a quite sympathetic profile of him in Esquire (a bit surprising considering the Manhattan centric, left leaning characters of that mag.)
He writes today about Gitmo in the WSJ.
"...He's (President Obama) also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Adm. Grace Hopper
On NRO yesterday Jay Nordlinger mentioned that in past years at Davos, he had run into Admiral Grace Hopper. Admiral Hopper was the first female Admiral. I met her quite a few years ago at some event.
Grace Hopper was the person who first called a computer glitch a "bug." Story was that at one of the original room sized computers at the Pentagon the staff had a porblem. Crawling around back in the machine, they discovered a moth had gotten into machine.
From then on, any problem was a "bug."
Grace Hopper was the person who first called a computer glitch a "bug." Story was that at one of the original room sized computers at the Pentagon the staff had a porblem. Crawling around back in the machine, they discovered a moth had gotten into machine.
From then on, any problem was a "bug."
Life on Mars
Watched "Life on Mars" last night on TiVo.
Pretty weak..
Seems like the weaknesses is that it's a little too over the top. The characters are a bit too Barney Miller and way too much 70's soundtrack stuff.
Pretty weak..
Seems like the weaknesses is that it's a little too over the top. The characters are a bit too Barney Miller and way too much 70's soundtrack stuff.
Thin Blooded Chief Executive
WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?th&emc=th
UPDATE:
RE: Tsk, Tsk [Mark Hemingway]
So this is the same President that said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Got it. Also, this was one of the most memorable quotes of the campaign, so why didn't the NYT story reference his obvious hypocrisy here? On second thought, don't answer that.
01/29 10:42 AM
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?th&emc=th
UPDATE:
RE: Tsk, Tsk [Mark Hemingway]
So this is the same President that said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Got it. Also, this was one of the most memorable quotes of the campaign, so why didn't the NYT story reference his obvious hypocrisy here? On second thought, don't answer that.
01/29 10:42 AM
Wall Street bonuses...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29bonus.html?th&emc=th
"...Despite crippling losses, multibillion-dollar bailouts and the passing of some of the most prominent names in the business, employees at financial companies in New York, the now-diminished world capital of capital, collected an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year.
That was the sixth-largest haul on record, according to a report released Wednesday by the New York State comptroller.
While the payouts paled next to the riches of recent years, Wall Street workers still took home about as much as they did in 2004, when the Dow Jones industrial average was flying above 10,000, on its way to a record high. "
"...Despite crippling losses, multibillion-dollar bailouts and the passing of some of the most prominent names in the business, employees at financial companies in New York, the now-diminished world capital of capital, collected an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year.
That was the sixth-largest haul on record, according to a report released Wednesday by the New York State comptroller.
While the payouts paled next to the riches of recent years, Wall Street workers still took home about as much as they did in 2004, when the Dow Jones industrial average was flying above 10,000, on its way to a record high. "
House GOP grows a set...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html?th&emc=th
"WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending. "
"WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending. "
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Ireland v. Northern Ireland
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODA1ZGVlODUxOTczZTc4MzQyZWE4OTZhMmQ3ZDMxNTQ=
PARTS of the United Kingdom have become so heavily dependent on government spending that the private sector is generating less than a third of the regional economy, a new analysis has found.
The study of “Soviet Britain” has found the government’s share of output and expenditure has now surged to more than 60% in some areas of England and over 70% elsewhere.
Across the UK as a whole, government spending now accounts for 49% of the economy. And look at these regional variations:
Southern England: a mere 36% of the economy is government spending;Northeast England: 66.4%;Wales: 71.6%;Northern Ireland: 77.6%.
As The Times notes:
The state now looms far larger in many parts of Britain than it did in former Soviet satellite states such as Hungary and Slovakia as they emerged from communism in the 1990s, when state spending accounted for about 60% of their economies.
PARTS of the United Kingdom have become so heavily dependent on government spending that the private sector is generating less than a third of the regional economy, a new analysis has found.
The study of “Soviet Britain” has found the government’s share of output and expenditure has now surged to more than 60% in some areas of England and over 70% elsewhere.
Across the UK as a whole, government spending now accounts for 49% of the economy. And look at these regional variations:
Southern England: a mere 36% of the economy is government spending;Northeast England: 66.4%;Wales: 71.6%;Northern Ireland: 77.6%.
As The Times notes:
The state now looms far larger in many parts of Britain than it did in former Soviet satellite states such as Hungary and Slovakia as they emerged from communism in the 1990s, when state spending accounted for about 60% of their economies.
Press
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMyOTU5N2MzYzNhOGQxN2JjODk2NzRmMDEwNTYwZjE=
Our Adversarial Press [Peter Kirsanow]
So . . . we're going to have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a man instrumental in the pardoning of terrorists as top terrorism watchdog, and a woman whose husband gets tens of millions from foreign governments in charge of implementing foreign policy.
Press reaction: Move along . . . nothing to see here.
Our Adversarial Press [Peter Kirsanow]
So . . . we're going to have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a man instrumental in the pardoning of terrorists as top terrorism watchdog, and a woman whose husband gets tens of millions from foreign governments in charge of implementing foreign policy.
Press reaction: Move along . . . nothing to see here.
The "Geithner precedent"..an interesting point...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWUzOTE0ZmJiMDAxMWFmYWZiMDZiOWViNzIwMDZiMzQ=
.....The problem is that now, when the next nominee comes up with these kinds of issues, there will be a “Geithner precedent.” And if it’s a woman or a minority, they will argue that you gave the white guy from Wall Street a pass. And that will weaken their hand in opposing someone who might not only have failed to pay their taxes, or employed an illegal nanny, but also have dangerous policy ideas....
.....The problem is that now, when the next nominee comes up with these kinds of issues, there will be a “Geithner precedent.” And if it’s a woman or a minority, they will argue that you gave the white guy from Wall Street a pass. And that will weaken their hand in opposing someone who might not only have failed to pay their taxes, or employed an illegal nanny, but also have dangerous policy ideas....
Encouraging....
Derrick Murdock on NRO
"When black kids are told they’re ‘white’ to like school, often they stop trying as hard,” says Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Columbia University adjunct professor John McWhorter. “This is key because it’s much of the reason there are so few black American students who qualify for selective schools without racial-preference policies. It’s a quiet sense that being a nerd is somehow ‘not black.’
When you’re black and 14, often you have a choice between doing well in school and having black friends.”“The simple fact that a black ex-nerd is on TV and our laptops every single day will wash away that background feeling that studying hard isn’t really ‘black,’” McWhorter adds. “A riposte, I highly suspect, will be ‘So, is Barack Obama white?’”
"When black kids are told they’re ‘white’ to like school, often they stop trying as hard,” says Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Columbia University adjunct professor John McWhorter. “This is key because it’s much of the reason there are so few black American students who qualify for selective schools without racial-preference policies. It’s a quiet sense that being a nerd is somehow ‘not black.’
When you’re black and 14, often you have a choice between doing well in school and having black friends.”“The simple fact that a black ex-nerd is on TV and our laptops every single day will wash away that background feeling that studying hard isn’t really ‘black,’” McWhorter adds. “A riposte, I highly suspect, will be ‘So, is Barack Obama white?’”
Netanyahu on Obama and Iran
Netanyahu on JPost.com
"I am convinced that Obama recognizes these dangers. When he visited Jerusalem last summer, he said that the United States cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran. I believe that Obama is working from his first day in office to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions"
Weber: This should be the first foreign policy task for the incoming administration. With oil prices low (hobbling Russia's attempts to play a larger role in the region) and a surge of good will toward the U.S. (which will not last forever) Obama should be working both back channel diplomacy and marking strong public statements designed to stop Iran from going fully nuclear.
This is far more critical than resolving the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, although George Mitchell, Obama's new Mideast special envoy prroved highly skilled at bringing peace the Northern Ireland, his task is far, far more difficult and far less likely to succeed in the Middle East.
Obama should treat Hamas exactly the way George Bush treated Yassar Arafat...ignore them until they accept Isreal's right to exist. This approach has the dual advantage of putting pressure on Hamas and relieving domestic and world pressure to "do something" on the Gaza conflict.
"I am convinced that Obama recognizes these dangers. When he visited Jerusalem last summer, he said that the United States cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran. I believe that Obama is working from his first day in office to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions"
Weber: This should be the first foreign policy task for the incoming administration. With oil prices low (hobbling Russia's attempts to play a larger role in the region) and a surge of good will toward the U.S. (which will not last forever) Obama should be working both back channel diplomacy and marking strong public statements designed to stop Iran from going fully nuclear.
This is far more critical than resolving the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, although George Mitchell, Obama's new Mideast special envoy prroved highly skilled at bringing peace the Northern Ireland, his task is far, far more difficult and far less likely to succeed in the Middle East.
Obama should treat Hamas exactly the way George Bush treated Yassar Arafat...ignore them until they accept Isreal's right to exist. This approach has the dual advantage of putting pressure on Hamas and relieving domestic and world pressure to "do something" on the Gaza conflict.
MoDo attacks!
MoDo in NYT
"Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York — Bobby’s niece and a smart, policy-oriented, civic-minded woman to whom the president feels deeply indebted in an era when every state has its hand out.
Instead they have Gillibrand, who voted against the Wall Street — as in New York — bailout bill. And who introduced a bill to balance the federal budget annually, which suggests she would oppose the $825 billion in deficit spending that President Obama proposes to rescue the country, not least New York."
Weber: Can't remember where I saw this, but someone said it best "Dowd is just pissed because Gillibrand is 15 years younger and better looking."
"Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York — Bobby’s niece and a smart, policy-oriented, civic-minded woman to whom the president feels deeply indebted in an era when every state has its hand out.
Instead they have Gillibrand, who voted against the Wall Street — as in New York — bailout bill. And who introduced a bill to balance the federal budget annually, which suggests she would oppose the $825 billion in deficit spending that President Obama proposes to rescue the country, not least New York."
Weber: Can't remember where I saw this, but someone said it best "Dowd is just pissed because Gillibrand is 15 years younger and better looking."
Obama's Speech
Peter Robinson on Forbes Online
Weber: Peter Robinson, (who I once had the good fortune to meet) wrote Raegan's Berlin Wall speech. For a fascinating account of writing for Reagan and in particular the battle that was waged against the State Department to include the most famous line "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" check out Peter's book.."What I learned from Ronald Reagan."
Weber: Peter Robinson, (who I once had the good fortune to meet) wrote Raegan's Berlin Wall speech. For a fascinating account of writing for Reagan and in particular the battle that was waged against the State Department to include the most famous line "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" check out Peter's book.."What I learned from Ronald Reagan."
Great review of Gov't fiscal and monetary policy
Bartlett on Forbes Online
UPDATE:
Re: We've Never Been Here Before [Peter Robinson]
Below, as Mark Steyn has noted, I provide a link to a chart demonstrating the utterly unprecedented expansion in the monetary base in which Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has engaged over the last few months. Now economist Bruce Bartlett (who is, I should note, an old friend) has written to take me to task. It's no good showing what Bernanke has done, Bruce suggests, without showing the problem to which he was responding.
Fair enough. But then Bruce continues, upbraiding me: "You should stop being such a doctrinaire monetarist." Ah, but I only aspire to being a doctrinaire monetarist. My shortcoming? I can't quite figure out what, in the current circumstances, monetarist doctrine is.
Three questions, then, for Bruce:
1. What would Milton Friedman have said that the Fed's monetary policy ought to be?
2. What would Milton Friedman have said that the new administration's fiscal policy ought to be?
3. Where, precisely, would he have been wrong?
I'll be very certain to post Bruce's replies.
FURTHER UPDATE:
Bruce Bartlett Replies [Peter Robinson]
This just in from economist Bruce Bartlett:
1. I think Friedman would tell the Fed to pump as much liquidity into the economy as possible. His Monetary History of the United States proved that a shrinkage of the money supply was at the core of the Great Depression and that the Fed failed the country by not increasing the money supply. I believe we are in a similar situation. The problem has been a sharp decline in velocity—the ratio of the money supply to GDP—which has economic effects identical to those that would result from a decline in the money supply. When velocity falls, GDP will fall unless the money supply increases enough the maintain GDP at the reduced level of velocity. The real problem is that the Fed is having difficulty getting money circulating because interest rates on Treasury bills are close to zero. Under these conditions, monetary policy is impotent. It is like pushing on a string.
2. I think Friedman would be sympathetic to using fiscal policy to try and mobilize spending at this time. But he clearly would be more inclined toward finding tax cuts that would achieve this goal rather than direct spending. He certainly would be highly critical of permanent or long-term spending increases to deal with a temporary problem. He would be opposed to anything that would permanently increase the public sector and would undoubtedly be very concerned about the de facto nationalization of the financial sector.
3. It goes without saying that whatever Milton Friedman had to say about the economic crisis or economic policy would be far better than whatever I have to say. I wish we had his counsel right now.
For anyone keeping track, I find not a single word here with which I would disagree.
01/26 12:25 AM
UPDATE:
Re: We've Never Been Here Before [Peter Robinson]
Below, as Mark Steyn has noted, I provide a link to a chart demonstrating the utterly unprecedented expansion in the monetary base in which Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has engaged over the last few months. Now economist Bruce Bartlett (who is, I should note, an old friend) has written to take me to task. It's no good showing what Bernanke has done, Bruce suggests, without showing the problem to which he was responding.
Fair enough. But then Bruce continues, upbraiding me: "You should stop being such a doctrinaire monetarist." Ah, but I only aspire to being a doctrinaire monetarist. My shortcoming? I can't quite figure out what, in the current circumstances, monetarist doctrine is.
Three questions, then, for Bruce:
1. What would Milton Friedman have said that the Fed's monetary policy ought to be?
2. What would Milton Friedman have said that the new administration's fiscal policy ought to be?
3. Where, precisely, would he have been wrong?
I'll be very certain to post Bruce's replies.
FURTHER UPDATE:
Bruce Bartlett Replies [Peter Robinson]
This just in from economist Bruce Bartlett:
1. I think Friedman would tell the Fed to pump as much liquidity into the economy as possible. His Monetary History of the United States proved that a shrinkage of the money supply was at the core of the Great Depression and that the Fed failed the country by not increasing the money supply. I believe we are in a similar situation. The problem has been a sharp decline in velocity—the ratio of the money supply to GDP—which has economic effects identical to those that would result from a decline in the money supply. When velocity falls, GDP will fall unless the money supply increases enough the maintain GDP at the reduced level of velocity. The real problem is that the Fed is having difficulty getting money circulating because interest rates on Treasury bills are close to zero. Under these conditions, monetary policy is impotent. It is like pushing on a string.
2. I think Friedman would be sympathetic to using fiscal policy to try and mobilize spending at this time. But he clearly would be more inclined toward finding tax cuts that would achieve this goal rather than direct spending. He certainly would be highly critical of permanent or long-term spending increases to deal with a temporary problem. He would be opposed to anything that would permanently increase the public sector and would undoubtedly be very concerned about the de facto nationalization of the financial sector.
3. It goes without saying that whatever Milton Friedman had to say about the economic crisis or economic policy would be far better than whatever I have to say. I wish we had his counsel right now.
For anyone keeping track, I find not a single word here with which I would disagree.
01/26 12:25 AM
"One of these things is not like the other...one of these things is just not the same..."
AP @ 3:59PM
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia plans to start building a naval base in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region this year, the leadership of the Black Sea province said Monday.
AP Wire NYT
AP @ 6:04PM
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama spoke by phone Monday and vowed to try their best to improve the strained relationship between Moscow and Washington, the Kremlin said.
AP Wire NYT
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia plans to start building a naval base in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region this year, the leadership of the Black Sea province said Monday.
AP Wire NYT
AP @ 6:04PM
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama spoke by phone Monday and vowed to try their best to improve the strained relationship between Moscow and Washington, the Kremlin said.
AP Wire NYT
Great column by Lowry
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQ4NzRlZTU1NWE1ZWEwZTQ3MGU3YzU4ZDRmZTk1MmI=
When Maynard Met Nancy
How to use a crisis to bypass the normal budgetary process.
By Rich Lowry
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t, in Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s words, want to “waste a crisis.” She has concocted a hideous stimulus brew brimming with eye of newt, toe of frog, and every other exotic ingredient favored by her Democratic colleagues.....
...According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $4 billion out of $30 billion in highway spending, $3 billion of $18.5 billion in renewable-energy spending, and less than $7 billion of $14 billion of school-construction spending would be spent in the first two years. If spending will take place in 2011 or later, there’s no reason for it to be jammed into a hastily passed stimulus bill.
Unless, of course, Democrats want to use the crisis atmosphere to bypass the normal budgetary process for long-term spending. Almost $16 billion for Pell Grants for college students and $1.9 billion for basic scientific research won’t stimulate the economy in the near term. Neither will funding for the National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million) or for the National Mall ($200 million).
.....Nearly immediate, a payroll tax cut would be felt now, at what is likely the nadir of the recession. A halving of the payroll rate would funnel $400 billion to individuals and businesses, for a total of $800 billion. The cut could be indefinite, to be rolled back when the economy picks up again, or made permanent and replaced by something else (say, an increased gas tax). The payroll tax funds Social Security and Medicare, but those programs can subsist on borrowing for now—like the rest of the federal government.
When Maynard Met Nancy
How to use a crisis to bypass the normal budgetary process.
By Rich Lowry
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t, in Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s words, want to “waste a crisis.” She has concocted a hideous stimulus brew brimming with eye of newt, toe of frog, and every other exotic ingredient favored by her Democratic colleagues.....
...According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $4 billion out of $30 billion in highway spending, $3 billion of $18.5 billion in renewable-energy spending, and less than $7 billion of $14 billion of school-construction spending would be spent in the first two years. If spending will take place in 2011 or later, there’s no reason for it to be jammed into a hastily passed stimulus bill.
Unless, of course, Democrats want to use the crisis atmosphere to bypass the normal budgetary process for long-term spending. Almost $16 billion for Pell Grants for college students and $1.9 billion for basic scientific research won’t stimulate the economy in the near term. Neither will funding for the National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million) or for the National Mall ($200 million).
.....Nearly immediate, a payroll tax cut would be felt now, at what is likely the nadir of the recession. A halving of the payroll rate would funnel $400 billion to individuals and businesses, for a total of $800 billion. The cut could be indefinite, to be rolled back when the economy picks up again, or made permanent and replaced by something else (say, an increased gas tax). The payroll tax funds Social Security and Medicare, but those programs can subsist on borrowing for now—like the rest of the federal government.
GOP Senators for Geithner
http://http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdiZmZhNzZmOWNlYzNmMDMzYWFlYTI1YTc5NWI1NjU=
GOP for Tax Cheats Running IRS [Andy McCarthy]
For the record (with thanks to Michelle Malkin), here are the ten Republican senators who think it is just fine to have a guy who violates the tax laws policing how American citizens comply with the tax laws — an incongruity we should overlook because Geithner's done such a great job so far addressing the financial melt-down:
Corker (R-TN)Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID)Ensign (R-NV)Graham (R-SC)Gregg (R-NH)Hatch (R-UT)Shelby (R-AL)Snowe (R-ME)Voinovich (R-OH)
On to the stimulus package!
01/26 08:53 PM
GOP for Tax Cheats Running IRS [Andy McCarthy]
For the record (with thanks to Michelle Malkin), here are the ten Republican senators who think it is just fine to have a guy who violates the tax laws policing how American citizens comply with the tax laws — an incongruity we should overlook because Geithner's done such a great job so far addressing the financial melt-down:
Corker (R-TN)Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID)Ensign (R-NV)Graham (R-SC)Gregg (R-NH)Hatch (R-UT)Shelby (R-AL)Snowe (R-ME)Voinovich (R-OH)
On to the stimulus package!
01/26 08:53 PM
Deconstructing today's Paul Krugman column
There is little doubt that Paul Krugman earned his Nobel Prize...his expertise on trade is undisputed. On government and politics, maybe not so much.
I've never tried this, but let's see how it goes...
Op-Ed Columnist
Bad Faith Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 25, 2009
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.
Nope, we don't want to see a New Deal...it didn't work the first time around (see Amity Shlaes book "The Forgotten Man") and it won't work this time. All "New Deal" programs have one serious flaw in common...when the crisis passes, which it will, the government structures, employees, and costs remain forever.
Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”
Agreed, this is simply Boehner identifying one small detail and holding it up to ridicule. Just like the "ketchup is a vegetable" crisis during the Reagan years. Just like using a couple of nut jobs at Abu Gharab and using them indict an entire Administration. That's what politicians do from time to time, Paul. It's not right, but sometimes they do it.
But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.
First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.
It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)
The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.
If the "cost" of creating these new jobs is "as little" as $60,000, why not just send checks to individual citizens? Granted, I don't think that sending checks for $300 stimulated much of anything last spring, but $60,000? Something tells me that money would be spent, and would keep an unemployed citizen living fine for the next eighteen to twenty-four months (which is how long most economists think it will take for the economy to rebound.)
And we don't leave a legacy of more federal programs and employees behind that will have to be paid for in perpetuity.
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
They may not necessarily be better judges, but it is their money. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to give the government more of their income, nor does the government...there is even a place to make a voluntary overpayment on a 1040. But let do start from a point at which we assume that the money belongs to the taxpayer.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.
This is as dishonest as Boehner using the family planning provision. Most conservatives favor public spending that is truly public....that is, it benefits the public as a whole, not individual citizens or small groups. The preamble to the Constitution mentions the "general welfare", not individual welfare. Air traffic control is something only the federal government can do, and something that benefits all citizens. Defense spending (which is really what pulled us out The Great Depression,) and is badly needed now is another good example. A mob museum in Las Vegas or a water park in Miami are not.
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
Nobody believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of spending. Agreed. No one agrees that tax cuts are always better. But 46% of the American public in the last election, and majorities of the electorate in seven out of the last eight Presidential elections did believe that government was too big and cost too much. (Remember, Clinton failed to crack 50% in either of his campaigns and I don't remember Ross Perot arguing for increased spending.) Paul, you might want to get out of Manhattan more often.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.
That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.
Just because an argument is old doesn't mean it is not valid. Conservatives are concerned that while some increased spending is needed, it is either being spent in the wrong ways (pork barrel spending rather than true infrastructure or defense spending) ... that too much of it has to wend its way through a federal bureaucracy that takes a huge cut off the top and leaves behind new federal programs and employees that have a never ending cost.
These are valid concerns and not obtuse...they are what conservatives functioning as a loyal opposition should be doing.
These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.
But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.
Did ya feel that way when President Bush said the same thing in 2004 when he decides to try to save Social Security? Maybe so, but I doubt it.
I've never tried this, but let's see how it goes...
Op-Ed Columnist
Bad Faith Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 25, 2009
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.
Nope, we don't want to see a New Deal...it didn't work the first time around (see Amity Shlaes book "The Forgotten Man") and it won't work this time. All "New Deal" programs have one serious flaw in common...when the crisis passes, which it will, the government structures, employees, and costs remain forever.
Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”
Agreed, this is simply Boehner identifying one small detail and holding it up to ridicule. Just like the "ketchup is a vegetable" crisis during the Reagan years. Just like using a couple of nut jobs at Abu Gharab and using them indict an entire Administration. That's what politicians do from time to time, Paul. It's not right, but sometimes they do it.
But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.
First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.
It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)
The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.
If the "cost" of creating these new jobs is "as little" as $60,000, why not just send checks to individual citizens? Granted, I don't think that sending checks for $300 stimulated much of anything last spring, but $60,000? Something tells me that money would be spent, and would keep an unemployed citizen living fine for the next eighteen to twenty-four months (which is how long most economists think it will take for the economy to rebound.)
And we don't leave a legacy of more federal programs and employees behind that will have to be paid for in perpetuity.
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
They may not necessarily be better judges, but it is their money. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to give the government more of their income, nor does the government...there is even a place to make a voluntary overpayment on a 1040. But let do start from a point at which we assume that the money belongs to the taxpayer.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.
This is as dishonest as Boehner using the family planning provision. Most conservatives favor public spending that is truly public....that is, it benefits the public as a whole, not individual citizens or small groups. The preamble to the Constitution mentions the "general welfare", not individual welfare. Air traffic control is something only the federal government can do, and something that benefits all citizens. Defense spending (which is really what pulled us out The Great Depression,) and is badly needed now is another good example. A mob museum in Las Vegas or a water park in Miami are not.
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
Nobody believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of spending. Agreed. No one agrees that tax cuts are always better. But 46% of the American public in the last election, and majorities of the electorate in seven out of the last eight Presidential elections did believe that government was too big and cost too much. (Remember, Clinton failed to crack 50% in either of his campaigns and I don't remember Ross Perot arguing for increased spending.) Paul, you might want to get out of Manhattan more often.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.
That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.
Just because an argument is old doesn't mean it is not valid. Conservatives are concerned that while some increased spending is needed, it is either being spent in the wrong ways (pork barrel spending rather than true infrastructure or defense spending) ... that too much of it has to wend its way through a federal bureaucracy that takes a huge cut off the top and leaves behind new federal programs and employees that have a never ending cost.
These are valid concerns and not obtuse...they are what conservatives functioning as a loyal opposition should be doing.
These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.
But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.
Did ya feel that way when President Bush said the same thing in 2004 when he decides to try to save Social Security? Maybe so, but I doubt it.
Patti Ann Browne on Red Eye
I've actually never seen this show, but these clips are pretty damn funny. PAB must have a good sense of humor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc&feature=related
Anti-Semitism at work in world media?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/world/AP-AS-Sri-Lanka-Civil-War.html
MULLAITTIVU, Sri Lanka (AP) -- At least 300 civilians were wounded and scores feared killed by Sri Lankan army artillery shells fired into a designated ''safe zone'' for ethnic Tamils trapped by fighting between the military and Tamil rebels, a health official alleged Tuesday.
Weber: The day after Israel's military accidentally shelled a U.N school in Gaza, I was talking with an friend of mine who said that "everything will change tomorrow" meaning that this tragedy would finally (hopefully he thought) turn the world against Israel. (I'm not sure how much farther the world could turn against Israel, but never mind that now.)
Yet there has been no outrage, no cries of condemnation, no front page or lead story on what has been happening in Sri Lanka. Is there really a difference between the two? For those of you who have not followed the conflict it has been going on for over twenty five years and has cost 70,000 lives. The Tamil Tigers (this region's equivalent of the PLO or Hamas) were actually the group that orignated the tactic of suicide bombing.
MULLAITTIVU, Sri Lanka (AP) -- At least 300 civilians were wounded and scores feared killed by Sri Lankan army artillery shells fired into a designated ''safe zone'' for ethnic Tamils trapped by fighting between the military and Tamil rebels, a health official alleged Tuesday.
Weber: The day after Israel's military accidentally shelled a U.N school in Gaza, I was talking with an friend of mine who said that "everything will change tomorrow" meaning that this tragedy would finally (hopefully he thought) turn the world against Israel. (I'm not sure how much farther the world could turn against Israel, but never mind that now.)
Yet there has been no outrage, no cries of condemnation, no front page or lead story on what has been happening in Sri Lanka. Is there really a difference between the two? For those of you who have not followed the conflict it has been going on for over twenty five years and has cost 70,000 lives. The Tamil Tigers (this region's equivalent of the PLO or Hamas) were actually the group that orignated the tactic of suicide bombing.
California moves to tax services
http://http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/us/AP-Meltdown-Service-Taxes.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Golf course owners and some of their customers are teed off at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. So are veterinarians, auto mechanics and amusement park operators.
Their anger is directed at the Republican governor's proposal to extend the state sales tax to cover more services, an idea that has surfaced in other states as they race to plug crippling budget deficits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research clearinghouse, predicts such deficits nationwide could reach $350 billion by 2011.
Weber: I really see no difference between taxing goods and taxing services. To create a level playing (or maybe I should say "paying") field, of course services should be taxed.
What it is interesting is that the folks quoted in this article immediately understand that the taxes (which are actually paid / collected by the providers of these services) fully understand that the cost of these taxes will be passed on to them in the form of a higher price for these services.
How many of these same folks understand that the corporate income tax is exactly the same as a sales tax? In other words, corporations do not actually PAY taxes...they COLLECT taxes on behalf of the government. The cost of these taxes is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices and /or reduced dividends.
How may of these consumers would favor lowering corporate tax rates?....in California, I would guess, not too many. (Which is why California is the top five for states considered undesirable places to start or relocate a business.)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Golf course owners and some of their customers are teed off at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. So are veterinarians, auto mechanics and amusement park operators.
Their anger is directed at the Republican governor's proposal to extend the state sales tax to cover more services, an idea that has surfaced in other states as they race to plug crippling budget deficits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research clearinghouse, predicts such deficits nationwide could reach $350 billion by 2011.
Weber: I really see no difference between taxing goods and taxing services. To create a level playing (or maybe I should say "paying") field, of course services should be taxed.
What it is interesting is that the folks quoted in this article immediately understand that the taxes (which are actually paid / collected by the providers of these services) fully understand that the cost of these taxes will be passed on to them in the form of a higher price for these services.
How many of these same folks understand that the corporate income tax is exactly the same as a sales tax? In other words, corporations do not actually PAY taxes...they COLLECT taxes on behalf of the government. The cost of these taxes is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices and /or reduced dividends.
How may of these consumers would favor lowering corporate tax rates?....in California, I would guess, not too many. (Which is why California is the top five for states considered undesirable places to start or relocate a business.)
Cutbacks at Home Depot, Microsoft, et al.
As Home Depot sheds 3400 jobs, including 500 at their headquarters here in Atlanta, a thought occurred to me.
I would guess that in the executive suites at these companies, there are more jobs being cut than financial circumstances dictate.
In normal economic times, a company making cutbacks would be punished on Wall Street, and it's stock price would drop. Since companies of all types are making cutbacks, now is the time for companies to go just a bit further in downsizing, and take advantage of the economic crisis.
I'll be having drinks tonight with a senior executive at a company that has recently made some major cuts....I'm gonna run this by him.
I would guess that in the executive suites at these companies, there are more jobs being cut than financial circumstances dictate.
In normal economic times, a company making cutbacks would be punished on Wall Street, and it's stock price would drop. Since companies of all types are making cutbacks, now is the time for companies to go just a bit further in downsizing, and take advantage of the economic crisis.
I'll be having drinks tonight with a senior executive at a company that has recently made some major cuts....I'm gonna run this by him.
Mandated CAFE standards
On the roundtable on the 6PM Fox News show this evening, Charles Krauthammer made an excellent point. The mandated CAFE (required minimum fuel mileage standards) in the new auto industry bailout bill will require automakers to make and attempt to sell cars on which they cannot make a profit.
The margins on trucks and SUV's are far, ,far greater than on fuel efficient vehicles.
Krauthammer characterized these mandates as "Soviet style." Couldn't have said it better myself.
The margins on trucks and SUV's are far, ,far greater than on fuel efficient vehicles.
Krauthammer characterized these mandates as "Soviet style." Couldn't have said it better myself.
The Feingold Amendment
Senator Russ Feingold wants to amend the Constitution so that we can avoid another Blogo situation. He says he wants to prevent seats from been sold in the future.
Considering how Feingold got his seat he obviously has no problem with seats being bought.
UPDATE:
To Feingold's credit, this is what he had to say prior to voting against Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary:
Russell Feingold:
I am deeply troubled by his failure to pay the payroll taxes he owed, despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those taxes. It is especially troubling because Mr. Geithner signed documents at the IMF promising to pay taxes, including the payroll taxes, in exchange for a special ``gross-up'' of his income intended to offset the cost of those taxes. Moreover, his earlier interactions with the Internal Revenue Service over his failure to pay sufficient payroll taxes for his household employees make Mr. Geithner's explanations of his failure to pay his own payroll taxes even less satisfactory.
The failure to comply with our Nation's tax laws would be problematic for any Cabinet nominee, but it is especially disturbing when it involves the individual who will be charged with overseeing the enforcement of our tax laws. Mr. President, surely that individual must meet a higher standard than a failure to establish they deliberately evaded their tax liability.
01/27 09:46 AM
Considering how Feingold got his seat he obviously has no problem with seats being bought.
UPDATE:
To Feingold's credit, this is what he had to say prior to voting against Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary:
Russell Feingold:
I am deeply troubled by his failure to pay the payroll taxes he owed, despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those taxes. It is especially troubling because Mr. Geithner signed documents at the IMF promising to pay taxes, including the payroll taxes, in exchange for a special ``gross-up'' of his income intended to offset the cost of those taxes. Moreover, his earlier interactions with the Internal Revenue Service over his failure to pay sufficient payroll taxes for his household employees make Mr. Geithner's explanations of his failure to pay his own payroll taxes even less satisfactory.
The failure to comply with our Nation's tax laws would be problematic for any Cabinet nominee, but it is especially disturbing when it involves the individual who will be charged with overseeing the enforcement of our tax laws. Mr. President, surely that individual must meet a higher standard than a failure to establish they deliberately evaded their tax liability.
01/27 09:46 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)