Liberals

Posted on Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

moving on — part 1

After spending part of my weekend with my fellow right-wing extremists from the York County Republican Party,  the experience left me feeling more reflective on the current direction of the national party rather than energized about the good stuff happening on the local level. I’m going to try to put those impressions into words, but it may not all make sense.  I’m still trying to work through what I believe the next steps should be for the Washington Republicans, but I’m going to suggest a few things and throw them out there for discussion.

So here goes…

Step #1:  Recognize and acknowledge your own failure to live up to the standards you set when running for office. For the Party itself, acknowledge the deviation from what we claim as our core values — limited government and a commitment to fighting wasteful spending. It also wouldn’t hurt to find strong candidates to replace any corrupt Republican survivors in our Congress.

There is so much criticism of Democrats and President Obama (most of it well-deserved) about their agenda and the outrageous sums of money that will be spent by this administration. Republicans (and especially fiscal conservatives) are correct to be concerned about that. What Republicans fail to recognize is their own culpability in the wilderness state than our party now finds itself in. We did start this fiscal irresponsibility, and a few folks in our party are in fact corrupt. Failing to admit that continues to damage our credibility, and it prevents my party from becoming a viable alternative to the President and the Democrat party.

Admitting there is a problem with the lack of direction / leadership in our party is not the most painful part of this recovery process, however. We must make a choice to change our behavior — not so much to attract the independents and moderates, but to regain lost credibility on the issues we used to own over the Democrats. You can’t win elections without the base, and moving left loses that base for the Republicans.

Taking this first step won’t automatically fix our problems. There may be a few more lost elections in the current future of the Republican Party. But we can accelerate the process of regaining what we have lost if we start by admitting our mistakes and making a clear break from our past failures. Then when we attack the Democrats for wasteful spending and President Obama for his entire agenda, people might actually start listening to what we have to say.

Posted on Democrats, Liberals, UK

april fools day

The funniest gag of the day (although I wasn’t fooled) was Jonah Goldberg’s description of President Obama’s visit with the Queen of England.

From the Corner:

Diplomatic jaws dropped across the continent yesterday when it was revealed that U.S. President Barack Obama had, once again, fumbled a routine protocal of international statecraft: finding the right gift for a foreign leader or head of state. In a private ceremony with Queen Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness bequeathed to the Obamas one of the earliest known copies of William Shakespeare’s Henry V. She also presented him with the framed orginal sheet music of John Newton’s “Amazing Grace.” To the Obama daughters, the Queen gave a dollhouse-sized replica of Windsor Castle with a functioning train station in the year of the compound. They also received a prize Shetland pony. Mrs. Obama was given a ruby ring commissioned and worn by Queen Victoria.

The Obamas, unfortunately, did not seem prepared for the occasion despite the row set off by the exchange of gifts between Prime Minister Brown and the U.S. President barely a month ago.  Mr. Obama rather unceremoniously handed the Queen a shopping bag from the Duty Free shop at Heathrow airport. It contained a signed paperback copy of Dreams of My Father, purchased at the WH Smith shop at the airport, a bottle of Johnny Walker Scotch (black label), a CD of the Swedish band ABBA’s greatest hits (still in shrink wrap with a 2-for-1 sticker on it) and ten bags of M&Ms with the presidential seal on them.

The Queen responded in a rather flat: “How delightful.”

I really don’t understand why people actually believed this was true.  After all, the Obamas are much more thoughtful gift givers than that.  I’m sure they would have at least wrapped all those lovely gifts.  Apparently, the Queen received at least one really cool gift — a rare Rodgers and Hammerstein songbook.  (She digs show tunes…and really..who doesn’t?) Oh yeah — and a personalized iPod full of videos of her US visit. Inquiring minds want to know.  What kind of iPod was it?  If you really want to impress with Apple-related swag, everybody knows that you buy the MacBook. Or a 24 inch iMac.  That’s fancy technology right there.  After all, we are talking about the Queen of England, not some run-of-the-mill peasant.

Posted on Democrats, Liberals

at least she’s not treasury secretary

Do we really need to point out that taxes aren’t optional?  Tax issues have hampered yet another Obama nominee — the one who might have been our VP — Kathleen Sebelius.  In her case, she’s only paying a little over $7000 in back taxes, chump change to the other Obama nominees.  If Democrats hate paying taxes so much, why don’t they LOWER them so that EVERYONE pays less?  It would benefit the middle class as well as the poor (the ones who actually make enough money to pay taxes).  Ah…but that would make sense.

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals, Republicans

what’s different

I don’t like federal interference in private industry.  Have I made that clear enough yet?  That means I would have been opposed to former Treasury Secretary Paulson, acting (I assume) on the orders of President Bush,  putting heavy pressure on the head of AIG to step down after AIG received one of their many sacks of bailout cash.  But somehow it doesn’t register quite the same way with me as President Obama forcing the GM CEO to resign.  Maybe I didn’t pay as much attention to AIG’s internal employee shuffling as I have been to what’s going on with the auto industry.  It’s just that the failure of AIG, while terribly detrimental to the economy (and many 401ks) in the short term, wouldn’t have nearly the impact of GM or another one of the Big Three closing up shop.  The Big Three are American institutions, and it would be harder to imagine an America without them than without one of the many insurance companies we have in this country.  Sentimentality aside, if we continue to interfere with the free market the way former President Bush has done with his bailouts,  and  the way President Obama continues to do with his multi-million dollar taxpayer gifts to various entities,  the economy will not improve.

Neither President had (or has) the expertise to make personnel decisions at insurance companies (Bush) or to make the right choice for the next GM CEO(Obama).  Thank goodness President Obama says he has no intention to run GM, and that he will draw the line at forcing their CEO to step down.  GM and Chrysler owners can also be thankful that their warranties are now guaranteed by the United States Government.   What a slippery slope it is for companies who take their fair share from the federal money tree — now the feds pretend to have the right to exercise direct control over these companies.   It’s a painful lesson to learn — next time the feds come with the offer of cash — the correct answer is: Just Say No.

I rarely link to Wonkette, due to the fact that it’s not exactly (hardly ever, in fact) family-friendly, but this quote is priceless:

Hmm, so this auto bailout problem, is it a good thing or a bad thing? Good, because the government should continue to withhold money from GM and Chrysler until they get their acts together. Bad, because GM and Chrysler cannot get their acts together without money, plus the demise of the manufacturing sector etc. President Obama assures us, however, that no matter what happens “we will not let our auto industry simply vanish.” This is liberal socialist code for “we will raise taxes on the wealthy and give everyone a free Geo Metro.” [Washington Post]

Awesome.   But see, Wonkette’s got it all wrong.  President Obama will give us all free bicycles, since he doesn’t want us using more fossil fuels, even in a tiny car like the Metro.   Just can’t wait for all my free stuff that my taxes are paying for…

Posted on Democrats, Liberals

change we have seen before

Apparently President Obama’s town hall questioners weren’t random citizens after all. Guess he figured what worked so well for President Bush would work for him too.

From the Washington Post:

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Would it have been that much trouble to find a non-campaign person to ask him a question or two? Maybe President Obama is afraid of hearing from the average person right about now. I would be if I had to answer questions from the press and the public about the current economic policies of his administration.

Posted on Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

right on

We could learn so much from history if we choose to acknowledge the wisdom of those who have lived before us. I’ve been reading P.J. O’Rourke’s On the Wealth of Nations, a condensed version of the famous economist Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Only P.J. O’Rourke could get me to read a book about economic theory in my spare time. He’s always a must-read.

Here’s an interesting quote:

It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

Adam Smith
The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

Posted on Democrats, Liberals

the department of slow learners

NONE OF THESE BAILOUTS ARE WORKING!!!! So what does this clown want to do? That’s right. He wants to throw more money at the problem we aren’t fixing (in addition to the 50 zillion other bailouts we as taxpayers have already funded, and the bonuses paid to other companies as well as AIG). No second stimulus. We must draw the line somewhere. This guy is worried that AIG’s behavior may jeopardize support for a second stimulus. If Liddy and his government-appointed pals at AIG can wake up the American people to the giant mistakes we are making with all these bailouts, they don’t deserve a public flogging. They deserve to be left alone for performing this public service to the American people. Unfortunately, some drones will remain happily unaware of what’s going on in this country. Fast forward to about 1:43 into the video clip.

13 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

what a joke

You know all this fab populist outrage at AIG’s behavior from our President, Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd,  Senator Grassley, and Barney Frank? Well, Congress knew about these bonuses before now. WAY before now.  If any of these guys supported any of the bailouts, but especially the AIG bailouts,  with no strings attached, then they are also partly to blame for the current problems we have.  So spare me all this moral outrage.  They are also to blame because the requirement that these contractual obligations must be paid is in the stimulus bill, thanks to Senator Dodd.

From Politico:

AIG disclosed its retention-bonus program more than a year ago, including bonuses directed to those handling the exotic derivatives that got the company and the country into this mess.

The bonuses were essentially a nonissue when AIG got its initial bailout money, almost $150 billion under President Bush in the two months surrounding the presidential election. Joe Biden, then the vice presidential nominee, came out strongly against the bailout. Obama did not.

Timothy Geithner, then at the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, was a huge proponent and architect of the AIG bailout. So if Obama had strong private opposition to the idea it did not affect his pick for the person who would oversee all bailouts.

They knew — and even knowing about AIG’s plans to award these bonuses, there were no serious attempts by Congress to hold these bailout recipients accountable to the taxpayers for the money they have spent.  It’s a fair bet that at this point Congress has relatively no clue where the money ended up, and they still want to take even more money to sink into a plan THAT IS FAILING to achieve its objectives. Stop the madness.

From the Washington Post:

The payment plan had been no secret.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit’s executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.

At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren’t paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves.

Moreover, Fed officials also hope to keep current employees with the company. The senior executives whose decisions caused the company’s collapse are long gone. Most of those left behind are trying to unwind complicated derivative contracts. Completing that process correctly is essential to preserving as much value as possible for taxpayers, officials at both the government and AIG have argued. If it is mishandled, it could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in additional losses.

This argument makes sense, but AIG paying out these bonuses is still more than a little tone-deaf in the current economic climate.  No one is going to bail out the average American who pays his or her bills on time every month.  Our government will continue to reward the irresponsible and there’s nothing we can do about it.

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

i’m with the populists (sort of)

Let me preface my opposition to the AIG bonuses by acknowledging a few arguments made by my friends on the right. The government bailouts were not the correct response to our financial woes. The most basic economic and domestic lesson we can learn is that throwing money at a problem doesn’t automatically fix it. That’s what happened with the previous money we spent on banks, automakers, and insurance companies with virtually no accountability measures to keep track of how the money is being spent. Even after spending government money to bail out a particular company like AIG, the feds shouldn’t have the authority to tell a business how to distribute those payments or how to run that company. They don’t have the expertise or knowledge necessary to make wise choices about these things, so we should let the industries that we bailed out with taxpayer money decide how that money should be spent. I’ll get back to this argument.

My fellow capitalists and I agree that no private company should be too big to fail. This is something the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, refuses to admit. The federal government keeps sinking money into private industry, and it interferes with the free market’s ability to pick winners and losers, as it has always done throughout our history. All of a sudden we are concerned about “rewarding incompetence” when discussing companies like AIG giving their employees bonuses. The federal government always has rewarded incompetence in the public sector — the free market generally deals with incompetence in the private sector. Look at all of the miserable losers in our Congress. They fail to do the people’s business, and there’s limited accountability for them. Occasionally they are voted out, but before that happens, they manage to vote themselves pay raises and largesse from the government’s “endless” pot of money. I think that in the years they underperform, they should give some of their salary back to the feds. That’s a pipe dream, to be sure. But wouldn’t it be nice?

I remain very sympathetic to the argument that the feds have no business attempting to run / control private industry or to tell people how much money they can make in a free society. However, by taking all this money from the federal government, AIG has opened itself up to the government interference that is now happening between their execs and the Obama administration. If they didn’t want the feds checking up on them, AIG shouldn’t have taken the bailout. It’s their own fault this is happening to them. It may be true that they are contractually obligated to pay out those bonuses, but as taxpayers who are now paying AIG’s bills, we are not obligated to be sympathetic to AIG. Contract bonuses are one thing, but there is absolutely no reason why the taxpayers should feel happy about supporting fancy vacations for AIG execs. AIG has squandered any goodwill it ever had, and regardless of their contractual obligations to their employees, they completely deserve the bad press for their overall attitude since becoming a ward of the federal government.

Posted on Democrats, Liberals, War on Terror

good luck with that — part II

John Kerry says that Syria should help in the disarmament of Hezbollah, and he’s an foreign policy expert because he served in Vietnam. Thank God America had the good sense to vote against him in 2004.

From Yahoo News:

BEIRUT (AFP) – Senator John Kerry said on Wednesday that the new US administration will press Syria to help disarm Lebanese militant group Hezbollah as it forges ahead with a fresh diplomatic approach in the region.

“We want Syria to respect the political independence of Lebanon, we want Syria to help in the process of resolving issues with Hezbollah and with the Palestinians,” said Kerry, after meeting President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.

“We want Syria to help… with the disarmament of Hezbollah,” added the former US Democratic presidential candidate, who is also due to visit Damascus on his regional tour.

Sure.   I’m surprised no one tried this before.  It’s such a simple plan after all.