AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

Yes, it's official.  Well, maybe I'm a couple of hours early but there is no deal to prevent the fiscal cliff and, as I predicted, the president wanted to go off the cliff anyway.  Rather than extend the BUSH tax cuts, tomorrow he can propose the OBAMA tax cuts.  And amazingly, he is going to cut taxes for people earning less than $250,000, just like he wanted.

These people were elected to resolve problems like this.  The cliff was manufactured in Washington a year and a half ago.  This is a government-created problem.  Capitalism didn't do this.  The private market didn't do this.  The 'rich' didn't bring us to this cliff.  No, it was government.  And people wonder why I have so little faith in government.

 

What else is coming?  I have heard that Obama will now demand tax increases - above and beyond what the cliff gives him - if he is to provide any cuts in spending.  The spending cuts will be illusory but the taxes will be quite real.  On whom do you suppose those taxes will be levied?  I'm guessing the 'rich' still aren't paying their fair share.  He's going to 'ask' them to pay 'a little more.'  Ah, I love when government 'asks' citizens to pay taxes.

Over the Cliff

A month ago, I predicted that we would go off the Fiscal Cliff.  So far, my prediction still holds water.  There is now talk of a mini-deal to somewhat mitigate the cliff but it will only deal with taxes, not spending.  So, in effect, the President is asking the Republicans to raise taxes in exchange for nothing.  Well, not entirely nothing.  Provided the mini-deal passes, the Republicans won't be raising taxes on the middle class.  Yes, the balanced approach that the President spoke about throughout the campaign is all tax and no cut.  Of course, the President says we already have the cuts.  We're not going to spend billions in Iraq or Afghanistan for the next 10 years.  As Charles Krauthammer noted, we could save $800 billion by not building a ski resort on Mars.  The mini-deal, whether it passes or not, is of little consequence.  The movers and shakers of the economy are about to be hit with a tax increase.  Also, the middle class is going to suffer the Obamacare taxes.

 

The next big thing will be the debt ceiling.  If the Republicans are serious (they aren't), they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling.  Shutdown the government.  The debt is bigger than the economy and growing several times as fast as the economy.  Current projections add another $8 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.  This will lead to several possible outcomes:

 

1. Hyperinflation: the government puts the printing presses in high gear and produce trillions of new dollars to debase the currency.  This is never good for an economy and tends to collapse the government.
 

2. Tax hikes: Massive tax hikes would be required.  The government is spending 40% of GDP but only collecting just over half that in taxes.  If the government is going to spend 40% of GDP, it needs to tax that percentage of GDP.  It won't be enough to only tax the 'rich' to make that work.  Everyone gets hit.

3. Default: Not really an option but included for completeness.  The government stops paying its bills.  If we default on Social Security, Medicare, Drug Benefit, and Obamacare, the budget could be instantly balanced but the Congress would be voted out to person and possibly attacked by angry constituents.

 

All of this is obvious.  Everyone in DC knows that the current trajectory is suicidal but they are all children.  The President wants the US to be more like Europe and he's succeeding brilliantly.  Unless there is some massive growth in the economy, the government CANNOT possibly pay the money it has PROMISED to pay to future retirees.

 

If the Republicans shutdown the government (they won't) and hold the line until the fiscal house is put on a sustainable glide path (they won't), then there might be reason for hope.  But that won't happen.  Because, as mentioned in a previous post, Republicans are spineless.  I don't understand this since they will be blamed for whatever disaster befalls so they may as well earn the blame and save the country in the process.

Guns are not the cause of the problem

Once again there has been a shooting and there are immediate demands to ban guns.  By this logic, we should ban cars.  Vastly more people are killed in car accidents than by guns each year.  Ban the car!  Or maybe we should ban alcohol.  I believe a majority of fatal car accidents involve alcohol.  If we just ban alcohol, we could reduce car deaths.  Of course, we tried banning alcohol and decided it was a failure.  Even now the ban on marijuana is toppling in the states.

Interestingly, unlike the car, guns have an amendment in the Constitution denying the Federal Government from banning them.  States and localities have enacted gun control laws that, oddly, seem to have the reverse of the intended effect.  Washington DC and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws and also some of the highest murder rates.

 

Guns have been legal in the United States since its founding and yet these mass shootings did not happen until the 1970s and later.  Why?  The availability of guns is not the problem, otherwise we'd be able to point to school shootings in 1914, 1927, 1935, and so on.  This is a modern phenomenon that can be traced to something that had changed in the last 40 or so years.  I don't know what that is but it isn't that guns are legal.

Not Enough Taxes

President Obama wants $1.6 trillion in tax hikes over the next ten years and the Republicans are offering $800 billion over that time period.  Either one sounds like a lot of money.  The President claims that our deficits and expanding debt are not because of excessive spending and massive entitlements; they are from a lack of taxation.  Though I would disagree, let us work on that assumption.  For the last four years, we have run over $1 trillion deficits.  If the problem is insufficient taxation, then the president should be calling for something around a $10 trillion tax increase over the next ten years.  His call for a mere $1.6 trillion will only reduce our yearly deficits by $160 billion a year.  Had such taxes been collected for the last 4 years, the budget deficits would still have exceeded a trillion dollars each.  So, if taxes are really the issue, they need to be raised considerably higher than the president proposes.

The Republicans claim that our deficits are a result of overspending.  The government takes in $2.4 trillion in taxes... er... revenue and spends... er... invests $3.5 trillion a year.  Of that $3.5 trillion, $727 billion is going to Medicare & Medicaid, $759 billion is going to Social Security, $652 billion is going to the military, $360 billion is going to income security (e.g. food stamps, earned income tax credits, unemployment, etc.), $258 billion is debt service (just paying the interest on that borrowed $16 trillion), $212 billion to federal pensions, and the remaining $600 billion to all those other functions of government.  Contrary to popular belief, spending on wars and the military is not the problem.  You could abolish the military and still have $500 billion deficits.  Let's even cancel the pensions and health care for veterans and that would bring us down to $300 billion deficits.  If we were to dust off the 2008 budget and just use that, our deficits would be instantly cut in half.  Really, now that the economy is 'poised' for recovery, we should be able to cut back government spending to pre-crisis levels, right?

 

One does not go into debt by a lack of income.  I have a friend who has darned near no income and yet he has considerable savings.  He understands spending within his means, meager as they are.  One goes into debt by spending too much, not earning too little.  A wise person budgets according to their income but the federal government seems to think that it can demand a raise (i.e. taxes) from the boss (i.e. taxpayers).  It might sound something like this:

 

"Gee, taxpayer, I've been spending 40% above my salary for a while now so I'm gonna need a substantial raise, okay?"

 

"No, I can't afford that right now.  Times are tough."

 

"Oh, sure you can.  Just cut the pay of the top earners and give it to me instead.  I insist."

 

Doesn't work in most cases but the government really can insist, on penalty of imprisonment.  Insist they shall and it will make hardly any difference.  The debt will continue to rise and the economy will continue to struggle.

Spinelessness

It is a little known fact, sad to say, that Congress - specifically the House of Representatives - initiates all spending bills.  The President and the Senate can suggest to their hearts' content but it is the House that gets first crack on all spending priorities.  As such, the House has as much, if not more power, than the President to choke off or expand spending.  The Republicans have controlled the House since January of 2011 and yet the spending is still wildly out of control.  How can that be?  Spinelessness.  The Republicans have passed budgets (as required by the Constitution) only to have the Senate refuse to pass a budget.  Thus, the continuing resolution is passed to maintain current spending in all things.  This means that the Republican House has been extending the Democrat budget of 2009 for the past two years and the foreseeable future.  Why?  Spinelessness.  Sure, in the wake of the 2010 shellacking, the Republicans may have thought it wise to bide their time for a Republican President in 2013 to address the looming debt crisis.  Well, that didn't pan out.  It is time to force a new budget with new priorities to be passed.  The Republicans have the House for the next two years and it is always best to do anything unpopular in the odd years (i.e. those where there isn't an election).  So, as I suggested in 2010, the Republicans need to choke off the spending, shutting down the government for as long as it takes to prevent the painfully obvious fiscal collapse that is even now visible on the horizon.  But they won't!  Why?  Spinelessness!  No, they will raise taxes just like George HW Bush did.  They will do this in exchange for 'promised' cuts that will NEVER materialize.  It happens again and again and yet they NEVER learn.  If we don't go off the fiscal cliff with the New Year, it will almost certainly be because the Republicans caved so tremendously that the President couldn't refuse and a clear sign of spinelessness.

Costas on Gun Control

The other night, Bob Costas addressed the nation on the issue of gun control in the wake of Jovan Belcher's murder of his girlfriend and subsequent suicide.  Bob points out that it was obvious that if the gun had not been present, both Jovan and his girlfriend would be alive today because it would be impossible for Jovan - a linebacker from a professional football team - to kill his girlfriend.  For example, OJ Simpson didn't have a gun so Nicole Brown Simpson is perfectly healthy today.  Oh, wait, she isn't?  Hmm.

 

The interesting thing about gun control is that it tends to increase gun violence.  How can that be?  Well, the criminals - who brazenly break the laws against guns - still have guns and need have little fear from law-abiding citizens.  Why do the massacres happen on school campuses?  Because they are gun-free zones, the ultimate goal of the gun control activist.  By contrast, criminals tend not to rob gun stores and gun ranges where it is a certainty that there will be armed resistance.  Given the option of robbing the bar where all the police hang out or the bar where all the gun control activists go, which is the shotgun-wielding thug more likely to choose?

 

New York has long been on the gun control bandwagon and has been so successful that knife murders are on the rise.  Yes, NYC has so choked of the supply of guns that knife killings rose by 50% in 2008.  See, you get rid of the guns and, like Bob says, nobody dies.  In contrast to NYC, places that loosen gun regulations see a drop in violent crime.  Florida and Texas both had murder rates above the national average but shortly after passing right-to-carry laws, the rate dropped.  It's easy to be a criminal when you know the other guy is unarmed.

 

Here is an interesting website on the subject:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[144]

Fiscal Cliff

I am somewhat baffled by all the talk on this as it seems rather clear to me that we will go off the fiscal cliff.  Let us consider the consequences:

1. All the Bush Tax Cuts will be null and void if we go off the cliff.  Yes, that includes those that went to the middle class but more importantly those of the rich.  The Democrats have long been the party of tax increases while the Republicans have been the tax cut party.  Win for Democrats on this one.

2. "Drastic" defense cuts take effect.  Though Obama managed to nullify the usual Republican supremacy in national defense in the late election, the Republicans are still viewed as the party eager to spend on the military whereas the Democrats still want to cut the military.  Recall that Clinton got the Peace Dividend by cutting the military in the wake of our Cold War win.  Again, win for the Democrats.

3. Payroll tax reinstated.  Obama cut payroll taxes (the ones that fund Social Security) and those are set to come back.  This comes as a break-even.

4. Unemployment benefits cut.  The Republicans have generally argued against continued extension of unemployment and thus this is a win for them.

5. Sequestration budget cuts will 'slash' spending on 'discretionary' spending.  Mostly meaningless but there will be much moaning over it.  Win for Republicans.

6. Medicare Doc Fix ends.  This makes it less likely for doctors to treat Medicare patients as they become unprofitable.  No winners.

So, by going off the cliff, the Democrats get dramatic tax increases (which will be combined with the coming Obamacare taxes that are set to also start next year) and cuts to the military.  The Republicans get some paltry cuts in discretionary spending.  There is no way that Obama can get a better deal than this.  Just going off the cliff is a huge win for him.  Better still, he can reinstated tax cuts for the middle class next year and they will be called the Obama Tax Cuts!  And just to put the cherry on top, the media will blame Republican intransigence for going off the cliff.  Ditto for the resulting recession.

The Fiscal Cliff holds no threat from Obama's view.  We already see this in the risible deal that Tim Geithner offered the Republicans.  The car is going off the cliff and the Republicans will be held responsible no matter what they do.  See, there is no downside for the Democrats so we're going to pull a Thelma & Louise.  Buckle your seatbelts!

Lincoln

The movie begins in December 1864 and generally concludes by January 31st of 1865.  Based on the book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, this bio of Lincoln details the events surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery.  Though this was a hugely important event, legislation is by its nature boring; the movie fails to overcome that.  Sure, it is interesting to see the behind-the-scence arm-twisting and horse-trading to get votes in Congress but a little can go a long way.  Who would think we would hear the stories of half a dozen Democrats convinced to vote for the amendment?  The movie certainly has its charms.  Lincoln's homespun tales were the best part of the movie, especially the one about George Washington's portrait in a lavatory.  However, at 2 and a half hours, it mostly dragged.  Lincoln had it tough: a mentally-unbalanced wife, an eldest son eager to join the army, a cabinet that was often at odds with him, and a Civil War to boot.

Daniel Day-Lewis was not tall enough for the part and his fellow actors were too tall for their parts.  There were times when the camera angle was such to give the impression that he had great height but then the angle would change and he was near eye to eye.  This was most jarring, for me anyway, when he met with Grant.  Grant was 5 foot 8 inches tall, a full 8 inches shorter than Lincoln.  I am not a Civil War buff and I knew this. Yes, it's nitpicky but Lincoln towered over everyone physically as well as in character.  The complaints about his voice are overblown.  I expected this reedy squeak of a voice, especially considering the excerpts I had heard but he came off fine.

Tommy Lee Jones played Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the Radical Republicans.  It is funny to see that his radical notions that threaten to derail the amendment are votes for blacks and that blacks are equal to whites.  Clearly, he was a man ahead of his time.  Of course, Jones looks absolutely ludicrous in his black wig, making it hard not to laugh when he first appears.

Sally Field paints a very different picture of Mary Todd Lincoln than is popularly known.  She is not just a crazy neurotic woman, though that is her fate after her husband's assassination.  Here, she is certainly difficult but she is also perceptive and witty.

 

Though interesting and often informative, it is far from gripping.  This is no Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.  No reason to see this on the big screen.  Wait for the DVD from Netflix.

Skyfall

The movie opens with Bond in Istanbul and coming upon a number of dead or seriously wounded agents.  A hard drive has been stolen from a laptop.  Bond and his female driver, Eve, get into an epic chase to recover the hard drive.  They fail to get it and that becomes a national security threat that defines the rest of the movie.  Unlike most Bond films, the majority of this one takes place in the UK with a middle part in Shanghai and Macau.  This is interesting since MI6 is supposed to do foreign intelligence while MI5 is domestic intelligence.  I suspect there was a lot of arguing about turf between the agencies was left on the cutting room floor.

 

To a degree, this is an origin story of Bond.  We see his childhood home and learn that he was orphaned (this was revealed in the books but I don't recall if that had been mentioned in the movies).  We get to meet the man who taught him to shoot.  Bond shows little interest in his childhood home, even stating that he hated the place.  Granted, it is on a bleak Scottish moor in the middle of winter, which makes it quite unappealing.  We also get a scene where Bond does the word association that is sometimes humorous and paints him as a grim fellow.  The results of his psych analysis are revealed later, giving a deeper look into the character.  This isn't Sean Connery's Bond.

 

Javier Bardem is a peculiar villain.  I give him credit for his willingness to look silly.  That haircut in No Country for Old Men was a real winner but blond hair is painful on him.  Here, he is equal parts arrogant genius, deranged madman, petulant child, and playful goofball.  Yeah, it is a strange and complex character.  His love-hate obsession with M echoes a former villain; Elektra King in The World is Not Enough (1999).  He gives the obligatory "How come you won't die already" attitude some new life, seeming both amused and annoyed that Bond has yet again foiled attempts to kill him.  Also of interest, though he has amazing intel about the inner workings of MI6, the villain is not part of the Quantum group that was featured prominently in the last two films.  He would have fit just fine within it so I am perplexed that they didn't just say he was to keep that going.  Maybe next time.

 

The Bond girl who gets the most screen time with our hero is... Judi Dench. Unlike most Bond girls, there is nothing between them beyond the employer/employee relationship and some mutual respect that is shown with pithy barbs.  For her part, M proves willing to sacrifice her agents for the sake of the mission.  This is an ongoing theme with Judi Dench's M, dating back to Golden Eye (1995) where she told Bond she was only too willing to send him to his death if the circumstances warranted.  She is cold-blooded by her words but often motherly by her actions.  I think I preferred the more hands-off Bernard Lee in the role.  Give Bond his mission at the beginning and then scold him at the end.  M used to be a support character but with a big name like Judi Dench, M became a major character in the films.  M promises to remain a major character in future outings.

 

The Aston Martin made famous in Goldfinger (1964) returns in this film.  It is nice to see the old car again.  Bond has kept it in a garage all these years just in case he might need another ride.  I have read that car geeks were offended since that model is gutless compared to modern sports cars.

 

One big twist is that Bond has a base that the villain attacks, a complete reversal of the usual where Bond invades the enemy camp and blows it to bits.  Also of interest, this Bond finally gets Q.  This Q is a young fellow who is good with computers rather than gadgets.  Bond also gets Miss Moneypenny.  Both are welcome additions back to the series.  Bill Tanner, who was a regular in the book series, is also present here and in the last movie.  However, he doesn't have a clever name like M, Q, or Moneypenny so vanishes into the background.

 

Something of a departure from the usual Bond film but certainly enjoyable.  Thumbs up from Dave.

Iceberg Ahead, Ramming Speed!

Barack Obama worked on the presumption that America had struck the tipping point where there were more takers than makers, more people enjoying the largess of government than contributing to sustaining government.  It turns out that he was right.  Though it will be many years, perhaps decades, there is only one end point on this path: financial collapse.  Eventually, there will not be enough producers to supply the ever more voracious consumers.

What does this say about us?  Apparently, most of us don't want to be responsible for ourselves.  We want the government to handle those annoying issues like planning for our retirement (Social Security), arranging for our medical care (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), or providing for our education (Pell Grants, Dept. of Education).  You see, most of us are now incapable of doing such complicated things and are only too happy to let the government do it for us.  We are children, doomed never to grow up; we are a nation of Peter Pans.

Of course, this won't work.  We see the result of this path playing out even now in Europe and yet we blindly follow the same trail with hope in our hearts and emptiness in our heads.  The markets know where we are headed; the Dow fell 313 points, demonstrating great faith in the future.  Reality will catch us but Obama will no longer be president by then so why should he care?

Some predictions:

1. We will go over the financial cliff.  Obama has long wanted tax increases (he campaigned on them) and a recalcitrant Republican House gives him the perfect opportunity to raise taxes and blame it on the Republicans.  Blaming the Republicans is a favorite game of his.

2. The economy will continue to stagnate.  The lapse of the Bush tax cuts and the introduction of Obamacare taxes and mandates will be a drag on job creation.  The 4th quarter of 2012 might prove better than expected as investors and businesses attempt to realize profits before taxmageddon strikes.  This will make for a very weak 1st quarter of 2013.

Some positive thoughts:

1. Americans have shown, yet again, that we aren't racist.  If anyone wants to continue this race card nonsense, what does that say about the people who voted against Mia Love (black Republican in Utah) and Alan West (black Republican in Florida)?  Are those voters racist?  No.  It is all about party-affiliation, not skin color.  Retire the race card.  Obama could still be a great president if he would abolish the race card in America.  He won't because it benefits his party to use it.

2. Obama has now inherited the Obama economy.  No more blaming Bush.  Honestly, what kind of CEO would still be blaming his predecessor for poor performance four years after he took over?  If Romney had won, he would have inherited the Obama economy, not the Bush economy.  Obama has to take ownership at this point.  Doesn't he?

Big Bird will be fine

Contrary to what some think, Sesame Street will be just fine if the Federal Government stops subsidizing PBS and NPR.  It is a hot commodity and ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox will get in a bidding war to air the further adventures of Big Bird, Elmo, Grover, Cookie Monster, and all the rest.  Yes, there will be commercials but the program will be otherwise the same.  In fact, PBS will probably stay on the air as it is and just have commercials.

 

That aside, why do we need public radio or public television?  I have hundreds of TV stations and countless radio station that don't require my tax dollars.  Why should one station get subsidized with my taxes?  Perhaps there was a call for that when there were only 3 broadcast stations but that is no longer the case.  Between satellite and cable, there is no reason for a state-sponsored channel.  To make matters worse, we have a yearly deficit over a trillion dollars a year and we can't cut the $445 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?  Rather than extort through taxes that money from the citizenry and then give it to CPB, why not let the citizens keep that money and voluntarily fund CPB if they want it?

 

No matter who wins on Tuesday, I fully expect CPB to live on as a needless budget item.  It takes a Herculean effort to reduce the rate of growth of the budget and a Sisyphean task to actually cut the budget.  If we can't cut an entirely non-essential program like CPB, then we're doomed to become Greece.

No Americans Died in Watergate

Imagine it is September 11th of 2004 and the US Ambassador in Middle Eastern country and 3 others are killed in a terror attack.  Let us also suppose that said ambassador had sent multiple requests for added security and reported that there had been attacks on the embassy.  Further, let us say that the British ambassador had been withdrawn on account of a terrorist attack.  Moreover, let us say that the embassy reported the day before the attack that terrorists were massing and that the embassy's locally-hired security forces (not US Marines) appeared to be casing the embassy.  Would the press treat this as a distraction from the campaign?  Would they paint it as an effort by the Kerry campaign to draw attention away from the Swift Boaters?

Suppose it was discovered in the aftermath that a former Navy Seal had requested permission to aid the besieged embassy and was refused.  Not once.  Not twice.  No, three times.  He finally ignored the order and went to assist anyway.  Would the press not demand the identity of the person who told the Navy Seal to stand down?

Assume that the attack on Americans proceeded for 7 hours and the US had forces one hour away but those forces were not dispatched.  Let us suppose that there were drones in the sky that supplied live pictures of the attack to the Situation Room at the White House and there was also constant contact between embassy staff and the State Department.  Now, suppose that the administration said it didn't act because it didn't know what was happening.  On top of that, let us say that the administration had reduced the security present at the embassy the previous month despite the protest of the head of security and the ambassador.

 

Suppose the President and his administration had claimed that the attack grew from a protest  of a YouTube video that got out of hand.  Presume that the administration continued that claim for two weeks.  Then we learn that there was no protest.  All had been quiet on the streets at 8 pm, not a protester in sight.  Also, such had been reported to the Situation Room at the time.  Would the press be disinterested in such revelations?

Obviously, there would be calls for everyone involved in the fiasco to be fired for incompetence and the press would hammer the president for failing to aid Americans.  The event would be the story of the ongoing presidential campaign and every question to the president or the administration would have asked about it.  It would have destroyed President Bush's re-election bid if such had happened, and rightly so.

 

As it happens, everything above has happened but Barack Obama is president and the media are letting the story slide.  To pursue the story is to torpedo the re-election of their candidate.  Whether Obama is re-elected or not, the truth about Benghazi will come out.  If he is in office, it will be a massive blow to his presidency.  This isn't sex with an intern that can be overlooked by saying "move on" or "it's only sex."  Nor is this a burglary cover-up by the administration.  Here is a case where there were multiple warnings of danger to the embassy from multiple sources and the administration responded by reducing security.  To add insult to injury, the administration then misled the public about the attack when it knew - or certainly should have known - what happened within 24 hours.

 

One wonders why the administration prevaricated.  The most likely answer is that only a week earlier at the Democratic Convention, it was repeatedly voiced that al Qaeda was crippled (i.e. Osama bin Laden was dead).  A successful al Qaeda attack the following week looks extremely bad.  Better that it was a protest that got out of hand.  Thus began the cover-up that has only made things worse.  The administration just wants to keep the story from breaking until after the election, like Nixon with Watergate.  We know how well that turned out for him.  But he was Republican, so perhaps Obama will fare better.

2016: Obama's America

The movie opens with an autobiographical sketch of Dinesh D'Souza.  He tells how he grew up in India and went to college in America.  He remained in America after graduating from Dartmouth.  This is important because his background gives him insight into President Obama.

He dispenses with the birth certificate stuff by announcing that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.  His father, Barack Obama Sr., departed for Harvard when Barack Jr. was still an infant.  Obama did not see his father again until he was 10, and then only briefly.  Barack Sr. died when Obama was 21.  And yet, D'Souza holds that Obama Sr. has everything to do with President Obama's views.  How can an absent father have that kind of impact?

D'Souza interviewed friends of Barack Sr. and learned that he was an anti-colonialist.  D'Souza's own grandfather espoused the same views so he was quite familiar with them.  India and Kenya had both been part of the British Empire.

President Obama's mother had nothing but good to say about his absent father.  Obama himself reveals in his book Dreams from my Father that he idolized a father who was a stranger to him.  Thus, according to D'Souza, President Obama adopted the belief system of his father.  This strong anti-colonialism would explain why he spent 20 years in the church of Reverend Wright, why he would associate with Bill Ayers, his animus toward American oil while subsidizing Brazilian oil, and so on.

 

Basically, D'Souza uncovers a storyline where Barack Obama is seeking to right wrongs by transferring wealth that America stole back to the countries from which it was stolen.  This same pattern goes for the domestic economy as he pursues a policy to tax the rich and 'spread the wealth around.'  It is surprising to see how much had not been revealed about Obama during the 2008 campaign.  How does his mentoring by a known Communist whom he mentions in his autobiography not get reported during his run for either the Senate or the Presidency?  How is it that Bush, Gore, Kerry, and McCain all released their college transcripts but Obama hasn't?

 

Though often interesting in what it tells, the mechanics of the movie are often awkward.  Repeatedly there were scenes where D'Souza is on the phone with this or that expert.  What, is this the X-Files?  Why this bizarre interview by phone while he has cameramen at both locations to film?  Really?

 

The conclusion is that another Obama term will leave the United States weaker and might result in a nuclear-armed Caliphate that stretches from Iran to Morocco.  It is interesting how Obama has helped to topple secular dictators (Libya, Egypt) but not Islamist regimes (Iran).  If Obama is re-elected, it will be interesting to watch this movie again in 2016 to see how the predictions pan out.

Cloud Atlas

The movie starts by jumping through time.  We see Adam Ewing meet Dr. Goose on a beach in 1849, Robert Frobisher jumps out of a hotel window to avoid paying the bill in 1936, reporter Luisa Rey leaves a party and gets stuck on an elevator in 1973, publisher Tim Cavendish watches a client attack a critic in 2012, Sonmi-451 is interviewed in prison in the 22nd century, and Zachry the tribesman hides among the rocks as his companions are slaughtered by cannibals a century after the apocalypse.  It is confusing, to say the least.  It is also strange to see the same actors taking parts in each of the time periods.  Tom Hanks is Dr. Goose in 1849, he's a hotel manager in 1936, a nuclear scientist in 1973, a would-be author in 2012, a briefly seen actor on TV in the 22nd century, and a cowardly tribesman after the apocalypse.  Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Susan Sarandon, Hugo Weaving, Keith David, and the rest likewise have roles in most of the time periods, often with so much makeup that I didn't recognize them.  Really, who expects Hugh Grant to play a face-painted, blood-thirsty cannibal or Halle Berry to be a blonde Jew in the 1930s?

 

Eventually, the bonding agent of the various storylines comes to light.  Zachry the post-apocalyptic tribesman watches a video of Sonmi-451 the 22nd century clone who watches an old movie about publisher Tim Cavendish who reads a book submitted by reporter Luisa Rey who reads old love letters written by Robert Frobisher who reads the diary of Adam Ewing.  Also, the lead character in each story has a birthmark that looks like a shooting star.

 

The movie is quite long, only a shade under 3 hours.  Each story has a very different feel, making the transition from one to the next sometimes awkward.  There is the Pacific voyage of 1849, the drama of the 1930s, the mystery of the 1970s, the comedy of 2012, the sci-fi epic of the 22nd century, and the post-Apocalypse.  Often, the makeup fails.  Hugo Weaving is not convincing as a Korean, and Doona Bae is even less convincing as a Caucasian from 1850 or a Mexican woman from the 1970s.  However, Hugo Weaving's turn as Nurse Ratchet was funny if not convincing.

 

Doubtless, this was a joy for the actors who got to play a variety of roles - some of which were vastly against type - in one movie.  Really, how else could Hugh Grant be cast as a cannibal, Halle Berry as a blonde Jew, or Tom Hanks as an Irish thug?

 

Entertaining in its parts but not satisfying as a whole.

Perplexing Debate

Romney apparently didn't read my recent blog on Obama's foreign policy failures.  If he did, he didn't use it.  In fact, he seemed to cede foreign policy to Obama.  He let the Benghazi question slide and did some cheerleading for a few of Obama's positions.  Romney seemed to be shooting for a tie.  He was like a football team that plays a prevent defense in the last few minutes of a close game.  Clearly, he came in with the impression he has a lead and didn't want to change the momentum.

Obama was very aggressive, perhaps a bit too much so.  His worst line - which probably was viewed as his best line by partisans - was when he disparaged Romney regarding the navy, saying that we now have things called aircraft carriers where planes can land and ships that go under water.  That's a great put down on Real Time with Bill Maher but beneath the dignity of a President.  When he didn't sink into attacks on Romney, the President presented his case quite well.  Many times, I thought Obama was mopping the floor with the oddly passive Romney.  However, I was also bothered by how Obama painted a picture of foreign policy that could be refuted and Romney declined to do so.  Obama declared terrorism to be the greatest threat to the US.

Romney painted the big picture for American foreign policy, some of which I approve and some that I don't.  He doesn't want to nation build but he wants to get these Middle Eastern countries to have peaceful, growing economies.  Wow, if only someone had thought of that before.  How long has the Israel-Palestinian peace process been going?  It is unlikely the Middle East will change its ways short of being forced to change.  Force means violence and violence tends to mean war and Romney's rhetoric kept war at a safe distance.  He was all for the sanctions regime against Iran but wanted more.  The economy did come up several times as an issue for foreign policy.  An indebted nation inevitably is forced to withdraw from the world stage and Romney made that point.  Romney identified a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to the US.

 

Romney did have the 'vision thing' while Obama offered no Obama Doctrine.   Interestingly, I think both men touched on the greatest threat to the US in their answers.  A nuclear Iran would likely provide terrorists with a nuclear device.  I'd probably lean toward an Obama win, mostly because Romney didn't engage him.  However, some have said that Romney was trying to avoid being portrayed as a warmonger, which he did quite well.  Considering that as a strategy, perhaps it could be called a tie.  By essentially promising to mostly maintain Obama foreign policy, Romney pushes the electorate to decide based on domestic issues, returning us to the first debate where he had a decisive win.  Yes, I'd tend to agree that this debate didn't paint a stark contrast and thus is unlikely to change minds one way or the other.  Even so, I still say Obama won.

Guest Blogger

free cellphones for the so-called "poor"

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Safelink/program_info/faq/texas
check the Qualify question

family of 1, free Obamafone if you earn $16k or less
family of 4, free Obamafone if you earn $34k or less

Folks with 34k shouldnt be asked to pay $10 a month like Fred pays.
I can show my last 4 months of paystubs and get a free Obamaphone and stop paying $10/mo of my own money

Woohoo! get on that government gravy train!
Entitle me!
Entitle me!
Quick, entitle me before I get disenfranchised.
I should vote for Obama because he gave me a free cell phone

Should I continue to pay $10 for 100 minutes with Tracfone,
or get 250 minutes for free with Obamafone?

Why should I pay when liberals are trying to give me a better phone for free?  Yes, Lifeline is an old program, but FREE (no longer $6 like I used to pay for lifeline) is new as is 150% of Poverty to qualify.  When minimum wage was $5, Lifeline was $6... now the wage is $7 and Lifeline is $8, right? Wrong, its free... surprise!!

So their plan of getting everyone onto the government dole is going to work like a charm on me:  I will stop paying my own way and have the taxpayers pay my way when CLEARLY I am capable of paying for a $10 phone, as is any "Family of One" making $16k

Foreign Policy Failures

Many seem to think that Obama has done well on foreign policy.  I disagree.  Let us consider some of the events of the past four years.

Iran: When the elections in Iran appeared to have been stolen by Ahmedinejad and the people rose in protest in the Green Revolution, Obama was silent.  Would US support have aided the rebellion?  It is hard to know but considering our enmity with Iran, it was clearly a missed opportunity.  His engagement plan has demonstrably failed but he and his administration keep getting behind a podium and demanding that Iran 'live up to its international obligations' as if that will have an impact.  If Iran gets a bomb, they are unlikely to be contained by Mutually Assured Destruction as the USSR was.

Russian Reset: In an effort to win Russian support, Obama canceled planned missile defense stations in both Poland and the Czech Republic.  In the wake of this betrayal of allies, the Russians repaid by blocking sanctions against Iran and arming Bashar al-Assad the Syrian dictator.  Russia may no longer be an enemy but it is certainly a rival and should be treated as such.

 

Iraq: Obama claims success for the withdrawal that had been planned under the Bush Administration.  There had been an expectation of a continuing US presence, much like we maintained in Germany and Japan after WWII.  Instead, we had a complete withdrawal and Iraq is sliding.  It is likely that Iran is supplying arms to Syria through Iraq.  Iraq has seen a rise in violence since out departure and we have little ability to influence the course of events.

Arab Spring: Obama initially equivocated on the spread of uprisings, much as he had with the Green Revolution two years earlier.  Then he embraced the idea of toppling dictators, even though they were allied to us.  The most notable is Mubarak of Egypt, a longtime ally to the US.  The fall of Mubarak has brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  Egypt is on the path to be another Iran, where we let the Shah fall and got something vastly worse, both for us and for the people of Iran (watch Persepolis for a view from Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian woman who lived through it).

Libya: Gaddafi had been defanged in the wake of Saddam's capture in Iraq and was no longer a threat to the United States.  Whereas Obama allowed the Arab Spring to work its havoc without much US intervention, here he decided to take part.  Again, as with Mubarak, we have traded the bad for the worse.  The weak government cannot contain the al Qaeda-allied groups that killed our ambassador in Benghazi.  The argument in favor of this action was to prevent a massacre; that same argument could apply - with far more evidence - to the situation is Syria.  So, the intervention wasn't based on a coherent policy.

 

Afghanistan: It is obvious that our war is disintegrating.  It is becoming more difficult to trust our 'allies' among the Afghani and we are drawing down our forces for a withdrawal.  The Taliban need merely wait for our exit to once again take control and, shortly thereafter, resume support for al Qaeda or its clones.  It is hard to give Obama much grief for this failure since he was following the doomed policy of Bush.

 

Israel: Obama has repeatedly chastised our strongest ally in the Middle East as it tries to survive in an increasingly dangerous region.  The administration, which glorifies the peace process, has bungled it by demanding that Israel stop building houses in Israel.  The Palestinians were only too happy to adopt that position, stalling the peace talks.  Obama's dislike of Netanyahu is no secret.

 

Economy and Debt: Interestingly enough, the greatest damage to US foreign policy may be the state of our economy and exploding debt.  Great powers inevitably cut the military when debt service rises.  We are following the path of Great Britain but will not have a congenial cousin to take the reins as they did.  Pax Americana is heading for the rocks and President Obama isn't changing course.  In fact, he is promising a tax increase in a weakening economy.

 

Osama bin Laden: Here is the great success of the Obama Administration.  It is more of a public relations success than a strategic success.  OBL had incarcerated himself to avoid US reprisal and had kept his outside contact to a minimum.  Thus, he was essentially outside the chain of command.  He hadn't directed al Qaeda in years and had had little influence.  Killing OBL for us was similar to al Qaeda killing former President George W. Bush.  His death was a blow to morale among al Qaeda but not its command and control. 

 

Obama's foreign policy is the repeated projection of weakness.  Even when he seems to show strength (say Libya), he avoids full engagement and suffers the accusation of Leading from Behind.  Or there is Afghanistan where he pressed for a surge but planned the withdrawal on a timeline not an objective.  Wars end when you win or lose, not when a date is reached on the calendar.  His foreign policy appeases enemies and slights allies.  The US is less respected now than it was under George W Bush.

Equal Time

I read a funny headline yesterday:

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates.

As I mentioned in a blog on the first debate, Obama had roughly 3 minutes more than Romney.  I was a bit surprised since Romney had so dominated that debate it felt like he spoke more.

In the VP Debate, Biden got a minute and a half more than Ryan.  If that's not bad enough, he badgered Ryan with constant interruptions (almost one per minute, which is impressive when Ryan spoke for less than half the time of the ninety minute debate).  More interesting still, Biden declared that he had voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though the Congressional Record shows he voted to authorize both.  The moderator, Martha Raddatz, didn't play favorites.  She interrupted Paul Ryan 31 times and Joe Biden 19 times.  Yes, it is great to have a neutral referee.

In the latest debate, Obama spoke four minutes more than Romney, despite Ms. Crowley's constant assurance that she was watching the clock to make sure the time distribution was equal.  Billed as a town hall-style debate, it was not.  Ms. Crowley had accepted questions submitted by the audience then picked the ones she wanted asked.  In a pool of 80 people, that allows considerable opportunity for the moderator to steer the debate.  Really, who would pick the question of "How are you different from George W Bush?"  Worse still, she jumped in to fact check (with the wrong facts, she later admitted) Romney's accusation regarding Benghazi but she was completely silent when Obama claimed that oil production on Federal lands was up.  She didn't attempt to redirect Obama to answer the question of  who is responsible for denying more security in Benghazi.  Much like Raddatz, she was roughly equal in interrupting the candidates: Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times.  Balance.

But back to the funny headline.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats get more time when Democrats are moderating the debates?  I used to watch the MacNeil/Leher News Hour on PBS and it was decidedly left of center.  I always enjoyed when Mark Shields and David Gergen would represent Left and Right viewpoints but somehow repeatedly agree.  It wasn't much surprise when the 'rightwing' Gergen joined the Clinton Administration.  See, balance.  President Obama was a guest at Martha Raddatz wedding but that probably didn't impact how she dealt with Obama's running mate.  Candy Crowley claimed a still anonymous Republican told her that Romney-Ryan was a 'death wish' ticket.  Clearly, she is unbiased.

 

Next week, we will have Bob Schieffer.  What are the odds that the bizarre coincidence continues and the interruption count dramatically favors the Democrat?

 

I read a pundit who suggested that Republicans demand the opportunity to choose two of the moderators in future debates.  It would be interesting to see how different the debate went if Charles Krauthammer or Bill O'Rielly were the moderator.  Why do PBS, CBS, ABC, and CNN get to moderate debates but not FNC?

Peculiar Numbers

Miracle of miracles, the unemployment rate has dropped below 8% for the first time in nearly 4 years and it happens coincidentally the month prior to the election.  But there is something funky with the numbers.  I checked out the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and got the following numbers:

Month / Jobs Created / Unemployment Rate

1. January / 275K / 8.5%
2. February / 259K / 8.3%
3. March / 143K / 8.3%
4. April / 68K / 8.2%
5. May / 87K / 8.1%
6. June / 45K / 8.2%
7. July / 181K / 8.2%
8. August / 142K / 8.3%
9. September / 114K / 8.1%
10. October / no data / 7.8%

So, February saw the creation of 259,000 jobs and didn't budge the unemployment rate for March.  The 275K jobs in January saw a drop of 0.2% in the unemployment rate.  Now, between August (142K) and September (114K), there have been 258K jobs created but the unemployment rate drops by half a point!  So, fewer jobs than in January have had double the impact.  Something doesn't smell right here.

 

Mitt Romney has been reporting that if the same number of people were in the workforce as when Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.  What he is talking about is the Labor Force Participation Rate.  It was 65.7% in January 2009 but has fallen to 63.6% as of September.  What that means is that of people between the ages of 15 and 65, 2% of them have dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

 

Then there is the growth rate.  The economy grew at a 3% rate in the first quarter (Jan to Mar) of this year and that shows in the job creation numbers.  That dropped to 2% in the second quarter, which likewise is reflected in the job numbers.  It fell to 1.3% in the third quarter and yet we have this sudden burst of employment?  Again, something doesn't make sense here.  Let's say I'm skeptical.

Romney 1, Obama 0

Unlike the last presidential debates which I could not stomach beyond the introductions, I managed to keep with this one throughout.  Here are some random observations and thoughts.

Obama hammered on Romney's tax cut plan, claiming that it would cut $5 trillion mostly for the rich and result in a $2000 tax hike on the middle class.  He repeated it again and again to become rather tiresome, especially since Romney would take his turn denying it.  He notably did not pursue the widely-broadcast Romney gaffe about the 47% whose votes he is not seeking.  Many Democrat pundits were befuddled by its absence.  Perhaps it was just me, but it seemed as though Obama was sometimes debating as if he was not the incumbent.  He noted that Romney didn't have specifics for his plan but Obama's plan - specifics or not - has clearly failed to get the economy moving.

For his part, Romney pounded on the $716 billion cut from Medicare several times.  He also touched on the $90 billion for Green Energy.  Whereas Romney was quick to counter Obama on the tax plan, Obama let these go unanswered.  Though these were the ones repeated, Romney fired volley after volley on a range of economic issues: unemployment, deficit, debt, Obamacare, etc.  Some of these came across as zingers.  Though it only got a mention, I really appreciated that Romney brought up the 10th Amendment; if we actually followed that one, the budget would be in surplus next year.

Of the two, it is obvious that Romney was well-prepared with a quiver full of arrows and a number of ready responses to predictable Obama lines of attack.  By contrast, Obama was not prepared for predictable Romney attacks and didn't have anything beyond the $5 trillion tax cut.

 

Of course, between the two, I far prefer Romney.  Recognizing that I was biased, I still thought Romney presented his case better.  It was funny how he didn't let the moderator moderate him.  Speaking of the moderator, Jim Leher seemed to frame Obama's responses on a couple of questions: I recall he asked the president to respone to Romney's assertions on deficit reduction by announcing that "you want a balanced approach."  He may have done that in both directions but this instance struck me.

 

Amazingly, though Romney dominated the debate, he actually spent less time talking.  The post-debate showed that Obama spoke for something over 42 minutes and Romney for something short of 39 minutes.  Even Democrats agree that debate one goes to Romney.

 

The next debate between them will be in a townhall format which should benefit the charismatic Obama and hinder the often wooden Romney.  Plus, expectations for Romney have just jumped while Obama's have sunk.  Thus, I expect Obama to come out much better there.

The Benefits of "Gouging"

Whenever there is a natural disaster (more often than not it seems to be a hurricane in Florida), the media decry the inevitable rise in prices that strike the affected area.  This is viewed as villainy by those charging inflated prices; the term of gouging is inevitably bandied about and some government official threatens investigations and prosecutions.  They do not realize that what they describe as 'gouging' is really a market signal to get more supply into the region quickly.

Let us consider.  Suppose that Florida is expecting a hurricane and suddenly every home owner rushes to the local Home Depot to buy ply wood to cover windows, and the local supermarket to stock up on supplies, and Radio Shack to get lots of batteries.  The problem is that there is not enough to go around.  These businesses do not have stock on hand to provide the supply demanded.  Worse, some home owners will, if the prices are unchanged, buy far more than they really need, perhaps even with thoughts of reselling at a profit to neighbors who weren't first in line.  A rise in the price forces consumers to only buy what they need for the immediate crisis and also allows the existing supply to provide for more people.

For example, suppose that Joe and his family are going to leave the area.  They plan to drive up to Georgia and wait for the storm to pass.  Though Joe has enough gas to get out of the affected area, if he sees that the gas price is unchanged he might be tempted to top off his tank.  If too many drivers did that, the people with empty tanks might find themselves stuck in the storm's path.  Now, if the price doubled, Joe would certainly not get gas when he has plenty to get to someplace with less expensive gas thus preserving gas for Tom, who is running on empty.  Tom will not fill his tank at the inflated price but will get enough to escape.

The hiked price has another benefit.  Jim in Georgia sees that bottled water is selling for double in Florida.  Thus, he buys as much as he can carry and heads south.  Yes, Jim is profiting but he is also providing the desperately needed product.  Had the price not risen, Jim wouldn't be rushing in with added supply.  Capping the price is a sure way to cause massive shortages.

Price is a market signal.  If the price goes up, it tells people that supply was insufficient to meet the demand at the lower price.  It also encourages others to enter the market and increase the supply.  It should be noted that such spikes in prices in localities are always temporary because in the long run, the market will adjust to a higher consumption and drive the prices back down.  'Gouging' only happens in the short run and brings more benefits than costs.

Noise on the TV

It is that time again when the airwaves are crammed with political commercials that more often deceive than inform.

 

One commercial airing for the Obama Campaign is addressing the oft-repeated question that Reagan asked: Are you better off than you were four years ago?  Initially, the campaign dodged the question or even, accidentally, admitted that the country wasn't better off but was headed in the right direction.  The campaign has decided on a strategy.  The economy was bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs when Obama arrived and now the trend is adding jobs.  It is a clever ad but it is misleading.  The ad implies that the economy would still be losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month if not for Obama, as if the recession would never have bottomed out.  See, the bleeding stopped so he's a success.  Hardly.  When Obama took office, the unemployment rate was under 8%.  It has been over 8% ever since, which itself is misleading.  Assuming that the same number of people were in the workforce (which they aren't), then the economy hasn't yet recovered.  As to the workforce, if the same number of people were still employed or looking for jobs as were looking in Jan. 2009, the unemployment rate would be over 11%.  People dropping out of the workforce are benefiting the president.  One should note that when an economy begins to truly recover, the unemployment rate ticks up as the discouraged workers reenter the job market.

In another commercial, the Obama Campaign paints Romney as pro-China.  See, a flood of Chinese tires was threatening American jobs so Obama imposed a tariff and Romney was opposed to the tariff.  Anyone who understands trade is opposed to tariffs.  Tariffs make goods more expensive and allow domestic manufactures to be less efficient.  For example, let's suppose that China Widget Company (CWC) can make widgets for $10 and American Widget Company makes them for $15.  AWC needs to become more efficient or be driven out of business.  Yes, that will cost the employees of AWC their jobs but it will benefit the consumers who will save money on widgets.  Less expensive goods make the consumer richer.  However, if we impose a $10 tariff on CWC so that their widgets cost $20, AWC will remain uncompetitive and might even raise its price to $19 a widget.  This makes the consumer poorer.  Romney understands this while Obama does not.

 

In another commercial, Bill Clinton promotes Obama's plan as being superior to the Romney plan, which he claims is the reason for the Great Recession.  Obama's plan has put us $5.4 trillion deeper in debt and has, at best, left the economy no better than when he started.  Too many more successes like this and the country will be bankrupt.

 

Of particular note is that these are all defensive commercials, responding to attacks from the Romney Campaign or its surrogates.  It is generally said that if you are on defense, you're losing.

Start the Presses!

Ben Bernanke has launched QE3, the latest effort to goose the economy with a constant infusion of freshly-printed cash.  In related news, the US credit rating was downgraded to AA- the following day.  One wonders why Bernanke would seek to print more money when the previous two printings demonstrably failed to get the economy rolling.

Though printing money doesn't do much good for the economy, it does wonders for the stock market.  Yes, no sooner had the Fed Chairman announced QE3 than stocks began to climb.  Though more people than ever before own stocks, the majority of them are still owned by a small slice of Americans in the upper income brackets.  So, one might say this is a boon to the rich more than anyone else.  But that's beside the point.  The Dow Jones has long been associated with the state of the economy.  If the Dow is climbing, the economy must be doing well.  No, not necessarily but it makes for a great sound bite.  It is easier to say the economy is roaring back if you can point to a rising stock market.

 

There is more than enough money already sitting out there but banks aren't lending it and businesses aren't spending it.  There is too much uncertainty which is preventing the money from flowing.  Taxmageddon - the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the imposition of some Obamacare taxes - is just over three months away.  Obamacare is not yet fully-implemented and the associated costs are still not known.  In a recent speech, Obama promised to follow FDR's experimentation to repair the economy; FDR presided over the Great Depression and, despite what everyone on the left says, exacerbated it with his experimentation.  Economic recoveries never took long until government tried to help.

 

In a funny scene in Around the World in 80 Days (the one with Jackie Chan), Phileas tries to help in a fight by offering advice.  Jackie is getting beaten and finally cries, "Stop helping me!"  That's what we need to say to government.

Arab Winter

Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama went to Cairo and announced a new beginning with the Arab world.  His predecessor had been arrogant and didn't understand the Muslim world.  Obama had grown up in Malaysia and been exposed to Islam.  He would bring about excellent relations with the Arab world.  After nearly 4 years of the Obama foreign policy, how are things?

Egypt, an ally since 1970, is in the process of turning into the next Iran.  Despite all the cheerleading from last year and claims from both Republicans and Democrats that Democracy was on the march in the Middle East, the Middle East is instead in flames.  Embassies have been attacked in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen.  Protests are much more widespread.  The administration proclaims that it is because of a movie that is insulting to Islam.  Less frequently mentioned is the video released on September 10th by the head of al Qaeda calling for revenge against the Americans killing of the number 2 man at al Qaeda, who happened to be Libyan.  Hmmm.  Also not pointed out much is that we had intel of planned attacks on embassies a couple of days earlier.  The administration declared that is wasn't actionable.  Hmmm.

Almost coincident with this, I saw a clip on CBS that was trouncing President Bush for not acting on the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that indicated that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US.  No specific targets had been provided which made it difficult to respond effectively.  Now, if it had said embassies in the Middle East would be targeted, that would have been actionable.  You know, you could have embassy staff on extra alert, beef up security, practice evacuation procedures, and so forth.  Though exactly that intel came in, we did nothing.

Then we have the interesting news that says Obama misses roughly half of the PDBs.  If Bush had done that, he would have been excoriated by the press.  Hardly a peep with Obama.

Obama's foreign policy can be summed up in five words: Osama bin Laden is dead.  Everything else is in shambles.  Our allies have been treated badly (Israel, Britain, Poland) in an effort to win over our adversaries (Russia, Iran).  While Obama hesitated in backing a revolution against a known enemy - Iran, he jumped on the bandwagon for a revolution against a longtime ally - Egypt.  Yes, dictators have been dislodged but what is replacing them?  Jihadist Islamist is what.  That's going from bad to worse.  Unfortunately for Obama, the inevitable blow up of his policy is kicking in just as the election looms.

Also disappointing was Secretary Clinton's comments on the death of Ambassador Stevens.  To hear her tell it, she doesn't know the facts on the ground in Libya.  It was widely reported that some of the rebels during last year's uprising were from al Qaeda.  Throughout the Arab Spring, there has been this crazy notion that people living under the iron thumb of dictators in Islamic countries would suddenly become secular democrats.  It is amazing how many people in high office are surprised that it isn't working out that way.  These people need to read some history books.

Random Thoughts

Michelle's Recollections

 

You see, even though back then Barack was a Senator and a presidential candidate…to me, he was still the guy who’d picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door…he was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he’d found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small.

First Lady Michelle Obama

That is what Ms. Obama said in her speech last night but I find myself disbelieving.  Michelle and Barack met in 1989, 6 years after he had graduated Columbia.  He was attending Harvard at the time (1988 to 1991) where he got his J.D.  Michelle had graduated Princeton and then got her JD at Harvard in 1988 but she was interested in dating a man who couldn't get shoes that fit?  On another point, they met while he was working at a law firm in Chicago; what did he wear there?  My grandfather detested lawyers but he'd probably agree they dressed well.  If I knew a guy who graduated from an Ivy League school and was proud of furniture acquired from a dumpster, I'd tell him to stop screwing up his life.  Maybe Michelle did exactly that.

 

Tax Now or Tax Later

 

I listen to EconTalk, a podcast by Russ Roberts of George Mason University.  He recently had a discussion that explained how government can pay for things by taxing now or by borrowing which amounts to taxing later.  Our skyrocketing debt (broke $16 trillion) indicates which path has been chosen.  The people who are enjoying the current benefits are deferring the costs to future taxpayers.  Sometimes, that is appropriate.  For instance, borrowing money to build a school that those future taxpayers will attend could be argued to be reasonable.  Borrowing money to pay for healthcare, retirement, food stamps, and other ephemeral social programs is not reasonable.  Politicians love funding through borrowing because it allows them to have the benefit of spending without the penalty of taxes.  Unfortunately, the bill eventually comes due for those future taxpayers as Greece is discovering.

 

The Race Card

 

Back when Obama was elected, I celebrated one thing: Racism in America had finally been purged.  Sadly, it turns out that I was completely wrong.  Now everything is racism.  It is racist to point out that the debt has soared under Obama.  It is racist to mention Chicago in relation to Obama's campaign.  It is racist to call Obama the Food Stamp President though Food Stamp use has gone from 30 million to 46 million people.  Chris Matthews is foaming at the mouth with constant allegations of racism.  I have had a family member imply I was racist for opposing Obama.  The point of the racism charge is to silence the opposition but with its frequent use, it is becoming a punch line.

 

Voter ID

 

Democrats are opposed to Voter ID laws, claiming that they will disenfranchise minorities and the elderly.  In other news, the Democratic Convention in Charlotte requires photo ID to enter.

 

Booing God

 

The Democratic Platform had purged any mention of God.  This did not play well so the platform was rewritten to include God.  There was a floor vote that required a two-thirds majority to put God back in the platform.  Watching the vote, it is obvious that that bar was not met.  Nonetheless, the motion was declared successful and there was much booing from half the delegates.

 

Can't have an Empty Chair

 

Obama's planned acceptance speech at a 70,000 seat stadium was nixed in favor of the 20,000 seat auditorium of the convention.  It is said that potential inclement weather is to blame.  Republicans are saying that Obama can no longer fill a 70,000 seat stadium and empty seats would recall Clint Eastwood's conversation with an empty chair.  I am skeptical of the weather claim.  Obama should pray for a hard rain tomorrow night to bolster the claim.  A sunny day will look bad.

Neil Armstrong, RIP

The first man to set foot on the moon has died.  Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in July of 1969 when I was 2 years old and Nixon was 6 months into his first term.  The last moon landing took place in December of 1972 when I was 5 and Nixon was finishing his first term.  No one has gone beyond low earth orbit since then.

President George W. Bush proposed to go to Mars and the Constellation program was born.  The plan was to return to capsules - like Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo - when the shuttle was retired.  We would return to the moon as a way station to Mars.  In the wake of the financial panic of 2008 and the funding issues of government, Obama canceled Constellation in 2010.  Rather than the moon, we could perhaps try for an asteroid.  Much as I admire cutting government budgets, it is hard to swallow when the President found nearly a trillion dollars for his failed stimulus and has run trillion dollar deficits every year he has been President.  NASA's budget is around $20 billion a year, a pittance.

I have often said that government does not invest but, in the case of NASA, I may be wrong.  The technological achievements of the space program brought a great many new products to the consumer, Tang being the least of them.  Certainly, NASA has more long term benefits than food stamps ($71 billion) or Ethanol subsidies ($6 billion).

Neil Armstrong and many other astronauts from the Golden Age of the US Space Program spoke out in opposition to Obama's plan to dump Constellation.  Armstrong, who became something of a recluse after he left NASA, was a rarity on the national stage so his comments on this had added weight.  Nonetheless, Constellation was ended.

 

The US had unquestioned dominance in space and it has been abandoned.  SpaceX and its Dragon may provide another means to get to the International Space Station but the moon and Mars are unlikely in the near future.  Whereas Columbus was followed by the likes of Drake, Magellan, and Cook, Armstrong and the Apollo astronauts have seen 40 years of nothing.  The giants of the US Space Program are dying and there is no one to replace them.

Debt Crisis dependent on Income

Recently, I have noticed comparisons between Reagan and Obama with the handling of their respective economies.  By some graphs, Obama compares favorably.  For example, Reagan grew the debt by 70% in his first term and almost tripled it by the end of his second term.  By contrast, Obama has increased the debt about 60%.  But this is only half of the story.  It is like learning that Tom has $5 million in debt but not knowing his income.  If his income is $10 million a year, then his debt is very low but if his income is $100,000, he is in serious trouble.  With that in mind, let's look at the income side of Reagan vs. Obama.

In Reagan's first term, the economy grew about 40%.  Yes, the growth in debt outpaced GDP but the debt was only 40% of the economy; the GDP was nearly $4 trillion while debt was $1.6 trillion.  By 1988, the debt had grown to $2.6 trillion, which was 51% of the economy.  Not good, but not a crisis.  The trajectory was in the wrong direction.  Whereas the increase in debt under Reagan was mitigated by GDP growth, Obama has had an anemic expansion of only 7% since 2008.  Thus, his comparatively lesser increase in debt is not offset by economic growth.

Looking at spending, Reagan saw a 44% expansion in the government at the end of his first term.  A large part of that was his military buildup for the Cold War but there was a lot of other spending as well.  Obama is only spending 20% more than was spent in 2008.  That makes Obama sound downright conservative.  But, taking into account the growth in income, Reagan's expansion was only moderately larger than his 41% growth rate whereas Obama's government expansion triples his 7%.  As obvious as it sounds, more income allows for more spending.  Reagan had more income while Obama doesn't.

So, looking only at one aspect, one might commend Obama for holding the growth of debt and federal spending below Reagan.  Image that Fred and Joe both make $50K a year.  Four years later, Joe has $200K in debt while Fred only has $150K in debt.  Sounds like Fred is the responsible one, right?  Until you learn that Joe got a promotion and makes $100K a year while Fred was downsized and now only makes $30K a year.  Joe's debt is double his income while Fred's is catastrophic at 500% of his income.  Changes the story, doesn't it.

Obama has had the misfortune of bad timing. Reagan had room to grow the debt; it was only 33% of the GDP when he inherited the Carter economy. Obama had little room for debt expansion since it was already at 70% and has rocketed over 100% during his term. Moreover, the Baby Boomer retirement is at hand and the income streams of Social Security and Medicare are starting to reverse course.  However, he knew this from the start and wanted the job anyway.

We’ve made sure to do everything we can to dig ourselves out of this incredible hole that I inherited.

Barack Obama, February 23, 2012

The buck stops here.

Harry S Truman

Debt Crisis Ignored by Democrats

I check the US Debt Clock (link in the left column) about once a week.  I first learned of it in November of 2009, when US debt broke $12 trillion, per citizen debt was $39,000, and per taxpayer debt was $111,000.  Things are much worse now:

• US National Debt: $15.7 trillion (source: US Treasury)
• Gross Debt to GDP Ratio: 104% (US Treasury)
• Debt per citizen: $50,827 (US Treasury)
• Debt per Taxpayer: $139,890 (US Treasury; Federal Reserve)
• Budget Deficit: $1.27 trillion (Congressional Budget Office)
• Net Interest on the Debt: $225 billion a year (US Treasury)
• Social Security Liability: $15.8 trillion (Federal Reserve)
• Prescription Drug Liability: $21 trillion (Federal Reserve)
• Medicare Liability: $83 trillion (Federal Reserve)
• US Unfunded Liabilities: $120 trillion (Federal Reserve)
• Liability per Taxpayer: $1,052,598 (Federal Reserve)

These are dire numbers that don't include a fully implemented Obamacare.  The anemic economy, high unemployment, and expanded use of social services make the situation that much worse.  VP nominee Paul Ryan proposed a plan to bring this under control, making spending sustainable.  He has been savaged as a radical and extremist by President Obama and the Democrats.  The President has proposed raising taxes on those making $250K or more a year, which might sate the class warriors but will do nothing for the debt crisis.

According to the numbers, my 6 week-old sons are each $51K in hock and it will get vastly worse when they become taxpayers: $1.2 million.  None of these social programs will survive long enough for them to benefit; in fact, on the current trajectory, they won't survive for me to benefit.  They will pay for them though, through high taxes or a crippled economy.

Government Involvement is Bad for Business

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Barack Obama

Obama said this with the belief that he saved the auto industry.  But at what cost?  The federal government wrote a check for just shy of $80 billion.  Of that, only $35 billion has been repaid and $7 billion was written off as a loss.  GM stock has lost a third of its value since the special bankruptcy, putting it at just over $20 a share.  For taxpayers to breakeven, that needs to reach $51 a share.  The Volt, Obama's car of the future, has a sales record like the Edsel despite a $7,500 government subsidy for those who buy it.  Though GM posted a profit last year, it paid negative taxes thanks to a special tax break, courtesy of the US government.  The 'success' of the US auto industry is being financed by the taxpayer, not the car buyer.  However, since the bottom has not yet fallen out, it is being proclaimed as a success but the market knows better (i.e. the stock price is falling).  By comparison, Ford (which didn't get a bailout) had $8.8 billion in profits in 2011.

Rather than seek to aid private companies with federal bailouts at taxpayer expense, maybe the President could work on the US Postal Service which has so far lost $11.6 billion this year.  Or maybe he could look into Amtrak food service which is somehow losing $80 million a year despite selling soda for $2 and hamburgers for $9.50.  Or perhaps he could look at that trillion dollar a year deficit.  All of these are legitimately within his purview.

Government is ill-suited to running a business because it has no interest in the bottom line.  Everywhere that government has sought to run business, shortages are common, poor quality is typical, and taxpayer bailouts inevitable.  Without profit motive, cost containment goes out the window.  Without competition, quality falls.  If government was capable of running an efficient business, Europe would not be in such financial trouble, the Soviet Union would still be a going concern, and Cuba would be overrun with immigrants seeking the good life.

A Tale of Two Resumes

But Ryan’s Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President—which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he’s never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy.

The New Yorker

This floors me.  Ryan has been in Washington for 14 years but is 'light' for a VP.  Obama had been in Washington for two years and had been in the Illinois State Senate for 7 years before that but was President material.  Really?  As far as qualifications, Ryan has vastly more Washington experience than Obama had and has been the chairman for the House Budget Committee, considered one of the high positions in the House.  By contrast, Obama was chairman of no committees during his tenure in the Senate.  Somehow, I suspect the New Yorker gave high praise to Obama's lesser credentials even though he was on the top of the ticket.

The article goes on to note a weakness is that "Ryan has no significant private-sector experience."  Again, you must be joking.  Ryan's private sector experience is certainly equivalent to Obama's almost non-existent work history.  This is like complaining that Eisenhower didn't choose a fellow military man or Clinton didn't pick a governor.  Isn't diversity (of experience) a good thing?  Romney has plenty of private sector and gubernatorial experience so a legislator ads to the ticket.  By contrast, Senator Obama chose another senator as his running mate giving the ticket no executive or private sector experience and the results of that choice are in: 42 months of 8% or higher unemployment and 4 consecutive budget deficits over a trillion dollars.

Looking at legislation, Ryan has submitted a budget that passed in the House, which admittedly is run by his party.  Obama submitted a budget that failed 99-0 in the Senate, which is run by his party.  Ryan has offered a plan to avert the fiscal catastrophe (think Greece) that looms and Obama's response has been to demonize Ryan while offering no alternative plan.

The article reminds me why I seldom read the New Yorker.

A New Low in Political Ads

When Mitt Romney closed the plant I lost my healthcare and my family lost their healthcare. A short time after that, my wife became ill. I don't know how long she was sick and I think maybe she didn't say anything because she knew we couldn't afford the insurance.

Joe Soptic

Mr. Soptic goes on to imply that the closing of the steel mill led directly to his wife's death of cancer on account of lacking health insurance.  The ad is tantamount to accusing Romney of murdering Mr. Soptic's wife; unless a genocide accusation materializes, we have hit bottom.  But, as Paul Harvey used to say, here is the rest of the story.

First, Romney left Bain in 1999, 2 years before the steel mill closed and Mr. Soptic lost his job.  Though most people would not hold Romney responsible for what was done after his departure, Democrats see things a little differently; Obama is still blaming Bush for the economy more than 3 years after his departure. 

Second, GST was closed in 2001, two years after Romney had left Bain.  So, Romney had invested in GST in 1994 (GST had requested Bain invest to save the company) and it was a going concern when he left to work on the Salt Lake City Olympics.  So, had Bain not invested, Joe would have been out of a job back in 1994!  He should be thanking Romney for the extra years he got.  Interestingly, the man who was heading Bain at the time GST was closed is an Obama bundler.  How embarrassing.  Luckily, the ad doesn't mention that.

Third, Joe's wife had insurance through her job for an additional 2 years.  Meanwhile, Joe got a job as a janitor which supplied his insurance.  On that basis, one would think Joe might be angry at one of these insurance providers rather than the one from the last job.  What happened to his wife's job in 2003?  Maybe he should direct his rage there.

Finally, Joe's wife died in 2006.  That is 7 years after Romney had left Bain and 5 years after GST had closed but Joe nonetheless implies that his wife's death from lung cancer is Romney's fault!  So, apparently, Mr. Soptic thinks that Romney owed him a job and healthcare for life and failure to provide that resulted in his wife's death.  Shame on you, Mr. Romney!

It should be noted that the ad was produced by a SuperPAC, not the Obama campaign.  However, when pressed on the appropriateness of the ad, Obama campaign spokesmen have ducked, dodged, and weaved to avoid denouncing the ad.  In other words, we approve this message but don't want to admit that we approve this message.

So, to recap the campaign so far: the Obama campaign and its supporters have called Romney a bully, a wimp, a gaffe-prone buffoon, a vulture capitalist, a tax cheat, a felon, Romney-hood (wants to steal from the poor and give to the rich), and now a murderer.  By contrast, the Romney campaign and its supporters have viciously attacked Obama with claims that the economy could be doing better, making ads that quote the President ("You didn't build that"), and accuse the President of being a nice guy who is out of his depth on economic issues.  Oh, the humanity!  What cruel attacks while Obama is trying to be civil.

Obama's Columbia Scandal

William Allyn Root, the Libertarian VP candidate from 2008 (I voted for him), coincidentally graduated Columbia University the same year as President Obama.  Despite the fact that they both had the same major, Root has no recollection of Obama.  With a typical student, that would hardly seem surprising but Obama managed to get into Harvard afterwards, so one expects him to be a stand out student.  The Wall Street Journal contacted 400 other graduates from 1983 and none of them remembered Barack Obama (his name was Barry Soetoro at the time).  That's peculiar.

Mr. Root has a theory: Obama got into Columbia as a foreign exchange student.  He had lived in Indonesia from 1966 to 1971.  His mother went back to Indonesia in 1975 and remained there while Barack lived with his grandparents in Hawaii before going to Occidental in 1979.  How did a self-confessed member of the Choom Gang (i.e. pot smokers) who spent part of his high school years in a haze (according to his autobiography) manage to get into a prestigious private school?  It wasn't family wealth.  Then he transferred to Columbia in 1981 where we are led to believe that he excelled though none of the alumni remember him.  Root posits that all this makes perfect sense if Obama had been accepted as an exchange student.  The requirements would be lower, such students often missed classes, and there could even be a competition among Ivy League colleges to recruit him.  Add to this that his publisher in the early 90s listed his birthplace as Kenya:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/publishers-booklet-obama-born-in-kenya/.

Still, this is just a theory supported by some deductive reasoning based on Obama's refusal to release his college transcripts. That's not unusual, right?  Let's look at recent candidates.  George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore all released their college transcripts, which is how we know Bush and Kerry got equivalent grades at Yale and Gore got a D in Natural Sciences at Harvard. By contrast, we know nothing of Obama's academic record though we presume it is awesome. If the grades are awesome, why not release them to great fanfare?  Even if they aren't great, he wouldn't be the first president with mediocre grades.

Root suggests that Romney agree to swap tax records for college transcripts.  He is certain that Obama  won't take the deal and will have to drop the tax record demands.  If that were to happen, it would almost certainly confirm Root's theory.