Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The White House Insider Series

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Roger Simon has links to a series running on another blog that is alleged to be interviews of a White House insider in the Obama administration who has become disenchanted. The interviewee is, of course, anonymous and there are doubts about the authenticity but it rings true to me. I will make comments about some of the statements.

The first installment is here.

White House Insider on Obama: “the President is Losing It.”

Quite a title.

When I asked this insider if the media gave candidate Obama an assist throughout his campaign, it elicits a sly smile. Sure – we definitely had people in the media on our side. Absolutely. We went so far as to give them specific ideas for coverage. The ones who took that advice from the campaign were granted better access, and Obama was the biggest story in 2008, so yeah, that gave us a lot of leverage.

Could Obama have succeeded without the media’s help? Yeah, I think so. As I said, on the campaign trail he is very-very good. The opposition didn’t have near the energy, or the celebrity attraction that Obama brings. Plus, the country was burned out after eight years of Bush. We knew that going in. We knew that if we won the Democrat nomination, we were likely going to cruise our way to the White House – and that is exactly what we did.”

This sounds authentic to me. I’m not sure Obama could have won without both the press and the flow of anonymous money that has yet to be explained but he was good with a teleprompter and Bush was unpopular.

But after Obama was sworn in, things began to change? Almost immediately. Obama loved to campaign. He clearly didn’t like the work of being President though, and that attitude was felt by the entire White House staff within weeks after the inauguration. Obama the tireless, hard working candidate became a very tepid personality to us. And the few news stories that did come out against him were the only things he seemed to care about. He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally.

And you state he despises Joe Biden? Oh yeah. That is very well known in the White House. Obama chose Biden for one reason – to have an older white guy with some international policy credentials. Period. If Biden has all of this international experience that Obama found so valuable, why has he buried him under the pile of crap that became the stimulus bill? What does Joe Biden know about budgets and economics? Not much – but Obama didn’t care. Give Joe a job and get him the hell out of my hair – that pretty much sums up the president’s feelings toward Joe Biden.

Read the rest. This is only the first segment.

What about Hillary Clinton? Obama is scared to death of Hillary. He doesn’t trust her – obsesses over her almost as much as he does Fox News. He respects her though, which might be why he fears her so much as well. He talks the game, but when it comes down to it, she has played the game on a far tougher level than he has, and Obama knows that.

I include this only because I think the anonymous interviewee is a Hillary staffer. Watch his comments on the Clintons. For example:

How about Bill Clinton? I never heard Obama say anything about Bill Clinton personally, though I was told he has cracked a few jokes about the former president since getting into the White House. I have heard that Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. That really started when Obama played the race card against him during the primary campaign. Apparently Clinton was apoplectic over that and still hasn’t gotten over it. If there is one thing I have learned in this town – don’t make an enemy of Bill Clinton.

So if Obama doesn’t appear interested in the job of president, what does he do day after day? Well, he takes his meetings just like any other president would, though even then, he seems to lack a certain focus and on a few occasions, actually leaves with the directive that be given a summary of the meeting at a later date. I hear he plays a lot of golf, and watches a lot of television – ESPN mainly. I’ll tell you this – if you want to see President Obama get excited about a conversation, turn it to sports. That gets him interested. You start talking about Congress, or some policy, and he just kinda turns off. It’s really very strange. I mean, we were all led to believe that this guy was some kind of intellectual giant, right? Ivy League and all that. Well, that is not what I saw. Barack Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of intellectual curiosity. When he is off script, he is what I call a real “slow talker”. Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly. I am not going to say the president is a dumb man, because he is not, but yeah, there was a definite letdown when you actually hear him talking without the script.

That sounds like you are calling Obama stupid to me. No – I am not going to call him stupid. He just doesn’t strike me as particularly smart. Bill Clinton is a smart guy – he would run intellectual circles around Barack Obama. And Bill Clinton loved the politics of being president. Obama seems to think he shouldn’t have to be bothered, which has created a considerable amount of conflict among his staff.

The second installment is here and just as interesting.

So you still wish to keep your name hidden from the public? Why? I intend to remain working in this town for a bit longer. A public disclosure might complicate that just a bit given who is in power right now. But I won’t be the last one from the current administration coming forward. After the midterms, there will be a number of us speaking about what is really going on in the Democrat Party, if for nothing else because it’s such a damn mess right now.

What do you mean “it’s a damn mess”? I mean just what I said. The Democrat Party is the most chaotic I have ever seen it – and that goes back almost 30 years.

So who is to blame? We all are. By we I mean those of us who were working within the party power structure the last ten years or so. We got so caught up in the hate Bush mentality, we let the party get hijacked by our own far left. That was disaster the moment it happened. The disaster that will be the midterm election in 2010 started in November of 2006 when Pelosi and Reid took over the Democrat Party. Those two have only brought trouble to the Democrat Party since day one of that time.

This again rings true to me. And this is a revelation to me.

What scares you more as president – Sarah Palin or Barack Obama? (Hands to head) Oh boy. What a choice! People would kill me for saying this – actually you know what, there are more and more of us Democrats saying what I am going to say in one form or another… Sarah Palin understands America more than Barack Obama. Yes, she has a minority of our far left who hates her, and some in our media are part of that group, but overall, she seems to get America. Americans aren’t a complicated people, and neither is Sarah Palin, so that probably works in her favor. But President Obama is just out of touch. He really doesn’t understand what America is. What it’s about. Or who it is. And that is a real problem for him – and the Democrat Party at this moment in its history.

Are you saying you would vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama? No, I don’t think I could do that. As much as I admire Palin’s ability to connect with the American people, I just can’t stand her politics. I am a pro-choice Democrat. I support unions. I support welfare programs. Sarah Palin understands America, but that doesn’t mean she understands the best parts of America. That being said, I think President Obama understands hardly any of America. That is probably a big reason he appears so lost these days.

That is quite an interesting admission if the interview is legitimate. The third segment is here.

Why is he doing this ?

I am doing it for me, for my party, and for my country. In my own small way – maybe it’s insignificant, maybe not, I want to see Democrats move ahead of this mess that we are in right now. It is a mess of our own making, so we need to be the ones to clean it up. If we don’t, this country is going to continue hurting, and too many people out there are really hurting these days.

Ok…but how does giving me some apparent insider information going to help the country, or help your political party? Simple – it lets others know it’s time to start talking. It’s time to get the word out. It’s time to challenge the inept status quo that is currently running things. People are scared – hell, I’m a bit scared myself. But enough is enough – this political train has got to get back on its tracks. And I’ll tell you this, my talking to you, and your little blog stories, is already helping. More people are ready to talk. It’s already happening. And more is coming. The media won’t be able to ignore it anymore. This administration, the leadership in Congress, they need to account for how they have totally mishandled the responsibilities given to them. That accounting is coming soon enough in November – we are going to get what we deserve. But I am still hopeful it is not too late to save 2012.

He is talking about Congress and I agree that somebody has to.

We are literally killing our political futures out of some need to keep supporting an administration that has in no way, shape, or form shown itself to be worthy of that support.

Those are strong words – but what exactly to do you mean by that? What do I mean!? (Voice rising) What I mean is exactly this – we got Congressmen and Senators running for re-election right now whose political careers are about to be ended because they supported a president and a Democratic Party leadership that told them to do so. They trusted they would be politically protected, that the American people would agree with the agenda. Well guess what? That hasn’t happened. Good people, good Democrats, are being tossed aside like so much trash – and this White House DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN. In my eyes that is absolutely unforgivable. You just don’t do that to your own people. And some of these politicians are talking. They are – but for the most part the media is ignoring them because they don’t want to hurt the administration. To that I say enough! Do your damn job. Report what is going on within the Democratic Party. We need to clean up this mess, and it starts by getting the truth out there. That is my motivation.

The shift of independents to the Republicans is evidence that he is correct. Hell, I don’t even trust the Republican party after the past ten years. The 1994 revolution petered out in politics as usual. Tea party people are cringing in anticipation of the new “Contract” that the Republican leadership is preparing to release tomorrow.

This White House doesn’t give a damn for the concept of loyalty, dedication, sincerity. This White House is the most self-centered, arrogant, and ignorant…they just don’t care to know what they are doing. And when they do it – consequences mean nothing to them. NOTHING. And that is not to say it’s all bad at the White House. There are some very bright people working there. But you know what, those people have been marginalized, pushed aside, and are now leaving. You watch – the exodus from this White House will prove to be of historical proportions.

The exodus is already starting. It will be interesting to see how large it gets. Even the interviewee is frightened of what Obama could do to the country.

For most of the last year, you want to know what question keeps playing in my head?
What question was that? WHAT THE HELL HAVE WE DONE? Now that may come off terribly disrespectful to the president, but so be it. What have we done? We were led to believe this man was one thing, but everything I have seen, heard, and understand, points to the indisputable fact he is not what we hoped for. Not what we were promised. Maybe he might have been. Maybe a full term or two in the Senate and he would have had the experience and maturity to handle the job of President of the United States. But right now – the man is simply not up to the task, and yet it is loyal Democrats who are paying the price for his incompetence and incoherence. The health care bill? Do you know I was told he has never read the bill? Not one part of it? NOT ONE. Sounds like something you would hear on one of the talk radio shows, right? And I wouldn’t normally consider such a possibility, but this came directly from one of those good Democrats who might now see their political careers ended because they supported that bill and now its being used against them like some political sledgehammer. How is that supposed to make someone who put their career on the line feel? Betrayed. A whole lot of us are feeling betrayed these days and it just pisses me off.

As for all the accusations that the Congress hadn’t read the health care bill ?

they pushed it a bit further – suggested the president could do some town meetings and answer questions about the bill, alleviate all the concerns and fight back against the conservative chatter that was being put out there. Guess what they were told regarding that? They were asked one question – did they read the bill? This Congressperson admitted they hadn’t. Like a lot of them, they had voted for it, but hadn’t read it. That was a mistake, sure, but the thing is over 2000 pages, right? Well, after admitting they didn’t read the bill they are told in a laughing way mind you, “That’s ok – neither has the president, so you can’t expect him to take on a bunch of town meetings on it, right?” So that was it. Nice, huh? Bye-bye, thanks for playing, and good luck with the -explitive- storm coming your way this summer.

Anybody who has been around legislatures knows that bills are written by staff and lobbyists but you could at least expect them to read it before voting. Why healthcare ?

Was everyone on his staff on board with the president pushing so hard for healthcare? Absolutely not. There were some who voiced concerns. Some who pushed for a more clear economic agenda. Apparently Obama wanted none of it – he was obsessed, absolutely obsessed with getting some kind of healthcare legislation. And the ones who did voice concerns…they are, or will be, among the first to go. And it’s coming sooner rather than later.

And now, what may be the motive for this interview.

Any ideas as to an acceptable alternative? Hillary Clinton perhaps? (Smiles) The Clinton angle was not missed in your last two articles, was it? I make no attempt to hide my admiration for President Clinton. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton cannot run for another term as this country’s president. As for Hillary, I do not know her as well, but I do admire her – a lot, and now regret not having been a part of her own run for president. My ties to the2008 Obama campaign feel more and more these days like a dishonorable victory.
But would you like to see her run in 2012 if President Obama, as you put it, fails to improve? Yes. I would support Hillary Clinton over Obama in 2012 if the need was still there to help ensure President Obama was given only one term. But Hillary Clinton is not the only possibility for the Democrats. We are a party with many fine leaders – many, many potential candidates for president who I would gladly support.

Personally, I think Hillary is no more competent than Obama to be president and I think she is just as far left but it is interesting to see the developing split between the progressives and what is left of the Democratic Party.

Read all three installments. I have only posted the sections that most interested me. There is a lot more, including some about Michelle that is interesting.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Chicago, politics | 5 Comments »

Where are we going ?

Friday, August 27th, 2010

There are several good posts on various blogs today and I thought I would summarize some of them. This is sometimes called a “thumbsucker” column when it appears in the NY Times.

1. Germany is rapidly recovering from the financial crisis. This from, of all people, David Brooks.

During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence.

The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.”

So, the Germans went one way, we went another. Results ?

The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.

The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.

In fact, the second quarter US GDP has now been revised DOWN by 1/3. To 1.6% growth.

As an editorial from the superb online think tank e21 reminds us, the Germans have recently reduced labor market regulation, increased wage flexibility and taken strong measures to balance budgets.

2. Victor Davis Hanson writes excellent columns on his web site but the one today is exceptional. “Decline is a choice.”

In the age of Obama, the notion of not being exceptional or preeminent comes as a relief to millions on the left who pretty much are in sync with the protocols of the United Nations. On the right, there is a sense that Obama is the ultimate expression of downfall; given the wild spending, the iconic efforts abroad at apology, and the rampant entitlements we simply aren’t what we once were. In between, most aren’t quite sure—but sure are worried that we may never climb out of our self-created indebtedness crater, and that the culture’s education, the nation’s borders, and the civilization’s values are eroding.

He makes the point that much of our problems are psychological and, in fact, are the consequences of one generation, the Baby Boomers.

On the plus side, as I mentioned last time, our economy is almost three times larger than China’s. American agriculture is the most productive in the world. There is simply nothing like the farmland in the Great Plains, or the 400 miles of irrigated expanse between Bakersfield and Red Bluff. For all the damage done by the federal government, we remain the most orderly free society on the planet, where merit still to a large degree determines success—not class, race, or tribal affiliation. While our universities in the humanities are increasingly corrupt, their science, engineering, and computer science departments, as well as professional schools in business and medicine, are the best in the world. It is not that Cal Tech, MIT, Harvard or Yale or Stanford are better than counterparts in Germany or Russia or China, but that an entire array such as UCLA, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Duke, and dozens of others is as well.

We have huge reserves of both coal and natural gas, and can quite easily quadruple our nuclear power generation. The U.S. military is not just the most technologically advanced and supplied, but the most experienced in all phases of modern challenges, from air campaigns to counter-insurgency.

I have lost confidence in American arts, in the sense of fiction and poetry, which are now in large part warped by the cult of race/class/gender orthodoxy that brings intertribal awards and recognition, but American scholarship in science, medicine, and the professions remains preeminent.

I agree with all this and have had confirmation with my youngest daughter’s experience at the University of Arizona two years ago. I believe, and she suspected, that her experience, at a cost of $25,000 per year, was useless. She has returned home and is starting junior college in San Diego Monday. She told me what her classes are and they all sound solid and useful.

I could go on, but you get the picture: our parents and grandparents left us a wonderful infrastructure, methodology, and constitutional system. So it is hard for our generation (I was born in 1953) to screw things entirely up, although we have done our best, within a mere twenty years of coming into the responsibility of governance.

Look at the often cited pathologies that are destroying what we inherited, and note how easily they are within our material ability to cure—and yet how psychologically we simply lack the courage to take our medicine.

I agree with his comments and there is an interesting thread in the comments section of the blog. There is a growing backlash against the cultural and political “elite,” including the practices of affirmative action. Racism has been taboo for 40 years. We are now learning that American blacks are the final reservoir of this poison and a backlash may come soon if this continues.

3. The election in Alaska is a microcosm of the coming revolt against the elites. The Alaska Republican primary election was won by a tea party and Sarah Palin backed insurgent. The GOP apparatchiks seem to be trying to steal the election for the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, an example of nepotism if there ever was one. Sarah Palin began her career by defeating Lisa Murkowski’s father in the election for governor. He appointed his daughter to fill a vacant Senate seat. There is just nothing like starting at the top.

A reliable source unaligned with either GOP senatorial campaign in Alaska, and positioned to know, confirmed for me last night that the Alaskan Republican Party (ARP) stepped up their efforts on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the closing days of the election, going so far as to phone bank for her from the Alaska GOP’s headquarters on election day.

There is just no better example of trying to thwart the will of the people. Primary elections should be hands-off for the party. Instead the NRSC seems to be heavily involved in trying to pick candidates. If someone were to write a book on how to fuck up a golden chance to elect lots of Republicans, this should be chapter one.

4. John Boehner gave an excellent speech that may suggest an aggressive GOP agenda. I hope so.

I refer you back to my post on Angelo Codevilla’s essay that I posted on recently. It is amazing to see how quickly his points are being proven true. These are frightening times. I took two friends from England on a tour of California three years ago. Rather than waste time at tourist attractions everyone has seen, I drove them through the Central Valley that Hanson refers to. I wanted them to see the real riches of California. Now, that valley is mostly a dust bowl thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency and its concern over a tiny non-native fish in the Sacramento Delta.

This coming election will be the most important for our future since 1860.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in economics, education, politics, racism, social issues | 8 Comments »

Good Advice

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Today, over at NRO, there is an excellent column by Michael Tanner about the coming election.

Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built.

This is not the year for the culture wars to be emphasized. This is potentially a watershed election. People are worried about the survival of the republic. The economy was trashed by reckless financial speculation that was NOT George Bush’s fault, although he could have done more to stop it. The two biggest culprits are still untouched; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, protected by the Democrats as they have been Democratic Party sandboxes for years. Subsidized housing for the poor became a housing bubble and we are still dealing with the consequences. This is not the time for social conservatives to take over the platform.

Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues, it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades.

Like the blacks with the Democrats, the social conservatives have no where else to go. The difference is, although this is not polite to say, the social conservatives still vote on other issues. They don’t stay home in big numbers although the fumble of Bush’s drunk driving arrest might have caused enough to stay home to tie the 2000 election. This year, they need to show they have other concerns.

It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both 2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college-educated professionals, many of whom consider themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The switch among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more independent, libertarian West.

This is the year of the libertarian, not the goofy libertarian who wants to sell all the highways but the moderate libertarian that makes up a very large share of the tea party activists. These people are outraged enough to hold signs and stand on street corners, something that 95% of them never did before in their lives.

These independent and suburban voters are now regretting their Democratic flirtation. They didn’t vote for record deficits, the health-care bill, bailouts to banks and auto companies, or cap-and-trade. Having rejected big-government conservatism, they never realized they were going to get even-bigger-government liberalism.

But these voters are not culture warriors. Polls show that while they are fiscally conservative, and very upset by excessive government spending and rising deficits, they are socially moderate, tending toward indifference or even support on issues like gay marriage.

This is the year for the big tent. Gay marriage is not the issue that is going to save the country from economic collapse. I am personally neutral on gay marriage with the exception of a concern that this is actually a war on religions that disapprove of homosexuality. Having said that, let’s talk about it next year.

This year we have to save the country.

Tags:, ,
Posted in economics, politics | 5 Comments »

The Governing Class

Saturday, July 17th, 2010

We are now at an inflection point in the political history of the United States. The people are being subjected to increasingly arbitrary and ideological rule by a small governing minority. There have been several episodes of similar disconnect in our history. The election of Andrew Jackson, after the “corrupt bargain” of 1824. The Federalists of 1824 had as much fear of a backwoods candidate as the present day Democratic Party fears Sarah Palin. He was uncouth and did not understand the subtleties of governing as did John Quincy Adams, for example.

The present day Democrats celebrate Jackson as an exemplar of the Democratic Party when, in fact, he is the antithesis and would feel comfortable in the tea parties of 2010. James Buchanan is another example of rule by a president who did not support the policies and aspirations of the public. He disdained and opposed the policies of the new Republican Party of the day. He sympathized with the Confederates and, it is widely believed, assisted them in weakening Federal control of US property. He later attempted to defend himself and his record is mixed.

Finally, Woodrow Wilson is a revered figure of the Democratic Party although his well known racism (He segregated the civil service and military) would normally affect his reputation. His government in the World War had many characteristics of Fascism and has been the model for corporate government ever since.

Now, we come to an essay that everyone concerned about the present trend to statism should read. Angelo Codevilla is a retired professor of International Relations and former Foreign Service Officer.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

As to Republicans, here is some evidence of their contempt for the tea parties who do not accept direction from above.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.” But Lott said he’s not expecting a tea-party sweep. “I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people,” he said.

The rest of the essay is worth the time to read it. Nicole Gelinas, in her book, After the Fall, explains how the actual purpose of the TARP fund defeated the chances for an orderly liquidation of the assets that banks held and which no one could set a price for once the mortgage backed securities (MBS) had lost their value.

The consequences of this division between ruled and rulers has incalculable consequences.

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; that is a foundational principle of our republic. To a stunning degree, however, Americans don’t believe that their own government meets that standard. Scott Rasmussen finds that only 23 percent of voters believe that “the federal government today has the consent of the governed.” A remarkable 62 percent of voters say that our government does not enjoy that consent.

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn’t vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one–a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

Study that chart and see if you can discern the source of Americans’ distrust of the governing class. Republicans fare little better than Democrats as many, including George W Bush, advocated big government in spite of objections from a significant segment of their party members. There is an opportunity for the Republicans to join the wave sweeping the country, but Trent Lott is not a good indicator.

UPDATE: Instapundit has a list of ways to fight back, including ways of communicating if the governing class shuts down the internet and other common means of communication like cell phones.

Jonah Goldberg thinks the left is failing as the rules change. I’m more pessimistic as I wonder if they will let them change without a fight.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in economics, politics | 4 Comments »

“Until we see a divergence from the patterns of 1929…”

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

How do you like that quote ? It comes from a CNBC piece on whether we will have a “double dip” recession. I am very pessimistic about the economy and will be as long as Obama is in office and has a Congress in the control of Democrats. The Democratic Party once understood economics but those days are gone. The “Baby Boom” generation seems to live in a fantasy world of their own making.

But Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg also took up the 1930 theme in his daily analysis Thursday. He, too, noted the crash in 1929 was followed by the rally in 1930, followed by asset deflation, credit collapse, a natural disaster, geopolitical disagreements and threats, low interest rates, high gold prices and several other common characteristics.

The two analysts differ somewhat on how dire things could get for the stock market-Zimmerman is far more bearish-but both see troubling signs in the surging bond demand.

“At current yield levels (1.9% on the 5-year?), the Treasury market is screaming deflation,” Rosenberg wrote. “If it is right, not only is the consensus estimate of a new peak in corporate earnings in danger, but so is the key 1,040 technical threshold on the S&P 500.”

The yield on the benchmark 10-year note has slipped below 3.10 percent and is trending towards levels not seen since the March 2009 stock market lows.

Even as the government continues to pile up debt and deficits and supply keeps raining on the debt markets, investors are unwilling to walk away from the safety bid.

“That shows two things: People are concerned about safety and there’s no demand for credit,” Zimmerman says. “It’s demand for credit that drives the 10-year rate higher and it’s demand for safety that drives it lower. Evidently the world doesn’t like what it’s looking at.”

This analysis does not mention the poisonous atmosphere of the Obama administration for business. Even an election that devastates the Democratic majorities in both houses may not protect us as once free of the need to appeal to independents, Congress may go on a spree of bad left wing legislation.

Spending could re-explode in a lame-duck Congress because all decisions on how much to spend next year have been delayed. Neither house of Congress has adopted a budget resolution (for the first time since 1974), and none of the appropriations bills have even cleared a subcommittee.

Retiring House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D, WI), typically a staunch defender of following regular order, could see his final year blemished if the spending is rolled up into omnibus bills with who-knows-what policy riders tacked on.

A lame-duck session would offer a last-gasp chance to enact some form of carbon tax, energy tax, cap-and-trade, or requirement that utilities must use politically-correct wind or solar power rather than more consumer-affordable fossil fuels. Or card-check measures. Or the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. Or any of a multitude of provisions that now cannot pass on their own but could be stuffed into a massive last-gasp hard-to-stop appropriations omnibus.

A stake through the heart of this malignant Congress may not even do the trick.

The 1929 crash was followed by a gusher of spending and protectionism by Hoover, a good Progressive. Roosevelt actually ran against Hoover from the Right in 1932. Of course, he then flipped and followed a Progressive agenda until World War II pulled us out of the Depression.

Remember another component of the world wide Depression was a series of defaults by European countries on their war debts.

Sort of like the Euro crisis today.

Tags:,
Posted in economics, politics | 4 Comments »

Is this a parody ?

Saturday, February 6th, 2010

UPDATE: Here is an interesting article examining this phenomenon in the Washington Post. And here is a nice summary by David Freddoso.

I have been mulling the question of whether this incredible article was worth responding to. When I saw the title on Real Clear Politics, I assumed it was a parody. I’m still not 100% sure it isn’t.

In trying to explain why our political paralysis seems to have gotten so much worse over the past year, analysts have rounded up a plausible collection of reasons including: President Obama’s tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, the blustering idiocracy of the cable-news stations, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation. These are all large factors, to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.

The writer has not considered the possibility that Obama’s economic and national security policies are detached from reality. He does not give any thought to the possibility that millions of people have been running businesses and living their lives without the benefit of government and would like to continue to be left alone.

He also ignores the fact that, as a result of tax reforms the past two decades, about 35% of the tax payers pay no income tax. Thus, there is a constituency for new spending that knows the responsibility for paying those bills will be someone elses. In fact, by 2009, that percent who pay no tax had continued to rise and is now nearly 40%.

Maybe those people who pay no income tax are the “stupid and ignorant” group he is referring to. No, he seems to think that the middle class, which pays the vast majority of income tax, is the target of his ire.

The usual way to describe such inconsistent demands from voters is to say that the public is an angry, populist, tea-partying mood. But a lot more people are watching American Idol than are watching Glenn Beck, and our collective illogic is mostly negligent rather than militant. The more compelling explanation is that the American public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. In this respect, the whole country is becoming more and more like California, where ignorance is bliss and the state’s bonds have dropped to an A- rating (the same level as Libya’s), thanks to a referendum system that allows the people to be even more irresponsible than their elected representatives. Middle-class Americans really don’t want to hear about sacrifices or trade-offs—except as flattering descriptions about how ready we, as a people, are, or used to be, to accept them. We like the idea of hard choices in theory. When was the last time we made one in reality?

I tend to agree with him about California but there is one characteristic about California that he doesn’t mention. Which political party dominates California government ? In 2005, Arnold Schwartzenegger, who had been elected two years before during the recall of his predecessor, Gray Davis, attempted to pass four reform initiatives to try to get control of the runaway entitlements of California. The teachers’ unions and the SEIU mobilized against him and all four initiatives went down to defeat. Arnold quickly caved in the political left and we are now on the verge of bankruptcy.

Schwarzenegger’s proposals to curb spending and weaken unions inflamed passions on both sides, partly because of the election’s roughly $50 million cost in a state that repeatedly faces budget shortfalls.

Appearing before supporters at a Beverly Hills hotel after learning that at least two of his initiatives had failed, a smiling governor did not concede defeat.

“Tomorrow, we begin anew,” Schwarzenegger said, his wife Maria Shriver beside him. “I feel the same tonight as that night two years ago … You know with all my heart, I want to do the right thing for the people of California.”

Though some of the measures were complex, Schwarzenegger cast the election in simple terms: Support him and the state moves forward — vote no and protect a broken system of government in Sacramento.

Actually, he gave up and the state has continued its decline as middle class tax payers flee to other states.

So who has good ideas to stop the financial whirlpool the US is caught in?

I don’t mean to suggest that honesty is what separates the two parties. Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians in either party who are prepared to speak directly about our choices, on the one hand, and the majority who indulge the public’s delusions, on the other. I would put President Obama and his economic team in the first group, along with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Republicans are more indulgent of the public’s unrealism in general, but Democrats have spent years fostering their own forms of denial. Where Republicans encourage popular myths about taxes, spending, and climate change, Democrats tend to stoke our fantasies about the sustainability of entitlement spending as well as about the cost of new programs.

Climate change ? He still thinks that AGW is a high priority ? Wow ! Plus he thinks Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget is drawn up by “serious politicians” ? Maybe he thinks that Gorbachev was on the verge of solving the Soviet Union’s problems in 1989. He thinks the Obama who raised discretional spending by $84 billion this past year is serious about deficits with his fake spending freeze? What about the federal employee situation ? The only place in the US which is not having a recession is The District of Columbia and environs. Federal employee numbers are climbing rapidly, where the numbers are expected to increase by 153,000 in fiscal 2010. Private industry, mostly small business, has lost about 4.5 million jobs.

The political left, having lost the confidence of the electorate in record time, is unhappy with that electorate. Imagine if Obama had really tried to be bipartisan and had incorporated Republican concepts in his first big “stimulus” bill. Imagine for a moment that, instead of the famously corrupt payments sometimes in non-existent Congressional districts, to interest groups and local government, the bill had included a six month holiday from FICA taxes. That would have resulted in a similar deficit but it would have had instantaneous effect and it would have been distributed to the working tax payers. Imagine if the health care bill had included exchanges in which individuals could have purchased insurance that was tailored to their needs, high deductible for young healthy workers for example, and the mandates of the special interests had been left out. Had that been done, Republicans would have much less to complain about and Weisberg might even like us voters more. We wouldn’t be so ignorant.

Alas, the chance was wasted and now the left is angry at us “ignorant” middle class voters. James Fallows has a pretty good essay on American decline until he gets to the last two pages. Then we get back to the tired old complaints about the electoral college and the Senate and the inability of Democrat phonies like Kerry to get elected.

America the society is in fine shape! America the polity most certainly is not. Over the past half century, both parties have helped cause this predicament—Democrats by unintentionally giving governmental efforts a bad name in the 1960s and ’70s, Republicans by deliberately doing so from the Reagan era onward. At the moment, Republicans are objectively the more nihilistic, equating public anger with the sentiment that “their” America has been taken away and defining both political and substantive success as stopping the administration’s plans. As a partisan tactic, this could make sense; for the country, it’s one more sign of dysfunction, and of the near-impossibility of addressing problems that require truly public efforts to solve.

Of course, when Bush tried to deal with the coming collapse of Social Security by allowing private accounts, the Democrats demagogued it mercilessly but the Republicans are the “nihilists.”

We could hope for an enlightened military coup, or some other deus ex machina by the right kind of tyrants. (In his 700-page new “meliorist” novel, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us, Ralph Nader proposes a kind of plutocrats’ coup, in which Warren Buffett, Bill Gates Sr., Ted Turner, et al. collaborate to create a more egalitarian America.) The periodic longing for a “man on horseback” is a reflection of disappointment with what normal politics can bring. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower were the right men on horseback.

Here we go with the left’s fondness for military coups and authoritarian government. They can’t win elections so it is the voter’s fault and they want to try to do without those ignorant voters.

I guess it wasn’t a parody.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in economics, politics | 7 Comments »

The James O’Keefe story

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Patterico has the basic story on James O’Keefe’s arrest in Senator Mary Landrieu’s office yesterday. The newspaper theme has been that they were trying to wire tap her phones but this is nonsense. The FBI affidavit (pdf) contains the key to what was going on. Basel (one of the four arrested) asked for the phone that is the main public line to the office. He and Flanagan (another arrestee) both tried to call this telephone, which was not in use at the time, and were unable to get through. They used their cell phones and got (presumably) busy signals even though the phone was not in use at the time. Why is this significant?

Another story about a protest provides the background.

“We were stunned to learn that so many phone calls to Sen. Landrieu have been unanswered and met with continuous busy signals,” Perkins said. “We asked them to call their senators. They could get through to Sen. Vitter, but not Sen. Landrieu.”

“Our lines have been jammed for weeks, and I apologize,” Landrieu said in interview after giving a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday. “But no amount of jamming is going to keep me from supporting a good work for Louisiana and the nation.”

Dwight Hudson of Central said many of his fellow Baton Rouge Tea Party members had phoned Landrieu’s office unsuccessfully for weeks. “The point is they’re not getting their opinion heard. Maybe that’s why they’re out here today,” he said.

I think what they were doing was trying to prove that the telephone lines to Senator Landrieu’s office had been disabled by her staff so that constituents could not reach the office. They asked to see the telephone closet to check if there had been alterations made to the incoming lines so the caller got a busy signal.

This was a dangerous and foolish stunt. This was a federal building and a Senator’s office. O’Keefe, especially, should have kept far away from anything like this. It will be used by the left to discredit his expose’ of ACORN and that is already underway with great glee.

Anyway, that’s what I think at this stage of the story.

Tags:
Posted in corruption, politics | 2 Comments »

Scott Brown’s truck

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

The lefties are trying to figure out what happened. Here is an interesting analysis from a far left site that has gotten much more left wing since Kevin Drum left. Let’s analyze their thinking.

With that in mind, here are my Top 5 lessons to be learned from the Mess in Massachusetts.

1. Successful candidates hit the campaign trail. Candidates seeking office should probably campaign while voters are making up their minds. It’s old-fashioned thinking, I know, but winning a primary and then dropping out of sight — while your opponent is working hard to reach out to voters — tends to be a bad idea.

This is true and Brown was a superb candidate. He is the most skilled retail politician I have seen in a long time, maybe since Reagan. That, however, follows the meme so common on the left this week. The skills of the candidate are only part of a winning formula. One of those skills is to learn what the voters are concerned about. You have to choose your issues.

2. Voters like likeable candidates. Some voters care more about policy and substance than which candidate they most want to have a beer with, but these voters tend to be outnumbered. We’ve all seen races in which the thoughtful, hard-working, experienced candidate who emphasizes substantive issues loses out to the fun, likable opponent (see 2000, presidential election of).

Here we see the left wing arrogance about the stupid voters (What’s the Matter With Kansas ?) who are taken in by the slick candidate. On the other hand, did you see John Kerry the past two days ? What an arrogant ass ! Scott Brown showed the sunny optimism that Reagan was famous for and it helped a lot.

3. Saying dumb things will undermine public support. When the pressure was on, Coakley insulted Red Sox fans — twice. She kinda sorta said there are “no terrorists in Afghanistan,” and that “devout Catholics” may not want to work in emergency rooms. When the Democratic campaign realized it was in deep trouble, and readied an effort to turn things around, it had trouble overcoming the distractions caused by the candidate’s public remarks.

The Coakley gaffes certainly kept her from connecting but, once again, those voters in Massachusetts are mostly Democrats ! A Democrat candidate should know how to connect to Democrats. If the lefties think they were dumb, maybe they should think about how intelligent the average Democrat voter is.

4. Learn something about your opponent. Because the Democratic campaign assumed it would win, it didn’t invest much energy in understanding its opponent (who, incidentally, won). They didn’t identify Brown’s weak points, and seemed to know practically nothing about his background. When the race grew competitive, nearly all of the damaging stories about the Republican candidate came from well-researched blog posts, not the campaign’s opposition research team. “Get to know your opponent” is one of those lessons taught on the first day of Campaign 101, and campaigns that forget it are going to struggle.

The Democrats might have spent some time doing oppo research on their own candidate. They might have learned about her role in the disgusting persecution of the Amirault family. Scott Brown is clean as a whistle. He has a great and photogenic family with a wife who is a TV reporter and a daughter who was a semi-finalist on American Idol.

5. Enthusiasm matters. No matter how confused and uninformed Brown’s supporters seemed, they were also motivated. Dems liked Coakley, but they weren’t, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go.

More left wing arrogance. Brown’s supporters can’t just disagree on the country’s agenda. They have to be “confused and uninformed.” I see no mention of Obama’s uninformed and arrogant theme about Brown’s truck. “Anybody can buy a truck.” Brown, in another example of his quick reflexes, came right back with “Not everybody can afford to buy a truck now, Mr President.”

This guy is a Republican superstar. He is pro-choice but has opposed partial birth abortion and was slammed by Coakley for proposing a conscience exemption for those healthcare workers who are opposed to abortion. That made his bones for the pro-life voter. He is a moderate Republican but is very agile in policy debates.

Tags:,
Posted in politics | 9 Comments »

It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Richard Epstein, prominent University of Chicago law professor, agrees with my conclusion that the Senate health care bill will kill private health insurance. I have concluded that the “guaranteed issue” and the “community rating” provisions of the Reid bill are a poison pill to end health insurance as we know it. The result would be a situation in which government single payer would be the only alternative.

Lost in the shuffle has been its intensely coercive requirements on health insurance issuers, especially in the individual and small group markets. Taken together, these restrictions are likely to drive them out of business and run afoul of the constitutional guarantee that all regulated industries have to a reasonable, risk-adjusted, rate of return on their invested capital.

The perils of the Reid bill are made evident in a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that focused on the bill’s rebate program, which holds that once an insurance company spends more than 10% of its revenues on administrative expenses, its customers are entitled to an indefinite statutory rebate determined by state regulatory authorities subject to oversight by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Defining these administrative costs is a royal headache, but everyone agrees that they are heaviest in the small group and individual markets, where they typically range between 25% and 30%, without the new regulatory hassles.

I don’t believe that this is an unforeseen outcome, a “bug.” I think it is a feature. A feature added by leftist staff members of Reid’s office who hold the same antipathy to private insurance that is typical of the left. They have also larded up the most basic mandated benefits with options of little appeal to most purchasers of health insurance. Look at the list.

Next, it’s the government that requires extensive coverage including “ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative [sic!] services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” The price squeeze gets even tighter because in every required area of care a collection of government standards will help set the minimum level of required services.

This is what the “gold plated plans” that are to be taxed out of existence contain. Medicare does not offer these services.

The whole intent is to destroy the private insurance market. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Tags:, ,
Posted in health reform | 1 Comment »

The healthcare precipice

Friday, December 18th, 2009

A few days ago, President Obama said the Democrats stand on the precipice of a health reform bill. Truer words were never spoken, at least by him. What is Harry Reid doing ? The theory seems to be to pass something, no matter what it is, so that Democrats can claim success.At one time we had two bills, the Senate version and the House version. Now, no one knows what is in this bill. It is simply amazing. His hurry to pass something may come from his realization that, as time to understand the bill passes, the public likes it less and less. No one knows what it will cost because the CBO has been given false data to analyze.

For some time, I’ve suspected the answer is that congressional Democrats have very carefully tailored their individual and employer mandates to avoid CBO’s definition of what shall be counted in the federal budget. Democrats are still smarting over the CBO’s decision in 1994. By revealing the full cost of the Clinton plan, the CBO helped to kill the bill.

Since then, keeping the cost of their private-sector mandates out of the federal budget has been Job One for Democratic health wonks. While head of the CBO, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag altered the CBO’s orientation to make it more open and collaborative. One of the things about which the CBO has been more open is the criteria it uses to determine whether to include mandated private-sector spending in the federal budget.

Why is this being done ?

Our federalist system, the separation of powers, our bicameral national legislature, six-year terms for senators, staggered Senate elections, and the Senate’s procedural rules all exist precisely to prevent what Reid is trying to do: ram a sweeping piece of legislation through Congress without due consideration.

This is the fascist way.

Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism enraged the left well before the election of Barack Obama. It might be time to read it again. If you doubt these people are fascists, here is their suggestion for political opponents. If you are a Congressman who does not vote for the favored bill, you should be expelled from Congress. One party rule.

The problem is that it won’t work. The Democrats would be even worse off if they pass it than if it fails.

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea. The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it). With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it’s really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.

It isn’t even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout. The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives.

Maybe this will teach them that we are not ready for fascism yet.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in health reform, politics | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »