Archive for February, 2009

Maybe fascism is really here

Friday, February 6th, 2009

Today, a reporter who attempted to ask Leon Panetta a question, was manhandled by an unknown man and prevented from approaching Panetta.

I have previously speculated about whether we are approaching fascism in Washington and even wondered about previous connections with Nazi Germany. Not IBM and the Bush family, as the left often tries to allege. This was Harvard University. Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, points out the long associations between the left and fascism. Mussolini even appeared in an American movie in the 1920s. He was a hero.

Now, the question is what are Obama’s priorities?

The nationalization of banks, the auto industry and now this monstrosity of a bill suggests that this is still to be determined.

Can anybody here play this game ?

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

UPDATE 2: Well, I guess he didn’t have the votes after all. The midnight oil is off.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has just announced: Look, if this group of 17 bipartisan senators think they’re going to change the bill substantially, they’ve got another thing coming. We’re going to have a vote, I’m going to have the votes, and we’re going to get this through.

The Congressional Budget Office has said: President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

Okay, now we know.

Casey Stengel famously complained that the early New York Mets were so inept that he wondered if anybody knew how to play the game. After two weeks of watching the Obama people fumble, I have similar thoughts. Of course, they have told us that the people like Geithner are so important that it doesn’t matter that he didn’t pay his taxes. I guess Daschle wasn’t that important, but Geithner is irreplaceable.

The White House defended the exceptions on the grounds that these people were exceptionally qualified. This is such a reasonable argument that the White House easily could have made it on the front end.

Huh ?

There is no one else ?

Daschle’s negligence was gross, particularly for a party and an administration that have celebrated prostration before the taxman as a “patriotic duty.” But Daschle’s offenses, galling as they may be, are exceeded by those of Geithner. Indeed, of all the tax transgressions touching Obama’s circle, Geithner’s are the worst.

Not only did Geithner neglect to pay his taxes, he turned a buck by doing so—accepting payments from his employer for the very purpose of offsetting those taxes. When he took the money, he signed a statement promising to pay the taxes and then ignored his obligations—for years. Protected by a statute of limitations, he did not pay his 2001–02 taxes until his nomination made them a public issue.

If Daschle’s tax problems should bar him from managing the federal health-services bureaucracy and Killefer’s preclude her from scrutinizing the budget, how is it that Geithner’s transgressions—the worst of the lot—are insufficient to disqualify him from managing the same Internal Revenue Service whose attentions he evaded?

Well, at least the stimulus bill is popular, or it is if you count 37% as popular.

Well, there is always foreign policy. Of course, choosing ambassadors to crucial countries is not that important. Zinni will not forget this soon.

Unemployment in Russia is rising fast, and the currency, the ruble, has lost about a fifth of its value. $200 billion—a third of the reserves—have already been spent supporting the ruble, so that further devaluation seems a virtual certainty Foreign investors have withdrawn billions of dollars.

All of which encourages the Kremlin to go on the attack in classic style. We already know how Putin and company treat Georgia.

Now, they are going after a crucial ally in Afghanistan.

Russia has ensnared Kirghizstan with the usual blend of violence, cunning and bribery. In recent weeks, Russia began by attacking the Kirghiz internet infrastructure. Then it simply bought the country with a multi-billion dollar loan to plug the deficit in the Kirghiz budget, with additional hundreds of millions of dollars in write-offs and grants. More than that, according to the Daily Telegraph, what are delicately called “bonuses” and “emoluments” were paid to officials. The money may be running out in Moscow, and the currency about to crash, but power still remains power.

As part of this murky business, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, the Kirghiz president, has ordered the United States to quit the former Soviet base it rented at Manas, close to the country’s capital of Bishkek. Manas is needed to ferry supplies to American and other forces over the border in Afghanistan, and squadrons of fighter jets are also stationed there. President Obama has been promising increased operations against Afghan Islamists, but the closing of Manas will seriously impede any such development.

Oh well, who cares about Kirghizstan ? One of those unpronounceable former Soviet republics. The only problem is that our routes to supply the troops in Afghanistan are very limited. There is Kirghizstan to the north and Pakistan to the south. Now, one of them is gone.

David Pryce-Jones refers to this as Obama’s “Carter moment.”

When the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan back in 1979 and began that poor country’s destruction, then President Jimmy Carter feebly lamented that he’d just learned what he was up against.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just Obama who is “up against” this situation. It is all of us.

Sanctimonious Endomorph Strikes Again

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

By Bradley J. Fikes

The S.E. is paleoleftist journosaur Tim Rutten, pushing one of the favorite tired memes of his fellow Internet haters: Charge Google and Yahoo for the privilege of linking to their stories.

It’s the increasingly tiresome lament of the fading monopolist against technology. The Internet is the bad guy, allowing people to read news stories for free. And Google and Yahoo are enablers, pointing people to those free stories, and making money on advertising that is rightfully the newspapers’.

Newspapers could just shut down their Web sites and pretend the Internet doesn’t exist. But even the sanctimonious endomorph realizes that’s not feasible. Instead, Rutten revives the fantasy that if all newspapers and other news sources like CNN got together and put up a united front on pricing, Google and Yahoo would be forced to subsidize news reporting. To do that, however, would violate antitrust laws. So Rutten wants the government to carve out an antitrust exemption for the media.

It would allow all U.S. newspaper companies — and others in the English-speaking world, as well as popular broadcast-based sites such as CNN.com — to sit down and negotiate an agreement on how to scale prices and, then, to begin imposing them simultaneously.

That, in turn, would set the stage for tackling the other leg of this problem — how to extract reasonable fees from aggregators like Google and Yahoo, which currently use their search engines to link to news that newspapers and broadcasters pay to gather.

As veteran journalist and book publisher Peter Osnos said this week, newspapers and magazines “have to start demanding payment for use of their material or they will disappear.” No one delivers more of that content online than Google does, Osnos noted, through its advertising-supported search functions. That revenue goes to Google, not to the companies that gathered the news.

This entitlement mentality conveniently omits the most important facts. Google doesn’t reproduce the entire article, it links to the article on the newspaper’s Web page. Google is doing a favor by sending customers to these newspapers. Also, Google News does not have advertising, although Google’s regular search does.

Newspapers that have tried charging for their articles has almost uniformly failed. That’s because erecting a pay wall cuts down more on advertising revenue than the paper gets in revenues. Rutten wants Google to solve their problem  — and charge Google for the privilege by forming an information cartel.

But Google’s business model isn’t based on links to news articles and would scarcely notice their absence. So the newspapers need Google far more than Google needs newspapers.

Even with an antitrust exemption, not all news sources will want to charge for news. Google could just link to those who keep their stories free, who would benefit from more traffic.

The Rutten Cartel would suddenly disappear from Google, which means to the average Web reader, their stories wouldn’t exist. And if those stories are as poorly reasoned and factually challenged as the typical Rutten column, few would care to pay for them anyway.

————————————————————–

(Disclaimer: This, and all of my writings here, represents my personal opinion. It does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, the North County Times, which is not involved.

The Stimulus Plan

Sunday, February 1st, 2009

The Sunday morning shows featured the “stimulus plan” which was just passed by the House with no Republican votes. George Stephanopolis had Fred Smith, the FedEx CEO, on the show plus the Google CEO. The other two guests were Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman Barney Frank. Barney was in fine fettle and, when his mouth was fully engaged, tended to get off message, ranting about the Iraq War. Smith warned about the risks of the Buy American provision in the House bill but Barney was not fazed by this echo of Smoot-Hawley. It is a dialogue of the deaf. George Will pointed out that Obama took a two-week vacation after the election and allowed the Democrat Congress to write the most important bill of his new presidency with no Republican input.

Certainly Obama is willing to cut spending on things like defense in the middle of a war. It’s just a matter of priorities. Peggy Noonan, coming out her Obama swoon, thinks it was a bad deal for him.

But do you know anyone, Democrat or Republican, dancing in the street over this? You don’t. Because most everyone knows it isn’t a good bill, and knows that its failure to receive a single Republican vote, not one, suggests the old battle lines are hardening. Back to the Crips versus the Bloods. Not very inspiring.

The president will enjoy short-term gain. In the great circle of power, to win you have to look like a winner, and to look like a winner you have to win. He did and does. But for the long term, the president made a mistake by not forcing the creation of a bill Republicans could or should have supported.

Consider the moment. House Republicans had conceded that dramatic action was needed and had grown utterly supportive of the idea of federal jobs creation on a large scale. All that was needed was a sober, seriously focused piece of legislation that honestly tried to meet the need, one that everyone could tinker with a little and claim as their own. Instead, as Rep. Mike Pence is reported to have said to the president, “Know that we’re praying for you. . . . But know that there has been no negotiation [with Republicans] on the bill—we had absolutely no say.” The final bill was privately agreed by most and publicly conceded by many to be a big, messy, largely off-point and philosophically chaotic piece of legislation. The Congressional Budget Office says only 25% of the money will even go out in the first year. This newspaper, in its analysis, argues that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.

This is how he begins his presidency.

Tactically, the White House group seem to be sharp. They have made a move that could decapitate the Senate Republicans by appointing Judd Gregg, a serious and competent man, to the Commerce Department. It would accomplish several purposes. It would reduce the GOP numbers in the Senate by one. It would also remove a leader who is a potential minority leader. It’s a wise move and I hope Gregg turns them down.

The White House seems deficient in strategy.

The left wing of the Democratic party sees nothing wrong with the “stimulus bill” as it currently exists.

All week long, we’ve heard quite a bit about what’s incumbent upon Obama to satisfy Republicans’ demands, despite the GOP’s horrific failures at governing, and despite voters having thrown the minority party out on their asses. Maybe now would be a good time to turn the question around: what are Republicans going to do to play a productive role in the process? When will they move beyond Bush’s failed economic agenda and get serious about the crisis? Obama was prepared to make all kinds of compromises; what concessions are Republicans prepared to make? GOP leaders have acknowledged they can’t just be “the party of ‘no.'” So when might we see them start to say “yes”?

It seems the burden of proof is all out of whack here. It’s not the president’s responsibility to make the rejected (and dejected) minority party happy. It’s not Obama’s job to find out what unhinged, far-right Republicans want to be happy, and then deliver.

Some of this is residual Bush Derangement Syndrome but a lot is just the left wing version of economics. A command economy that takes a maximum amount of the private citizen’s income as taxes, then redistributes it to favored persons, is what they seek. They dismiss, for example, Amity Schlaes’ book, which is being reprinted in Japan, China and South Korea. It is back on the Times list of best sellers, a very unusual circumstance in publishing, but they don’t care.

They misrepresent criticism of Roosevelt’s policies and even the circumstances when he was elected. They do not acknowledge that Hoover followed almost the same policies the present-day Democrats are attempting to follow. He raised taxes, harangued employers to keep salaries high and signed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff. The present day equivalent, although less onerous, is the “Buy American” provision of the House bill. Democrats are dismissive of her concerns but I would listen to her.

I have reviews of her book and Ron Chernow’s The House of Morgan, on Amazon.

The banking crisis was created by Congress with its pressure to lend to non creditworthy borrowers during the housing bubble. Another factor was the Federal Reserve policy of loose money and low interest rates that drove the lending frenzy. Our most important priority now is to recapitalize those banks that have worthwhile assets on their books that they cannot properly value. Mark to market has contributed to the problem. There is no market. We will need this money for another bill, probably establishing a “bad bank” as the Swedes did in the 1990s when they had a similar crisis.

Now is not the time to run up debt on old left wing ideas whose time is not here.