A Little Perspective
So. 700,000,000,000.
Let's put that in a little perspective, shall we?
Read more, after the jump...
So. 700,000,000,000.
Let's put that in a little perspective, shall we?
Read more, after the jump...
A lot has happened since my last political post. Initially I was ignoring the world of politics, because when things started getting interesting, we were on vacation in Dallas. Then, I had to catch up. Since then, we've been busy with school, soccer, and other after-school activities.
Well anyway. So. Obama picked Biden as his running mate. My initial reaction was positive, because as you know I really like Biden (as I supported him in his initial run for the White House.) However, as I thought about it more, I was a little concerned... Biden would have made a great SecState, and Obama could have probably picked up more votes by giving the VP slot to Clinton. This concern was furthered when McCain picked up a bump in ratings when he chose Palin as his running mate.
Now, though I'm a little less concerned. Once Palin starts opening her mouth, McCain loses ground. I'm not sure if the intention was to shore up McCain's centrist political position by choosing such a far right-wing running mate, but it's clear that the American people are losing interest.
I still think Biden, with his deep foreign policy credentials, would have made a better SecState. But I'm willing to see how it all works out.
Meanwhile, McCain and Palin can't seem to keep their feet out of their mouths. A couple weeks ago, Palin told a cheering audience that it's time to "fix the economy" (I think she actually called it "brokin'", and said it needed "Fixin'".) Then, she went on to talk about how the financial markets have run roughshod over the economy, then realized where she was going with that, and backed off and ended the speech with a "and we need to get out of business' way and let them fix this." Huh? Then, this week, McCain said that the economy was "fundamentally strong." Again, huh?
Tax breaks or not, McCain doesn't know what he's doing, and he won't know until he gets into the White House and hires aides and cabinet members who do. Meanwhile, we can't wait.
Just a few political notes from this week:
1. The Good: Senator Hillary Clinton voted against the FISA bill that grants telcos immunity for violating their privacy policies. Bravo.
2. The Bad: Senator Barack Obama voted FOR the bill.
3. The Ugly: Jesse Jackson this week that Barack Obama's lecturing of black men who abandon their families should result in Obama's castration.
Sigh.
OK, So a little, let's call it "muted" reaction to my last post - "Why I won't Vote for a Woman". I didn't explain myself fully.
First and foremost, Elton John (a musician I adore) says that the reason Hillary Clinton is trailing in the Democratic Primary process in America is misogyny. He did not say that I won't vote for Hillary because I hate women. He said that America hates women, and therefore we would rather support an inexperienced man than an experienced woman. Forget what Bill Richardson says about a "once in a lifetime leader"... he's a man and therefore a vote for him is a vote from a misogynist. OK.
First question: did Elton John support Margaret Thatcher? Really? A conservative, anti-abortion, pro-war-with-the-Soviets conservative? The answer is, no he did not. I hope I don't need to prove this point. He had the opportunity to support a woman in a position of political power in his own damn country, and he didn't support her. Because she was from the wrong side of the political isle. He didn't agree with her.
But if we disagree with Hillary Clinton, he says it's because America hates Women.
Note to Elton: It's not about gender. It's about leadership. I'll still buy Elton's music, but I wish he would shut up about American politics (or any other for that matter...) something he clearly has no idea how to talk about clearly.Well, it had to come out sooner or later. See, Elton John is much smarter than me. He says that the REAL reason I won't vote for Hillary Clinton isn't because Barak Obama is a better leader, a better orator, or provides more hope for the future of America. No sir, Elton sees right through that excuse. The real reason is, I'm a misogynist. In other words, I hate women. It's the only logical explanation, after all.
Glad we cleared all that up.
As opposed to my previous post, which almost espoused recessions as great things (they actually let you buy stocks cheap, after all) this post is the Dark Side of the Economic Foce, the Black Suit Spiderman, if you will. All evil resides within the economic cycle known as "inflation."
Whereas recession hurts only the smallest percentage of people, and actually benefits most, inflation hurts most people and benefits the fewest. Ok, fine, I'll back up to the beginning of that sentence. How does recession hurt only the smallest percentage of people? Well the biggest hit of a recession is job loss. Unemployment normally rests somewhere around 5%, and that's actually a good thing. People changing jobs means the economy is vibrant. 5% represents the amount of people at any given time who are switching between jobs, or retraining for a better job. But if that number goes up to six percent... HOLY HELL! Dogs and cats, living together... you get the picture. But the recession has only impacted 1% (6%-5%) of the population. That may be a huge number, and I'm by no means belittling the impact that has on those people's lives. But that wasn't my point. It's a small minority compared to inflation. Most recessions can be easily controlled by The Fed, by lowering interest rates. Lowering rates increases the amount of money in the economy, and encourages companies to spend ... ostensibly on more employees, pulling us out of the recession.
Inflation, on the other hand, hits everyone. Unless you have a bunker with it's own power generator and years of food supplies on hand, you will pay more when inflation hits. Retirees, working class, even the rich hurt during inflation. And the kicker is, the "fix" is very painful - the Fed will increase interest rates. Which will hurt the current "credit crunch" even more. Paul Volker, the Fed chairman under President Carter, raised rates so high to combat inflation that home mortgage rates were in the double digits. My mom will remember those times.
Worse yet, when you put recession and inflation together, you have a real monster ... stagflation. Stagflation is where the economy contracts, but despite that consumer prices increase. Where the Fed would want to lower interest rates to combat recession, that move makes inflation worse. Lower interest rates encourage buying demand, which makes inflation even worse. The only way to fight stagflation is to raise rates to address the inflation monster, and hope that the jobs you will destroy by raising rates will return to the market after it's all over. Again, this was Paul Volker's strategy. It worked, but it resulted in double-digit unemployment at the same time we had double digit interest rates. Very painful.
It's one thing to run around screaming about recession. It'll be over before we stop running. But inflation will be harder to combat. And the real enemy right now, and the risk signs are there, is for stagflation to rear it's monster head.
It will be our next president's job to control what he or she can about this cycle. Giving people a message of hope - we will get through this - is about the best a president can do. I hope that we elect someone can communicate that message clearly.
Seems like everyone today is talking about recession. Are we in one? Has there been one? Will there be one? When?
Recession is a term used by economists. For those of you who are not familiar, economists deliver pizza until they are 25, and then they promptly go to work for (A) banks or (B) government. They are generally smart, witty, normal human beings until they get a job.
Anyway, a recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction.
For those of you who still need a translation: A recession is six months in a row in which the total of all the sales of products and services in the U.S. goes down.
Here's the fun part. GDP is calculated as a trailing indicator. Economists make all sorts of guesses about GDP until the government comes out and says what GDP was. About six months ago.
So that means that nobody will know if a recession actually happened until it's done.
Huzzah!
So what to do? If you have a job, try really hard to keep it. That's about the only downside of a recession for working families. Retirees have their own challenges in a recession, like if they invested too much money into equities and now the stock market has tanked and they can't buy any more cat food. It sucks to be a retiree during a recession, unless you have a defined benefit retirement plan and don't rely on investments, in which case - once again - it doesn't matter.
Really. Except for people who lose their job or rely on the stock market for income, a recession just doesn't matter. Ride it out. Your stocks will go up soon. So will interest rates. Nobody will remember it a year from now. Do you even remember the years in the last decade that were marked by a recession?
Yeah. Didn't think so.
John McCain tonight won Republican primaries in Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Venezuela, and Iran, clinching the Republican nomination for President.
As of now, Obama has locked Vermont. Clinton has a commanding lead in Ohio, although none of the networks are calling Ohio for her yet because they're all a bunch of wussies (the networks, not Ohioans). For the Dems, Texas is too close to call. It looks like it might be a split across the two big remaining states (Ohio and Texas) - my prediction is that Obama will take Texas and Clinton will take Ohio. Doing the delegate math in my head, that'll leave Obama with around 1300 and Clinton with around 1200, a difference of less than 5% between them with 65% of the delegates assigned.
It's going to be a photo finish for the Dems, that's for sure.
Barack Obama has started turning his attention toward defeating John McCain, with whom he's in a statistical tie in a national straw-poll. And the first issue he picked is an excellent one, the Iraq war. This long-distance debate between McCain and Obama helps me, a regular Republican who now supports Obama, in deciding whether to stick with that position or jump to the first reasonably moderate Republican candidate in a long time. The final decision, I think, will be made based on the words and actions of these two.
So on to the debate: I won't play-by-play it here, but basically Obama admitted that if Al Quaida became a threat in Iraq, he would act. Meaning, he would re-insert troops. McCain attacked Obama, pointing out that Al Quaida had already established a base in Iraq, which is why our troops are there in the first place. As if waiting for his perfect cue, Obama countered that, in fact, our troops are in Iraq because President Bush said that it's former dictator had weapons of mass destruction, and Al Quaida in Iraq didn't establish a base in Iraq until after the US invasion.
Score one for Obama. McCain can support continued military action in Iraq without towing the Administration Line that re-writes history. I remember Colin Powell assuring me, on T.V., that Hussain had weapons. Weapons that he would use against me. He didn't say "Al Quaida is in Iraq." He said they have weapons. Listen and learn, McCain. Following Bush won't get you elected this year. Look at his approval numbers.
Added Later by Editor: Oh yeah, the article on MSNBC is HERE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23374260/
It's been a while since I posted, I'm not really giving up-to-the-minute updates anyway. But at this point, in the Dem race, Obama is slightly ahead (but by no means a given) even with superdelegates, and McCain is the clear front-runner and chosen one for the Republicans.
It took a lot, really, for me to come to the conclusion that the best man to lead our country is Barak Obama. And I've got to tell you, it has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with our country's standing in the world - our greatness, if you will. We are becoming not a lot different than other countries. Countries we say should become more free. I think Barak Obama can restore that greatness.
We desparately need a great communicator. We need someone to go to Israel and say "Mr. Omert, tear down this wall!"
Wait, did I just compare Obama to Reagan? The nerve!
OK, if it'll make you feel better, we need someone to go to the Middle East and say "Ich Bin Ein Palastinian!"
You probably don't even want to figure that statement out. I'm going to go have another beer.
So I no sooner post the last article, than I read that not only might the Superdelegates NOT EVEN DECIDE who will win in a tie, the Democratic party might have what's called a "Second Ballot" in which all delegates are reset, and basically anybody can win. At the convention. Which is supposed to be what the Superdelegate rule is supposed to avoid. You know, that superdelegate rule that our democratically elected Democrat leaders approved 25 whole years ago in a back-room deal to ensure that we voters don't muddle things down?
Anyway, apparently now (sit down) the front runner in a Second Ballot would be...
yeah, really, sit down.
Are you sitting?
Al Gore.
I'm starting to look at McCain.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/15/al-gore-to-the-rescue.aspx
Here's why you should fear Superdelegates. These are the elected Democrats who the party elite have chosen to help break a tie, in case there is one. There are HUNDREDS of them.
What happens is, if our Democratic primary and caucus votes are too close to call, the Superdelegates step in help us clarify things. Apparently a particular candidate being 100 or 200 elected delegates ahead of the other isn't enough; it's considered a "tie" if there isn't a clear and away winner just before the convention.
Worried? So am I. But apparently MSNBC thinks we're stupid, and wrote a patronizing article about it, telling us that we shouldn't worry because "Again, the superdelegate system has been in effect for nearly 25 years." So that's all you need, right? 25 years of complete and utter success in the Democratic party should be enough for you to trust the Superdelegate system.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23184492/
The great thing about primaries is, you don't have to pick a side yet. You can play both sides. Sure, you can only vote in just one party's primary, but you can still root for candidates from both parties until the conventions.
I'm not backing off my support of Obama but it's refreshing to see a moderate Republican way ahead right now. For those of you unaware, despite some of the GOP's elder's wishes, John McCain is winning big against far more socially conservative opponents.
Unfortunately, McCain must still woo the far right. That's unfortunate, but realistically he can't get elected without at least a minimal amount of their support. I hope that doesn't translate into the same, dull boring Right-leaning social agenda that Bush has pushed. We need change.
First, if you're in a Super Tuesday primary state, I hope you voted. I did!
Here's how it's shaking out. I'm going to bed soon, so I'm quoting projections from MSNBC.
Illinois: McCain, Obama
McCain: 314 delegates, Romney: 127, Huckabee: 58. That's as of 9:00 PM CST, so subject to change. But it appears that McCain has surged ahead in the Republican positioning. Take that, Rush Limbaugh - maybe people don't care what you think anymore.
Clinton: 160 delegates, Obama: 129, Edwards: 26 (didn't he drop out???). It's a close race here, just 30 minutes ago Obama was ahead in delegate count, until Clinton took NJ.
States still waiting to report: Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Alaska for the Democrats, and Alaska, California, Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, Arizona, and Utah for the Republicans.
Have a fun night watching returns, if you're so inclined. And if, like me, you feel you've already done your civic duty by voting and are going to bed early, have a good night. :)
I want to look deeper into each candidates position; not just "Obama wants to bring the troops home", but - why? how? When?
Clinton is on record: it's a muddle. I want to end it. But we can't back out now, it'll leave the middle east in chaos. She has a point. We started this, and we can't just run away from it. We must leave Iraq stable enough that it can survive without falling into civil war. We would be the true villains if we failed on that.
On the other hand, how much stability is America providing Iraq? Sure our troops are there, toting weapons and ferriting out evil-doers. One by one. And getting blown up regularly in the process. But, are we really providing stability?
It's a question of strategy, and Obama says we're not. In fact, he says our presence in Iraq is a destabilizing force in the middle east. The argument is, more insurrection groups - note, these are groups that welcomed US troops to begin with, and welcomed the fall of Sadam - more of these groups are only interested in forcing the departure of US troops from Iraq. They take their war beyond Iraq's borders, attacking stable governments elsewhere in the middle east. Obama says our departure would be a stabilizing force there, because it would effectively neutralize the insurrection and leave only one issue: Shiite vs. Sunni. And that issue is actually being politically resolved pretty well by Iraq's government, without our help. 21 months ago, that wasn't true. But today, it is.
So Obama says: First step toward middle east stability: Get out of Iraq. Then, we work diplomatically, as a third party country in a position of leadership should do, to ensure the ongoing stability of Iraq.
Given the situation today, perhaps that's a better idea.
OK quick round-up:
The latter leaves an interesting milestone in American history today: One major party has virtually guaranteed that a white male will not be nominated to run for President.
This could get interesting. A McCain / Obama or a McCain / Clinton fight after the primaries. I look forward to it.
I'll sum it up quick.
Now that my initial picks for President have all dropped like flies, I've been checking out the remaining candidates. I'm usually a fiscal Republican, which means I don't toe the line on the Republicans' social agenda but I (generally) vote Republican in hopes of a smaller, cheaper government that takes less of my hard-earned money to run.
One could not argue that George W Bush has accomplished at least the latter; unfortunately he didn't do anything about the former (making government smaller, that is, before he reduced taxes). Whatever, my taxes are lower now and probably as low as they're ever going to get under any president. Whatever, that's not my point.
My point is, that given the current political climate both inside and outside of the United States, perhaps it's time to invest in a candidate with some inspiration potential; a leader in the most altruistic sense of the word in that he doesn't surround himself with yes men (or women) who execute his political plan, but who inspires Americans. We need someone who makes us feel good about being us again.
I'm talking about Camelot.
I'm not really clear on Barack Obama's plans for health care, taxes, and the war in Iraq. I know he wants to end our involvement in Iraq, along with probably 85% of America. I'm sure he wants to help the poor, but I hope he doesn't intend to do that on the backs of working class Americans. But what I do see about Barack Obama is inspiration. I think we need some inspiration right now, and I think that Obama is the man to inspire us.
Given my track record of supporting inspiring, well-qualified candidates I'm sure I just thwarted any hope of the man being elected President, and for that I am genuinely sorry.
It appears that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have noticed that both of their poll numbers have dropped in South Carolina since they started their immature little battle of words. Both candidates have backed off a bit, Hillary said she'd get her big-mouthed husband to shut up a bit, and both pulled some negative ads.
Maybe they have learned that going negative doesn't do either of them any good.
Frankly I don't see what good can come from all of it. Sure, you discredit your opponent, but at what cost? Even if you succeed, you lower the standard for American politics even further, and cause resentment amongst your constituency, even those who vote for you, because there are frankly no other choices.
I just learned about this, if nothing else it'll make you snicker.
In 1937, Lyndon B. Johnson ran for his first political office, Texas' 10th Congressional District. He won and was soon a close ally of then-President Roosevelt, who appreciated his intelligence and information about Texas politicians. As a reward, Roosevelt assigned the freshman congressman to the Naval Affairs Committee, which gave Johnson considerable power to steer large government projects toward his district.
One of the beneficiaries of that considerable pork were two brothers, Herman and George Brown. The Brown brothers benefitted greatly from their friend, Congressman Johnson, and formed a company - "Brown & Root Company".
That company, Brown & Root, effectively put on the map by Democrat Congressman and future President Johnson, is today known as Halliburton.
Man, I hate being right.
Fred Thompson has officially dropped out of the nominating race for the Republican party today.
Guess we'll just have to be happy with Law and Order re-runs :).
So once again I have done my preliminary tax return, which will turn out to be 98% accurate, for 2007. And once again, my family of five - including three children - paid way north of 30% of our income in taxes. Some of that, I'm quite sure, went to help pay the gang bangers down the street to live on Section VIII housing.
So here's what President Bush can do to stimulate the economy in the Humphries-Dolnick household: Give me back $5000. That's right, send it strait here, in my name, now. I'll spend half of it. The other half will go toward paying off the debt we accrued helping the U.S. Economy stay solvent in 2007.
I bet I don't get any takers.
The impact of the John McCain win in New Hampshire and now South Carolina makes the race for the Republican nomination even more interesting. Offset by Romney's win in Nevada, it still leaves the current leaderboard effectively a three-way tie. Granted, Romney has nearly 30% more delegates than his nearest competitor, all still have far less than 100 each and need 1191 delegates in order to lock. Thus when you see Romney has 59 to Huckabee's 39 or McCain's paltry 36, even that 59 pales in comparison to the 1191 that Romney needs in order to win it. So, as they say, the race is wide open and it looks like Super Tuesday (and maybe Illinois???) have a chance to decide it.
Here's the leaderboard as of now:
Mitt Romney 59
Mike Huckabee 39
John McCain 36
Fred Thompson 5
Ron Paul 4
Duncan Hunter 2
Rudy Guliani 1
The remaining candidates have zero delegates.
Well the Republicans were hoping for a little clarity, perhaps a front-runner to emerge from Michigan. I guess that was too much to ask. Mitt Romney, who has done poorly in other states so far, picked up Michigan's Republican primary delegates.
On the Democrat front, Hillary Clinton ran unopposed in Michigan and due to the Michigan Democratic Party moving their primary forward without the national party's approval, no delegates will be awarded in the Michigan democratic race.
Thanks, Michigan. Jerks.
So some time ago, I endorsed two candidates: one Democrat (Joe Biden), and later one Republican (Fred Thompson). I also said that Ron Paul was interesting, but I haven't actually said I like the guy for president.
Let's see how they're all doing.
OK. Joe Biden, the foreign policy maven who could probably save the reputation of America globally, has dropped out due to a poor showing in Iowa. Too bad, but he'll still do us a lot of good as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Fred Thompson is thinking about dropping out if he doesn't improve his position in South Carolina. Right now he's got something like 1 or 2 delegates under his belt, up against McCain / Romney / Huckabee who have double digits each. South Carolina is coming up soon, so we'll see, but I don't put much hope in it.
Ron Paul, for all his internet-based support and fundraising, isn't doing well on the delegate count either. Maybe he overestimated the willingness of Iowans and New Hampshirites to get all their information about a candidate from the web. He'll probably stick with it, because he has a huge war chest and isn't spending like McCain / Romney / Huckabee on T.V. ads. On the other hand, it'll probably not work.
So far my picks aren't doing so well. Will I throw my support behind a McCain or Guliani? Or Obama? Certainly not Billary, sorry. We'll see. I'm starting to investigate these candidates as I may be forced to help choose between them in some way or another.
A few random thoughts:
This is an example of the U.S. making friends with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. We're mired in an inconsistent, disconnected middle east policy that leaves a lot of Americans often scratching their heads.
Saudia Arabia is currently in the news a lot because a young woman was abducted and raped, and subsequently sentenced to jail time and lashes. Then, when she spoke out about the sentence, her sentence was increased.
Americans simply are aghast that this is happening, and Saudi diplomatic spin-doctors are trying to control the damage. But when you hear the Saudi diplomatic mission speaking publicly about this case, what you hear is that the case is following their "rule of law", that nothing is being done against the law, that no one is abusing the system for their own gain. it's as if invoking the "it's the rule of law" doctrine makes it all O.K.
What most Americans can't comprehend, and the Saudi's completely miss, is how these laws can possibly be on the books in the first place; and furthermore, how can our government - one that refuses to do business, against international pressure to change our stance, with another government that has similar "rules of law" that flat out deny basic human rights - Cuba, continue to not only do business with Saudi Arabia, but even have diplomatic ties with them and consider them an ally?
The Saudi's will continue to spin this in the wrong direction, because their history and culture is different than ours and they don't understand why we're outraged. The question is, how will the U.S. Government respond? Is it OK for our allies to deny basic human rights, as long as they are partners in the war on terror?
So here's what politicians with too much time on their hands do.
Some time ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that the U.S. Congress had important work to do, and that "Impeachment... [was] off the table."
Apparently, not all of Pelosi's Democratic minions agreed; Ohio Congressman and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich apparently is bored with the business of writing decent laws (like an AMT patch, or - heaven forbid - a repeal of that horrible tax law altogether) so he initiated impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney himself.
Here's where things get dicey. Without Pelosi's support, the impeachment proceedings are useless... they'll never get to the floor of Congress for a vote. So Democratic spin doctors decided the best thing to do was to take a procedural vote to table the vote on impeachment. But those mischievous Republicans saw an opportunity, and took it. They voted down the motion to table.
This leaves the Democrats in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. So, are they too busy making important laws to discuss impeachment, or are they not? Or maybe, the tax reform and Iraq-funding-with-reduction-requirements bill they promised us is less important, maybe?
Heh heh heh.
Welcome to Leadership, Democrats. Sure, it's easy to be armchair quarterbacks when you're the minority, but now that you write the agenda, it's not so easy, is it?
You've probably seen the bumper stickers.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas, running for President. But before you put "Tex" and "Ass" together and think "Bush", Mr. Paul is NOT the typical-mold Southern Republican.
The other interesting thing about Ron Paul: in the latest reporting quarter, he has ammassed about $5.3 million dollars in campaign funds, mostly collected from individuals via the Internet. In contrast, John McCain, a well known Presidential candidate, has raised about five million dollars.
So he's got that going for him.
I'm not sure yet if I'm endorsing him. He's a good Libertarian. I also like Biden (D), but I also like Fred Thompson (R). Frankly I don't think any of those three, Republican or Democrat, have a chance of getting elected. I think it's going to boil down to Clinton and Guliani. But I like to see some different candidates in the mix, getting people thinking about other issues.
So anyway, now you know who Ron Paul is. :)
The consumer confidence level is at an all-time low. The "Sub Prime" meltdown continues to roil the financial services industry. Every day in the paper and online you read that a recession is just around the corner. So it seems, from the media anyway, that we should all be packing in our financials and huddling out the inevitable recession.
Or should we?
On the other hand, the Dow Jones Industrial Average just closed today in record territory. Despite the "sub prime meltdown" and "credit crunch", mortgage rates are historically low and plenty of money is still readily available for well-qualified borrowers. Salaries are up, we're making more money than ever, and unemployment is at nearly zero. Gas prices are falling.
Even the weak dollar has it's upside... this make U.S. made goods cheaper than foreign imports. In fact, if the Big Three U.S. automakers had put any effort into designing cars that people want, they would be booming now too. The fact that the Big Three are all swimming in losses is more about lost opportunity and poor execution than economic factors.
I'm not saying a recession won't happen. It will. It always does. The economy is cyclical, and it is more of a question of "when" than "if". Here is my own uneducated, laymans view on how it will play out.
There will be some contraction, probably soon. We're near the peak, and once we go over, things will take a breather. But not for long. The same money that chased dot-com stocks in the late '90's chased mortgage-backed securities in the last five, and that money won't sit in gold and cash forever. Those baby boomer's have got to earn big returns on that money or they work until they're 80. So there will be a next Big Thing (tm), and all the loose capital will gravitate toward it, and the markets will rise once again, and everyone will forget how painful this correction was.
Now, if only I could get the financial media onboard with that prediction! :)
The full story is HERE. But, I think the following quote is quite pertinent and echoes the comments of Brandeis, Jefferson, and many others throughout history that advise us that trading our rights for security will result in us having neither.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said in her severe rebuff of the U.S. Government, "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."
That sounds a lot like what every constitutional father of our nation has said repeatedly over the last 230 years!
Tommy Thompson, the former 4-term Governor of Wisconsin and DHS secretary under George W Bush, has dropped out of the Republican nomination race.
I said earlier that Thompson was a good man, but that now was the time for a conservative candidate who does not answer to the religious right. I had concerns about Thompson's religious backing and alignment with President Bush.
I wish good luck to Governor and Secretary Thompson, he did a lot of great things for the people of Wisconsin, and I hope he'll go back there and do more for them.
I think that we can all (or at least, most of us) muster up the wherewithal to support our troops who are in harms way, if not the war they are fighting. That seems to be an American tradition, except maybe for Jane Fonda, that we stick to.
Unfortunately our president has a different view of "support" than we do. In this article, we learn that the Democrats in Congress have turned their attention away from trying to end the Iraq war, and toward providing troops in combat with better conditions, mainly: rest. The Democrat-sponsored bill will provide troops with as much rest at home between tours as they spend in the battlefield, and reserve troops will get three times as much battlefield time at home.
President Bush complains that this bill will "put arbitrary constraints on Pentagon commanders." Yeah, arbitrary - did you get that part? A reasonable and historically consistent amount of rest is "arbitrary", and we can't do it bceause it will "constrain" Pentagon commanders.
In other words, he doesn't have the resources, due to overextending our military, to give the troops today the same level of rest between tours that troops in Viet Nam, Korea, and WWII had. But he supports our troops! You just ask him... and maybe ask him what he means when he says that.
After what seems like an endless stream of mistakes and a voters-be-damned hardheaded ignorance of problems in the White House, Bush has made a refreshing stand on a basic conservative value: taxes. Last week, in response to the terrible Minnesota bridge collapse, the Democratic Chairman of the House Transportation Committee did what Democrats do best - propose that we solve the problem by raising taxes. Five cents per gallon of gas, to be exact. Like American need another reason to put more debt on our credit cards.
The funny thing is, when bridges aren't collapsing, the House has no problem using their position to fund pork transportation bills that build bridges to nowhere and improve brand new roads. But when a real problem arises and they've spent all their funds on crap, what's the answer? Stick it to the taxpayer, that's right.
What's Bush's response? An excellent reminder that at one time, before Iraq and Gonzales and a stream of corrupt aides, Bush was a died-in-the-wool fiscal conservative.
"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,"
"That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."
That's right on target. Make them stop spending our money on pork and using it to keep the infrastructure up to date before the bridges start falling down around us.
Message to congress: before you swipe more money out of my wallet, you'd better tell me how you're going to improve the job you're doing with the money you already take from me.
You get 'em, George.
I'll take a break from the fun blogging about my family and vacations, in order that I may bleat a little more about President Bush's Worst Choice for Attorney General ever, Alberto Gonzales. Seems the AG has gotten himself into trouble again, and further demonstrated his lack of respect for the people of the United States.
In this article. we learn that the AG testified to congress that he knew of no FBI violations of civil rights that had resulted from the USA Patriot Act. His testimony led congress to renew the act. Now, we've learned that the FBI's own internal investigation has uncovered several violations of civil rights (by their own admission) which they made Gonzales aware of prior to his testimony before congress.
I really have run out of things to say. I could reiterate my belief that Gonzales should step down, but I don't think he values my opinion anyway. I'll just restate Sen. Charles Schumer's assessment: "This should be the last straw, but there never seems to be a last straw when it comes to George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales,"
We return you now to happy stories about our travels :).
More bad news surfaced this week, basically AG Al (we learned this week) went to the hospital bed of then AG John Ashcroft (when Gonzales was White House Counsel) and pressured him to re-approve the soon-expiring domestic wiretapping program. AG Ashcroft refused. Gonzales and President Bush moved forward with the program anyway, over AG Ashcroft's protests.
Ashcroft later resigned, and Bush nominated Gonzales to take over for him. The rest, as they say, is history.
I reiterate that this man is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. Hopefully soon the Senate will take up their "Vote Of No Confidence" proposal, so this guy will step down and leave the Attorney Generalin' to folks who have a clue what the constitution means.
Things moved pretty quickly on the Paul Wolfwitz scandal; I was originally going to post a compelling quote regarding the scandal here:
"U.S. prestige will suffer if the administration insists on retaining Wolfowitz as figurehead of a diminished international financial institution. There also will be some loss of U.S. "soft power." Shareholders will be more reluctant to subscribe to the International Development Association, while the legitimacy of the World Bank's policies will be more open to challenge."
-- Forbes Oxford Analytica
Fortunately, Paul Wolfwitz has chosen to save the United States the loss of prestige and leadership and has stepped down.
Too bad more Bush appointees who are currently embroiled in scandals can't see the forest through the trees and save the good name of our country by stepping down too.
Alberto Gonzoles, that last line was for you.
Federalism. Lassez Faire. Fiscal responsibility. Global leadership. Eisenhower. Goldwater. Nixon. Reagan. These are words so lost in our past that even the son of a man who looked up to these men can't seem to find them anymore.
Barry Goldwater told us that someone should kick Jerry Fallwell's ass. Eisenhower defined a global leader that would serve as a model for decades. Reagan reduced the overall size of the federal government, transferred more authority to the states, and reformed a punitive tax system that disouraged hard work. Even Nixon, yes, Nixon; despite his obvious blunders in trying to hard to win a re-election that he probably would have won anyway, Nixon guided the nation through one of the worst inflation eras of the twentieth century and established a diplomatic relationship with China.
Leaders like this, we haven't seen in a while folks. Bush defines his own "conservatism" on largely religious context. He blocks stem cell research. He courts the religious right, and advances their agenda, sometimes at the cost of reason. Yet he spends money like there is no tomorrow, he alienates our allies and foments anger and hatred amongst our enemies. He has lost America's leadership in the world; although he remains the President, he is no longer the "Leader Of The Free World".
And that needs to change.
It may seem like that there's a recent trend in my Politics posts - I'm criticizing Alberto Gonzales a lot lately. Aside from the recent U.S. Attorney firing scandal, which really - in the big picture of things - isn't a huge constitutional issue, why am I so hard on the guy?
Well of course there's lying to congress. When Gonzales first appeared to testify about the firings, he claimed that he's a big-wig cabinet minister and can't possibly be expected to know every single detail of his department's day-to-day business. OK, I'll buy that. Except, it was a lie. Later one of his aides testified that he was in meetings where the firings were discussed, and had first-hand knowlege of them. So then, he claimed that he simply couldn't remember these details. Again, that's typical cowardly government toady-speak for "I probably did something wrong, but I'm certainly not going to tell you about it," not a constitutional crisis. Whatever.
But here's where it gets dicey. In January of 2007, AG Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that there was no right of Habeas Corpus in the United States Constitution. For those of you keeping track, Habeas Corpus is considered by most to be the foundation of our legal system - it, in general grants or enables the granting of the right of a trial before you are jailed, the right to tell someone that you have been arrested, the right to legal counsel, even the right to protest your innocence. Without it, you don't even have the right to claim you're innocent. And AG Al says it doesn't exist. Why?
It's a matter of his interpretation of the constitution. See if you can follow along. The constitution says:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
AG Al says, "That doesn't explicitly grant it, it just says it can't be taken away. It was never given in the first place, hence it does not exist."
It's no coincidence that this is the same man who claims that the Geneva Convention is "out of date" and therefore doesn't apply, and who argues that the government should have the power to secretly tap your phones, intercept your computer communications, and (of course) arrest and jail you without due process (as we are already doing today). This is the man that is charged with ensuring that U.S. Citizens receive the protections they are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The man is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. The sooner he steps down, the safer we'll all be.
Admit it, you don't like to be lied to. You also don't like having your intelligence minimized, or being patronized. Unfortunately, this is just what the White House is doing. Or, at least, President Bush, as it seems even his senior advisors have defected from his side in his obstinate support of an Attorney General who has lost the confidence of his own department, the U.S. Congress, and the people he is supposed to serve.
If you didn't bother listening to his testimony, here is a quick summary: He didn't change his tune. He personally signed off on the firings, but can't remember the details.&nb