Another Rovian Conspiracy

Life Imitates the Onion

2009-06-17T13:30:00.003-05:00

Sad that this is what it has come down to.

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

By the way, if the federal government is losing it's @ss on Medicare, how exactly will it "save" anything when it comes to universal health care?

Also, Barack may say that he doesn't want to run General Motors: He just wants to:

Select executive management
restructure it's distribution network
select the location for corporate headquarters
determine key aspects of its entire supply chain
set labor costs
determine equity ownership
fix fuel efficiency standards
determine future automobile design & technology; and
determine it's capital structure

That's all... so, you know.... nothing to worry about!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Libertarians will never be in the Liberal (Progressive) Sphere

2009-05-30T07:25:00.006-05:00

Bruce Bartlett has this column which makes the case that Progressives & Liberals might be able to accommodate libertarian members within the ranks of the Democratic Party, essentially the fusion of political thought into Liberaltarians.

Here's an excerpt of his column:

I recently attended a dinner with a group of prominent liberal and libertarian bloggers to see if there is a community of interest that might lead to closer cooperation on some issues.

On the surface, there would appear to be potential for an alliance. Libertarians tend to be liberal on social issues, favoring such things as gay marriage and drug legalization; and also liberal on defense and foreign policy, opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and opposing torture and restrictions on civil liberties in the name of national security.

But libertarians are conservative on economic policy--favoring a free market with virtually no government intervention except the enforcement of contracts, and no government spending or taxes except those to pay for a very minimal police force and military.

Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans. If one views social, defense and economic policy as having roughly equal weight, it would seem, therefore, that most libertarians should be Democrats. In fact, almost none are. Those that don't belong to the dysfunctional Libertarian Party are, by and large, Republicans.
[...]
One is not likely to run into that type of libertarian at a Washington dinner party. These libertarians tend to be well-educated, arriving at his or her philosophy through reading obscure books or random contact with some libertarian in graduate school. They don't own guns--probably never even fired one, don't mind paying taxes too much, have no particular nostalgia for the gold standard and certainly would not choose to live in isolation on a mountaintop. They are cosmopolitan, urbane, articulate and interested in ideas more than just about anything else. They are not especially career-oriented--they are happy to be paid less than they probably could make as long as they don't have to compromise their principles and can do work that advances the cause. For the most part, they aren't family-oriented or religious, and they mostly fit the stereotype of a nerd.
[...]
I believe there should be more balance in the libertarian strategy, with civil liberties and non-interventionism having closer to equal weight with economic freedom.

In return, liberals can learn something important about economics from libertarians. Liberals often turn to government to solve social problems simply because that is their default position. But often, there are private-sector alternatives that may in fact be superior. The rich diversity of America's states and localities shows there are many different ways of dealing with social problems that don't necessarily require more government.

I hope the dialogue continues.

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

Bartlett points to the extension of the Civil Rights Act and Women's suffrage as two examples where the Feds action resulted in more freedom for the individual, demonstrating that there may be common ground between libertarian and Democrat initiatives. (Never mind that the GOP passed the deciding votes for the Civil Rights Act.) Unfortunately these examples are few and far between.

Another point I would like to make with Bartlett's analysis is that he's talking to inside the Beltway Libertarians. These folks do not represent the vast majority of people who might rally to the cause of individual freedom. In all likelihood, these D.C. libertarians are steeped in Libertarian thought, but their daily life is spent at the teet of the Federal government or of some wonkish think tank.

The final piece of analysis that Bartlett doesn't consider is how far afield the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive movement has gotten from the concept of liberalism (as defined by classical liberalism). While the Left may push for Gay Marriage, Abortion, drug legalization (certainly not a position any conservative would ever tolerate - please don't look at Clarence Thomas or William F. Buckley), in the end the Democrat/Progressive/Liberal animating force is to eliminate individual freedom and transfer that power to the collective.

Education? Democrats have no interest in letting you decide on the best education for yourself or your family. This is clearly an individual rights issue which would put the Left and Libertarians at odds.

Health Care? Rationing of care to the sick guided by the state is the end goal. Similarly controlling your health (e.g. every decision you make throughout any given day which might impact your health) is a major initiative of the Left, from taxing soda and sugar to outright banning of smoking, amounts of salt, and trans fats.

Foreign Policy? I doubt a libertarian would appreciate liberal foreign interventions (only in cases where no national interest is involved) over "conservative" interventions (where there are geopolitical, economic, and humanitarian concerns).

The Environment? The progressive push is to limit individual choice and free market innovations to increase the role of government in identifying and selecting technologies to improve the environment.

Private Property? The progressives are eager to seize property under the takings clause if it can be justified as expanding the tax base. Seizing large, multinational corporations for the benefits of the workers and public policy is not something that Libertarians would view as compatible with their philosophy.

Abortion? I could make an extremely compelling argument that the practice of abortion - especially late-term abortion - is anathema to libertarian philosophy, since the liberty of the child is the penultimate factor which turned me away from a "pro-choice" position. (My wife was born to young parents and there was much discussion amongst the wider family about whether her teenage should take advantage of the now legalized and "safer" procedure. I am grateful that the teenage mother and father thought about her right to live.)

I see little in the philosophy of the Left which would make it appealing to a true libertarian. Bartlett makes the mistake of equating Libertarianism with only economics. He fails to understand the economics is actually not about money (taxes, spending, fiat money, etc) but the freedom to choose - the freedom to weight the costs and benefits of a particular action and make your own decision on what is best for you.

Bartlett fails to understand that individual activity is economics.

While many libertarians may focus on tax policy, red-ink spending, etc., the underpinning for libertarian thought is that the individual is better able to make decisions which (in the aggregate) are better informed than a centralized bureaucracy.

The decision to drive to work? Economic decision.
The decision to eat at a fast food joint? Economic decision.
The decision to see the doctor about a cold? Economic decision.
The decision to spend an hour visiting a friend instead of shopping? Economic decision.
The decision to go to a private school of your choice vs. the local government run school? Economic decision.
The decision to purchase a large vehicle which can transport you and your family in safety and comfort over a small car? Economic decision.
The decision to fire an employee who is underperforming? Economic decision.
The decision to have another child? Economic decision.
The decision to go to a 4 year university or start your own business instead? Economic decision with long-term implications.

You get the point. And each and every one of these decisions has a cost and benefit to the individual which he or she weighs against a myriad of alternatives. This is economics.

I do not see the Left/Progressive/Democrat philosophy ever moderating itself in this regard.

If Bartlett wants to get a better understanding of libertarian thought, perhaps he should do a bit more than read 1) the talking points from single website and 2) have cocktails with inside the beltway libertarians.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth - Part 1,779

2009-05-13T08:10:00.004-05:00

Past Inconvenient Truths are here.

Wait, I thought the "science was settled" and that a consensus had been established. (Nevermind that the scientific method makes the establishment of a "consensus" impossible - something is either proven or it is faith. I seem to recall the church had a consensus about the earth being the center of the universe until someone questioned the "consensus."

From our very own EPA:

[...]
The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects," the memo says, adding that the "scientific data that purports to conclusively establish" that link was from outside EPA.

Additionally, the new regulations triggered by the finding would likely harm the economy, the brief warns.

"Making the decision to regulate CO2…is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the memo reads
[...]
"This is a smoking gun," Barrasso said, accusing the EPA of making the finding for political reasons.

Jackson responded that the finding was based on science and was in no way politicized.

"That analysis had been done really before I took the oath of office," Jackson said.

She acknowledged that curbing climate change might have economic impact, and added that the costs could be minimized through the administration's favored cap-and-trade system.

"We do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions, and that the best way to address them is a gradual move to a market-based program like cap-and trade," Jackson said.

Let me translate that last statement:

"We do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions, and that the best way to address them is to spread out those costs to every human activity and direct the payments of those costs to the federal government."

nothing to see here... move on.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Must See Smackdown of Stewart

2009-05-02T07:27:00.002-05:00

Bill Whittle has this excellent, must see response to Jon Stewarts idiocy regarding Harry Truman being a war criminal for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima.

Unfortunately, I doubt Stewart will even see it. And if he did, his response will surely be, "I'm just a comedian!!! Don't take anything I say seriously! I mean, come on... I'm on right after puppets!!!"

The Daily Show - Where our next generation gets its news.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Gettelfinger Motors

2009-04-30T09:47:00.003-05:00

Or, why I will never buy a GM car for the rest of my life.

Gettelfinger Motors
The mauling of GM's bondholders reveals Treasury's political hand.

President Obama insisted at his press conference last night that he doesn't want to nationalize the auto industry (or the banks, or the mortgage market, or . . .). But if that's true, why has he proposed a restructuring plan for General Motors that leaves the government with a majority stake in the car maker?

The feds have decided they should own a neat 50% of GM, yet that is not the natural outcome of the $16.2 billion that the Treasury has so far lent to the company. Nor is the 40% ownership of GM that the plan awards to the United Auto Workers a natural result of the company's obligations to the union.

Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and his auto task force, led by Steven Rattner, have somehow decided that Treasury and UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger will get to own a combined 90% of GM. If there's a reason other than the political symbiosis among the Obama Administration, Michigan Democrats and the auto union, it's hard to discern. From now on let's call it Gettelfinger Motors, or perhaps simply the Obama Motor Company, though in the latter they'd have to change the nameplates.

The biggest losers here are GM's bondholders. According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday's offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar.

Memo from the Obama administration to private investors, retirees, citizens of this great land who decided to lend some cash to GM for a profit:
DROP DEAD!!! You're not politically connected!!!

The Treasury, which is owed $16.2 billion, would receive 50% of the stock and $8.1 billion in debt -- as much as 87 cents on the dollar. The union's retiree health-care benefit trust would receive half of the $20 billion it is owed in stock, giving it 40% ownership of GM, plus another $10 billion in cash over time. That's worth about 76 cents on the dollar, according to some estimates.

In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim -- the bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin.

But of course! This isn't about fairness. It's about political pull. And this is just the beginning.

This seems to be by political design. GM CEO Fritz Henderson says Treasury insisted that bondholders receive, at most, 10% of the company. "We went to the maximum and offered 10%," [...]

Why the Treasury is empowered to decide what percentage creditors should receive is beyond me, but I do know we're not in Kansas anymore!

Some Treasury officials have told the media that 50% government ownership is important to ensure that taxpayers get repaid for the $16.2 billion in Treasury loans. But this is false logic. Taxpayer-shareholders are likely to be far better off with a smaller stake in a truly private company that is better insulated from political meddling. Private owners are more likely than the Treasury or the unions to try to run the company for profit, and so increase its equity value over time. Treasury says it would be a hands-off owner, but that hardly seems plausible and in any case that would merely leave the UAW in control. At the next labor contract bargaining session, the union would sit on both sides of the table.

This isn't about taxpayer money, return on investment, or any of those things. This is about turning GM into a political machine that, oh by the way, produces cars that are politically approved.

[...]GM's SEC filing on the debt-equity swap also warns darkly that if the requisite 90% of bondholders don't agree to these terms, they may recover little or nothing in bankruptcy court. But given the choice between a 10% stake in Gettelfinger Motors and the independent mercies of a bankruptcy judge, bondholders could be forgiven for taking their chances in court.

Certainly the bondholders deserve to take a haircut like everybody else. But squeezing them in such a blatant fashion has other consequences. Who would be crazy enough to lend GM money in the future? The Treasury also says it wants banks that do poorly in its "stress tests" to try to raise private capital before putting in more public money. The mauling of GM creditors tells investors not to invest in TARP banks because everything this Treasury touches turns to politics.

Monday's offer is so devoid of economic logic or fairness that it confirms the fears of those who said the original bailout would lead to a nationalized GM run for political ends. This fiasco will in part go down on George W. Bush's copybook, since he first decided GM was too big to fail.

But rather than use his early popularity to force hard decisions through the bankruptcy code, President Obama has decided in essence to have the feds run GM and Chrysler. This inevitably means running them for the benefit of the UAW that is so closely tied to the Democratic Party. Next up will be tax changes and regulations intended to coax, or coerce, Americans to buy Gettelfinger Motors cars. This tale of taxpayer woe is only beginning.

I just know that the quality of the product that the new Federal Gettelginger Motors will be far superior to anything created by the semi-private General Motors of Wagoner.

Of course, with regard to GM I always love to point out that only in the US is GM unprofitable. GM's non-US divisions were always more profitable than their US division. And the attempt by Fiat to pull off a turn-around at Chrysler, something that Daimler and Cerberus could not achieve, is absolutely laughable. Of course, if Fiat has any sense as it watches the debacle with GM, it'll back away from Chrysler in short order.

Given this evidence, one might begin to ask the question as to why the US market is so unprofitable. Perhaps it has to do with the cost inputs for the vehicles manufactured in the US?????

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Stupid. It hurts!

2009-04-28T09:55:00.003-05:00

How stupid do you have to be to think that flying a massive 747 low over the skyscrapers of New York City would not cause a panic?

Apparently, stupid enough to also think that you're prepared for the presidency based on your prior experience as a community organizer.

Of course, we all know why Obama decided to get the photo op of Air Force One updated. The one of it near Mount Rushmore just wouldn't do, you know?

He just wanted to have a more exciting picture to use for his acceptance speech for being theWinner of the Iowahawk Earth Week Virtual Cruise-In.

And the Winner Is...

Yow! Despite tough economic times, 2009 saw the biggest Iowahawk Earth Week Virtual Cruise ever. The 4th annual edition attracted over 60 contestants from every corner of America, plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Dubai, Qatar, and Iraq; in total almost 100 beautiful carbon spewing conveyances of every type, pushing out an estimated total 200,000 horsepower and over Five Million (?!) climate-soothing foot-pounds of torque. Best yet, those 100 green machines totaled nearly 500 miles per gallon -- now that's efficiency!

The downside of all this, of course, is the difficulty it poses for the Grand Prize Selection Jury. All of the entries were worthy in their own way. If we were to go by the objective fuel consumption numbers, the 1600 gallons / minute Wartsila-Sulzer would win handily.
[...]
Yet, neither of those yardsticks captures the true spirit of the Cruise, which is really about attitude. It's that menacing glimmer that warns Gaia: my pimp hand is strong. The sassy insouciance that invites the moralist biddies and prim religious scolds of the green movement to Kiss. My. Ass.

Luckily, there was one last minute entry which exemplified that spirit more than any other, perhaps in the entire history of the cruise. And thus I am please to announce the unanimous 2009 Iowahawk Earth Week Virtual Cruise-In Grand Champion Carbonator is:

New champ pops down to Whole Foods in the family SUV to pick up some free range arugula

Although he did not submit an entry of his own, President Obama was nominated by several admiring Iowahawk readers. Sure, his customized Boeing Air Force One only gulps about as much fuel as a typical Earth Week Cruise-In vehicle, but, by golly, the Carbonator-in-Chief knows how to burn it with panache. The feat that cinched the coveted Carbon Obelisk of Excellence for the Prez: taking a joy ride to Newton, Iowa on Earth Day to deliver a lecture on energy conservation. (h/t: Instadude). No word on whether he cruised over to Maid-Rite for a root beer and parking lot burnouts.

The sheer, mindboggling nerve it took to pull off a eco-prank like that simply shames anything I've ever accomplished, and I daresay the same goes for you. And here's the best part: most of the clueless ecoweenie marks still don't realize they've been punked! Now that's what I call "The Audacity of Carbon."

Well done, Mr. President, and congratulations. On behalf of the readers, creditors, and fuel suppliers of Iowahawk, here's hoping you will wear your crown with pride!

It is hilarious that while Barry is pushing to tax energy out of our lives, his massive jet is flying circles around New York City at high speed, killing the planet & sending New Yorkers into a panic for a photo op! No doubt NYC air traffic control had to delay flights to Newark, Laguardia, and JFK during the photo op.

I know, I know... let's move on.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Aristocracy of Pull, Part 6

2009-04-27T07:17:00.005-05:00

Another Rovian Conspiracy has pointed out numerous instances where the desire to centralize & nationalize economic decisions only increases the likelihood of corruption and reduces the freedom of the individual.

This story from Cleveland.com points to the problem of government regulation which results in market inefficiencies, resulting in the government trying to resolve them through regulation or incentives, which invariably attracts "special interests" to make sure those regulations or incentives favor them.

Obama administration concerned about growing shortage of primary-care doctors
by Robert Pear/New York Times
Sunday April 26, 2009, 9:59 PM

Washington -- Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the number of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary-care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal -- to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists -- has touched off a lobbying fight.

Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors -- a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.

Replace the consumer in the health care system from the individual to the government and the government is the new customer. Therefore, the providers start to market to their new customer (which doesn't need health care, just campaign cash).

[...]
To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.

Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary-care doctors -- the very ones needed for the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

"Primary-care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists," said Baucus, who vowed to increase primary-care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health-care system.
[...]
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary-care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

"Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care," said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corp.

The ratio of primary-care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.

Of course, I don't think health care rationing was the goal of the Massachusetts law, but I could be mistaken.

I would submit that the reduction in primary-care physicians is positively correlated to the decrease in the probability of a profitable career as a primary-care phycisian. I mean, going through school to take on huge amounts of debt with the ultimate goal of seeing & helping sick people every day is fine, but there's got to be some remuneration involved.

This is what happens when you turn over control to bureaucrats and elected officials. They, numbering in the hundreds, must make the decisions about supply & demand which historically would have been made by 300 million independent actors in the form of consumers.

Previous examples of the Aristocracy of Pull available here.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Debtor-In-Chief

2009-04-23T15:25:00.003-05:00

This whole business of having the Obamessiah stipulate credit rates is just another sign of how ridiculous our economic system has become.

* APRIL 23, 2009, 2:58 P.M. ET
Obama Pushes New Credit-Card Rules

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said he will push for a law to provide "strong and reliable" protections for the millions of Americans who have credit cards.

The president on Thursday outlined his priorities after meeting with chief executives of the credit-card lending industry.

Mr. Obama said he wants legislation that will prevent consumers from facing a sudden, surprising rise in fees. He said credit-card companies must publish their forms in plainspoken language. The president said companies must make it easier for people to do comparison shopping and said there must be greater enforcement so that violators feel the "full weight" of the law.

Both the House and Senate are working on versions of such a law.

But the banking industry is warning that Mr. Obama's push for legislation could backfire, restricting lenders and making less credit available to Americans during the economic crisis.

Mr. Obama met with business leaders Thursday, a session the White House said would be an "open and productive conversation."

That's codespeak for "I won, get with the program."

Further down the story, we get this laughable commentary from Larry "Women Don't Like Math" Summers:

[...]
White House economic adviser Larry Summers said over the weekend that the administration wants to curb pitches that addict people to plastic.

"Individuals are going to have to save more. That's why savings incentives are so important," he said. "That's why we need to do things to stop the marketing of credit in ways that addicts people to it and so that our households are again saving and families are again preparing to send their kids to college."

Meanwhile, the Feds are using TARP in the same way that the Gambino crime family used their loan shark business: you wanna pay the money back? Nah.. I don't want my money back; I want you to do me a favor.

But, what is truly laughable is that the Obama administration - the same guys who are more than tripling our federal deficit - are lecturing the American people on saving money for the future.

And targeting credit card companies for making it too easy for consumers to spend money.

Perhaps we should pass a law making Chinese T-bill purchases more difficult, so that our government won't get addicted to plastic.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Mickey Kaus gets it wrong on Health Care

2009-04-20T09:14:00.005-05:00

Mickey Kaus has this post on how the Obama admin is taking the wrong approach to marketing their universal health care ~~rationing~~ system.

For some reason, Mickey thinks that government bureaucrats will be more caring about patient situations than bureaucrats paid by privately run (but highly regulated) HMOs. This despite all of the evidence to the contrary from public health care systems around the world or even other aspects of government-run services (e.g. child welfare agencies, the public school system, the INS, etc). (For liberals, its always just a matter of codifying the right rules to get us to utopia!!!)

Here is the part where Kaus makes his mistakes:

The "rational," cost-cutting, "hard-choices" pitch isn't just awful marketing--I don't even think it's accurate. Put it this way: I'm for universal health care in large part precisely because I think the government will be less tough-minded and cost-conscious when it comes to the inevitable rationing of care than for-profit insurance companies will be. Take Arnold Kling's example of a young patient with cancer, where "the best hope is a treatment that costs $100,000 and offers a chance of success of 1 in 200." No "rational bureaucracy" would spend $20 million to save a life, Kling argues. I doubt any private insurance company is going to write a policy that spends $20 million to save a life. But I think the government--faced with demands from patient groups and disease lobbies and treatment providers and Oprah and run, ultimately, by politicians as terrified of being held responsible for denying treatment as they are quick to pander to the public's sentimental bias toward life--is less likely to be "rational" than the private sector.
[...]

Mistake 1 - Believing that the government will be shamed into making more caring decisions

So, the next time you get a serious illness which requires a bunch of moolah to treat (assuming you even hear about the possible treatment), Mickey assures us that you'll get treated - but you may have to lobby your local patient group/disease lobby or (even better) Oprah.

So, in the eyes of Kaus the possibility of negative publicity for the government will drive them to make more caring decisions regarding your life. Except, it would seem that most politicians (and to even a larger degree, nameless & faceless bureaucrats) possess very little shame (see Dodd, Spitzer, etc, etc).

In reality, companies operating in a truly free, competitive market (the current health care marketplace could not be considered one) would be even more likely to act with a bias towards treating the illness, for fear of losing more customers.

Mistake 2 - Assuming that an insurance company in the existing, highly regulated health care system would deny treatment based on this cold, cost/benefit analysis.

Yes, there are horror stories about the current health care system. However, they are usually confined to patients who discover that they have some catastrophic illness when they are not currently covered by health insurance. This is normally because they either: 1) are in between jobs and therefore not covered by their employers health care plan; 2) chose not to pay for health insurance because they thought they were healthy; or 3) because they were eligible to obtain free/subsidized health care under Medicare/Medicaid and did not sign up.

The only other exception to lack of coverage would be exceeding the maximum benefit cap that is common with most policies. However, in the example provided, no policy would have a $100k maximum and most are in the millions of dollars - and there are currently no treatments that are that expensive.

Ultimately, the only way to save money in health care while at the same time providing some protection against catastrophic illness is to put the health care consumer back in charge of the system.

Currently, we do not have a health insurance system - we have a health insulation system. Consumers are insulated from the costs of health care (from minor procedures, medicines, etc to major events). Unleashing the cost-consciousness and cost-sensitivity of the consumer on the system will bring down costs.

Let's try a free market health care system for once.

And remember, the "free" in "free market" stands for freedom. I know I want more, not less freedom in all decisions I make about my life.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tax Day

2009-04-15T16:40:00.002-05:00

Well my taxes have been filed for a while, but I couldn't help chuckling when I saw this "collection of 1040 forms" from previous decades.

We've come along way from 1913 when your tax was figured on 1%($20k-50k) -6% (>$500k!) of your income!

I eagerly await a Lilek's Bleat about the various font and style changes of the forms throughout the decades.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

More Distractions for the Obama Administration

2009-04-11T09:02:00.003-05:00

I wonder how Captain Phillips feels about his plight being labeled "an annoyance and a distraction?"

REFILE-ANALYSIS-Pirates pose annoying distraction for Obama
Thu Apr 9, 2009 7:21pm BST
(Deletes extraneous word, paragraph 10)

* First North Korea, Iran -- now Somali pirates

* Recent U.S. experience with Somalia not good

* Analyst: Pirates are test of U.S. resolve

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - Ragtag teams of modern-day Blackbeards are posing an annoying distraction for Barack Obama, forcing him to add Somalia to an already long list of foreign policy challenges.

Used to be that "blackbeards" were summarily executed. These days, we want to setup multiparty dialogues with the organizers in order to understand & resolve root causes that make them take such strange actions

American presidents are told to expect the unexpected, and Obama is seeing that this week. First it was a North Korean test of a ballistic missile last weekend. Now comes a swashbuckling high-seas standoff with armed renegades.

Obama so far has sent U.S. Navy ships to protect an American-flagged freighter that managed to repel a pirate attack but whose captain was taken hostage.

Good to know that AFTER you retake your ship from armed pirates, the Navy will swing by to protect you. Reminds me of the police officers in Binghamton who waited outside the government office hours until after the shooting was over before opening the door to see if anyone could use their assistance. How many of the wounded could have been helped?

America's recent experience with Somalia has not been good, making caution a key element of U.S. policy in dealing with the country.

I would say that caution is not isolated to Somalia - it applies to any country that we have "issues" with.

The Obama administration was careful not to give the crisis too much prominence, with delicate negotiations under way to try to secure the captain's release.
[...]
Obama, just back from a week-long trip to Europe and a morale-boosting visit to U.S. troops in Iraq, already has a long list of foreign challenges from North Korea to Iran to Afghanistan, and beyond.

I'm sure Captain Phillips is reassured that the US Government doesn't want to give the barbarism he is now suffering "too much prominence.

And it is a shame that so many distractions, from Iran to North Korea to Somali pirates, are diminishing the Obamapalooza Tour.

He declined to comment on the pirate situation for the second day in a row on Thursday.

While he feels free to opine (and act) on how major U.S. companies should be run, it's interesting that when it comes to his actual duties as envisioned in the US Constitution, mum is the word!

[...]
DISTRACTION

President George H.W. Bush, describing it as "God's work," sent U.S. combat troops to the east African nation in late 1992 to lead an international U.N. force to secure the environment for relief operations.

Christ-o-fascist!!! (Why do they feel compelled to put that in there?

[...]
"We don't want to go back there," said presidential historian Thomas Alan Schwartz, a professor at Vanderbilt University. "This may be one of those points where Obama is going to have to cash in some of his international chips and get the U.N. to go in there."

"Somebody needs to go into Somalia and govern the place," he said.

ROTFL!!!! The U.N. to go in there?!? Is this guy serious? The UN did a bang up job in Rwanda.

And how did the UN's past efforts in Somalia work out last time? Oh, that's right... Perhaps we could have another book & film about the failure of the US leadership and the international community.

Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, who worked in the Clinton White House, called the crisis "a real test of national resolve" that the Obama White House and opposition Republicans need to work together to deal with.

"It's an annoyance and a distraction," he said. [...]

I also like how Reuters provides us with their editing comments on this story. Apparently it was modified & refiled with additional Analysis (from the first two words in the title). We also are informed that one of the edits was to remove an extraneous word in paragraph 10.

This is journalism that I'm willing to pay for!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

It's Tax Time and I have just one questions for the Obama Admin

2009-04-11T07:22:00.004-05:00

I'm watching all of the ridiculous segments on network news about tax tips for filing this year and have a very important question to ask the Obamessiah:

Is there a White House team of tax specialists helping the tax scofflaws in Obamessiah's administration file correctly this year? And perhaps this tax filing support could be provided to the entire Democratic party?

I mean, what is the probability that Tim Geithner will fulfill his patriotic duty, "be part of the deal," and correctly calculate the taxes he owes? 0.1? 0.3? It certainly can't be more than 0.6, so I hope the IRS is anxiously awaiting his return and has several agents ready to audit him.

And yes, I'm really looking forward to using my "It was an honest mistake and I'm way too intelligent and important for this economy for you to penalize me."

I just hope that the liberty minded (smirk) progressive blogosphere doesn't turn me in for making anti-Obama statements.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

New York Times Asks, How Can We Make Money at This?

2009-04-08T12:52:00.005-05:00

Is this thing on? test... 1... 2... *ahem* Sorry for the lack of posting, although I suppose I could point fingers at my co-conspirators here as well. Things have been pretty hectic the past few weeks and, frankly... we are considering either launching a new blog (more in tune with current events), but for now please continue to check the site for updates.

I promise to post more regularly as we are certainly in a target-rich environment these days. On such target is this story from the New York Times which I found absolutely hilarious (I know, I'm a dork):

April 8, 2009
They Pay for Cable, Music and Extra Bags. How About News?
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and TIM ARANGO

Just a year ago, most media companies believed the formula for Internet success was to offer free content, build an audience and rake in advertising dollars. Now, with the recession battering advertising online, in print and on television, media executives are contemplating a tougher trick: making the consumer pay.

Translation: What in the hell were we thinking?!? Let's put some crack reporters on the case and get some real, out-of-the-box thinking on how we can monetize it. I mean, let's go far & wide looking for a solution and float some of them as trial balloons in a news story.

Publishers like Hearst Newspapers, The New York Times and Time Inc.are drawing up plans for possible Internet fees. Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner’s chief executive, is promoting a plan called “TV Everywhere,” to offer consumers a vast array of television online, provided they are paying cable TV customers. And Rupert Murdoch, who once vowed to make The Wall Street Journal’s Web site free, is now an evangelist for charging readers.

“People reading news for free on the Web, that’s got to change,” Mr. Murdoch said last week at a cable industry conference in Washington.

The Associated Press said on Monday that it intended to police the use of news articles linked on countless Web sites, where many consumers read them free, to make sure the sites shared advertising revenue with those who created the material.

Yes... I'll share whatever advertising revenue I bring in with the Associated Press. After I deduct my time & efforts to improve their poorly constructed from the $0 in ad revenue that this blog generates, I should get a tidy sum from the AP!

Question; Does the AP go after The Today Show ad revenues after they feature a story that originated in the AP? Just curious...

But from networks selling downloads of TV shows, to music companies trying to curb file-sharing, to struggling newspapers and magazines, the make-or-break question is this: How do you get consumers to pay for something they have grown used to getting free?

Yes, that indeed is the million dollar question.

And in the case of newspapers, there are two more troubling questions:

How do you get someone to pay for news in an online format when they are not willing to pay for it in print format, as evidenced by declining subscription rates across the board?
When considering the younger demo (aka your future customers), how do you charge them for online news whey they don't even want your news in print format for free?

How about that conundrum?

Some industries have pulled it off. Coca-Cola took tap water, filtered it and called it Dasani, and makes millions of dollars a year. People who used to ask why anyone would pay for television now subscribe to cable and TiVo. Airlines charge for luggage, meals, even pillows. And some music fans who have downloaded pirated songs are also patrons of iTunes.

All of these success stories offered the consumer something extra, even if it was just convenience.

"just convenience"... perhaps this statement reveals one of the problems of the insulated view of the people in the news industry....

“With bottled water, it’s a kind of snobbery and the perception of healthiness that they have marketed,” said Priya Raghubir, professor of marketing at the Stern School of Business at New York University. “With downloads, the benefit is that the paying services allow you to sample many songs free, and you know it’s legal, and the TV shows have no commercials.

First, I see that the New York Times reporters did indeed travel far afield for this story. Assuming they didn't pick up the phone, they traveled 3.1 miles downtown to NYU!!!

Second, I should piont out that the analysis of the examples are incorrect:

Dasani vs. tap water is not pay vs. free (since people do indeed pay for tap water). At least, I have a water bill show up in my mail each month. And besides the perceived health benefits (vs. other beverage options), the other value-adds are the convenience of bottled water and the consistency of quality & taste.
With iTunes, the value isn't the sampling - it's the fact that pirating them from other sites is a pain in the patootey compared to getting the same content for a small fee, along with the assurance that the download is not malware and, again, has a consistency of quality. If you've ever downloaded a song for free, you know that the quality is always questionable.

What do the two examples the NYU professor highlighted have in common? The "pay" version have an increased level of convenience & quality. In the end, people judge that the cost to ensure this level of quality & convenience is appropriate - a quick and very typical cost / benefit analysis that consumers in capitalist systems make instantaneously on a daily basis.

Back to the Times...

“With newspapers and magazines, there have to be features you can’t get anywhere else, and maybe part of what you would pay for is the privilege of helping the business survive, but that is more of a difficult sell.”

ROTFL!!!! LMAO!!!!

Only a professor could make such a ridiculous statement. The surest way to go out of business is to use a marketing strategy & message that essentially boils down to "please buy my product so I can stay in business." No customer will buy a product for the "privilege" of helping the business survive - except for customers of your local PBS station, and that doesn't even count because that entire enterprise is heavily subsidized.

Major publishers say they have not yet decided how to proceed, but that some changes are coming soon.

“We’re looking, of course, at ways to extract payments from the consumers of our news — micro-payments, subscriptions, memberships, licensing, even voluntary donations,” Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said last week in a speech at Stanford University. “In the coming months, I fully expect that the N.Y.T. will begin laying down some bets based on our best forecasts of how the relationship between journalists and their audience will evolve.”

Yet again, our intrepid reporters have searched far & wide to cover this story - this time, they've asked their boss for his opinion.

Only a few publishers have tried such a transition, with mixed results. The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times each tried charging for access to some content online, then dropped the requirement because it cost them audience and advertising revenue.

Yes, that TimeSelect horse-hockey really didn't work out well. Turns out that people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription to MoDo's stream of conciousness columns. So, if they've tried charging for their content and it failed, why are they writing this story?

They're trying too find a different mechanism to get the revenue without asking any serious questions about their product or what service they provide to their customer!

Most publications have moved in the other direction, trying to draw the biggest audience for advertisers by offering content free. The Associated Press’s new approach straddles the usual reliance on ads, and the new move to charge someone — though not the consumer — for the content.

By adding free features like e-mail alerts, blogs, discussion forums and video, news organizations are trying to persuade readers that they provide something more valuable than the aggregators and blogs that attract news readers online. In 2006, The Washington Post became the first newspaper to win an Emmy for its video.

And if I know anything, Emmy's and inside-the-industry recognition really drive consumers to your product.

Interesting that some sites are providing free features (value add services), but it's unfortunate that many of these services are provided for free on other sites. And what's the differentiator between using these services on my hometown paper's website (stltoday.com) vs. some other national newspaper (e.g. the New York Times)? Well, since the news is all the same crap on either site, it'll come down to how convenient either site is...

Eric J. Johnson, a professor at Columbia Business School, said he had been amazed by media companies repeatedly adding free online services, like on-demand video. “Before you add something to your site, you should say that if consumers really want it, that should be part of a package that you could charge for,” he said.

That is an alien concept to many media veterans, who grew up in a world where news and other content on television and radio were free, and newspapers made far more money from advertisers than from readers.

And the TV & Radio are still swimming in riches from that model - yes, yes? And, while newspapers do get most of their print revenues from advertisers, they do charge the reader something, right? How's that model working out? Aren't both print revenue streams seeing a decline?

Before the recession, media executives saw their future in online advertising, which was growing 25 to 35 percent annually. But last year, overall Internet ad spending rose 10.6 percent, and only 3.5 percent for television networks, according to a report by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Newspaper Association of America says that for its industry, online ad revenue dropped 1.8 percent last year.

Hmmm.... so the online ad industry is still growing, but for some reason ads to online newspapers (what an oxymoron!) haven't seen their online ad revenues grow... it's almost like online advertisers are going elsewhere to place their ads.... places where the consumers are going. hmmmm.....

The free-versus-paid debate is a recurring one. At the birth of the Internet many sites charged for content, but by the late 1990s the prevailing view was that market forces favored free content. A consumer tollbooth raises money, but it also constricts the audience and ad sales. Media companies decided it was not worth the trade-off.

In 1995, Encyclopaedia Britannica began selling online subscriptions and attracted 70,000 paying customers. But in 1999 it opened its doors, hoping to take advantage of the Internet advertising boom. Two years later, it reversed course again, and now charges $70 a year for access to most of its site.

When it resumed charging in 2001, it got back to 70,000 subscribers within 10 months, and now has about 200,000.

If the site hadn’t begun charging, “we would have a product that would be used by many more people today,” said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, but it would probably generate less revenue.

I seem to recall some other version of an encyclopedia out on the interwebs recently.... hmmmm. I sure hope Encyclopaedia Britannica's budget doesn't exceed $14m per year.

[...]

Getting customers to pay is easier if the product is somehow better — or perceived as being better — than what they had received free.

In adding a new feature, “you don’t want the starting value you place on it to be zero,” Mr. Johnson said. “People are very loss-averse, and the worst penny to pay is the first.”

And, in the case of the quality of journalism in the US, that first penny is very expensive indeed.

I would say that the price point currently charged for online news (ie. $0.00) is about right. Or perhaps they should pay us to read their crap.

Mark Mulligan, vice president of Forrester Research in London, said that even sectors that had successfully charged fees online, like the music industry, have found that it was a game of chasing niches. But products like sitcoms or general-interest newspapers have always been built for the broadest possible appeal.

“The question now is whether that common denominator approach can work online,” Mr. Honack said. He says he thinks it will require treating the audience and the products as a series of niches, and tailoring the offering to the customer. “You have to find out what part of your product you can get them to come back for.”

Holy crap! Someone finally hit the nail on the head!!!

In order to charge a customer a sufficient amount of money to keep the business profitable enough to continue operations and invest in the future, the seller must tailor his product to the customers' needs!!!

Or, as Mr. Honack ultimately puts it, "you have to find out what part of your product you can get them to come back for."

People will not pay a dime to a news company so they can have an online blog at their site. They will not pay a dime to a news company so they can receive email alerts (are you kidding?!?) People will not pay a dime to a news company for content that they can get just as easily anywhere else on the internet (aka the world).

The entire model of print journalism is outdated for today's distribution network. Previously, the AP, Reuters, and the New York Times decided what was news and local affiliates reprinted the news.

This continues to this day as is evidenced by the similarity of reporting on each and every topic in each and every news source.

Focus on the consumer like a laser. Figure out what they need and provide it to them as efficiently and effectively as possible. Do anything else and you should be put out of business.

It's a wonder that these guys are even allowed to report on anything related to business. No wonder they think capitalism is evil - they're dying because they don't understand it.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Foreign Policy Experts

2009-03-23T12:57:00.004-05:00

It's become quite clear that the Obamessiah really is just a guy standing in front of a teleprompter, with no clue about governing, foreign policy, etc. As ARC: Brian pointed out in 2008, Obama is Johnny Bravo and was elected simply because he "fit the suit."

After Obama's letter to Jacques Chirac was made public (apparently, Barry doesn't know that the current President of France is Nicolas Sarkozy), Gabriel over at Ace of Spades HQ is keeping a tally of Obama foreign policy missteps:

Making a List:

1. Canada: NAFTA fiasco.
2. Poland: missile shield "misunderstanding".
3. UK: Churchhill bust return.
4. Russia: "overcharge" button.
5. UK: insulting gifts to the Browns.
6. France: not realizing that Chirac has been out of power for two years.
7. Brazil: Misspelling the president's name.
8. Mexico: NAFTA
9. India: Thinking Kashmir is Pah-kee-stan.

Which reminds me... Wasn't Palin ridiculed for not knowing anything about foreign policy?

I would bet that she wouldn't have made nay of the ridiculous errors that Obama has made. (God knows she wouldn't have gotten Gordon Brown some DVDs as a gift - and if she did, they'd work in Region 2!)

This guy is turning our friends into enemies while trying to naively turn avowed enemies (you know, the people who murder US citizens) into friends.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Pwned!! Obama Called Out

2009-03-20T14:49:00.002-05:00

First, the Obamessiah made this idiotic comment (which, if made by George W. Bush or any politician to the right of Marx would be used as evidence of the cruelty of free market capitalism):

After comparing his bowling to the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show" Thursday, President Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver to apologize before the program even aired.
[...]
Obama used much of his appearance on the comedy show to discuss the economy but sought to get in some light-hearted quips toward the end of the taping.

He said he had been working on his bowling game just below his new residence and recently rolled a 129.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” cracked host Jay Leno.

"It's like — it was like Special Olympics, or something," the president replied.

Obama’s bowling skills, or lack thereof, have been a running joke since he fared poorly during an impromptu game at a Pennsylvania bowling alley during the Democratic primary last year.
[...]

Next, the Special Olympics Champion calls out Obama, saying I own you!

ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.

"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

The athletic-minded president made an offhand remark Thursday on "The Tonight Show" comparing his weak bowling to "the Special Olympics or something." He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some of its athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.

McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005.

The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day.

I frankly was surprised to hear that Barry had enough time to even play enough to get his score up to 129 - I mean, there is an economic crisis, a Global War on Terror, and filling all of those administration positions... Instead, he's practicing his bowling, joining Jay Leno for a little chit-chat, etc.

And James Carville ridiculously claimed that this week wasn't so bad... They have no clue how stupid they look.

Life is really imitating The Onion.

* For definition of PNWED, go here.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Timmy, You're Doing a Helluva Job!

2009-03-19T08:25:00.003-05:00

Obama to Tim Geithner: "Timmy, you're doing a helluva job!"

[...]
Asked about the performance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Obama said: "Tim Geithner didn't draft these contracts with AIG. There has never been a Secretary of the Treasury except maybe Alexander Hamilton right after the Revolutionary War who's had to deal with the multiplicity of issues that Secretary Geithner is having to deal with, all at the same time." He followed up by explaining, "He is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."
[...]

Actually, no... Geithner's a disaster. Anyone who either is too stupid to understand the tax system he's supposed to administer or is too ethically challenged to pay taxes he owes to the US government should not be compared to Alexander Hamilton.

Meanwhile, Timmy still has yet to unveil his plan for fixing the banking system and still hasn't put together his staff!

He's such a disaster that the right-wing writers over at Saturday Night Live just had to make fun of him.

Watch more Saturday Night Live videos on AOL Video

Helluva Job, Timmy!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

New Era of BipartisanshipTM

2009-03-19T08:14:00.003-05:00

From Bloomberg comes this story about how the Dems will use a parliamentary procedure to pass legislation that they know would face a filibuster by the minority:

Obama May Use Legislative Ploy to Jam Through Health, Tax Bills
By Brian Faler

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

“You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary. “It takes the minority completely out of the process.”

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Senate Democrats have a majority with 58 votes, though Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is struggling with brain cancer, is frequently absent. Several other Democrats often vote with Republicans.

House Democrats

House Democrats are pushing to use reconciliation because it would help ensure they don’t end up voting for tax increases and other legislation that can be blocked by Senate Republicans.
[...]

The new era of bipartisanship, indeed.

(and since when have Democrats been concerned about voting for tax increases?) I thought the point of using the reconciliation was to pass $1 trillion in new taxes???

A comment from ARC: Brian - Wasn't this procedure referred to as the Nuclear Option back when the GOP considered it for judicial appointments that the Dems were blocking?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

New Era of Responsibility & AccountabilityTM

2009-03-19T08:09:00.003-05:00

From Bloomberg, Chris Dodd takes responsibility for a provision he put into the stimulus bill which insured that AIG execs would get their bonuses (which are now being used as an argument to create a new confiscatory tax rate).

Oh, wait:

Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Bonus Amendment (Update1)
By Ryan J. Donmoyer

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday he agreed to modify restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving taxpayer assistance to exempt bonuses already agreed upon in contracts. He said he did so without realizing the change would benefit AIG, whose recent $165 million payment to employees has sparked a public furor.

Dodd said he had wanted to limit executive compensation at companies that got money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. AIG has received $173 billion in bailout money. His provision was changed as the stimulus legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.

“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate- passed amendment” to the stimulus bill, “but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG,” Dodd said in a statement released last night. “Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.” He didn’t name the administration officials who made the request.

No Insistence

An administration official said last night that representatives of President Barack Obama didn’t insist on the change, though they did contend that the language in Dodd’s amendment could be legally challenged because it would apply retroactively to bonus agreements. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

That provision in the stimulus bill may undercut complaints by congressional Democrats about the AIG bonuses because most of them voted for the legislation. No Republicans in the House and only three in the Senate supported the stimulus measure.
[...]
“The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate,” Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement.

These guys are a bunch of clowns!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Doubling of Green Energy

2009-03-13T14:06:00.005-05:00

One of Barry's initiatives is to double the amount of energy produced by green technologies. This OpEd in the WSJ from Robert Bryce has been on my mind:

Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE

During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.

Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
[...]
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
[...]

Read the whole thing... but, I decided that, while Mr. Bryce's article presents a compelling argument that hydrocarbons will always be with us, I think it's instructive to put his analysis in a picture - a simple chart showing the energy output by source, all represented in equivalent barrels of oil.

The following chart illustrates Obama's ambition regarding green energy over the next 3 years. Click image for full-size version):

As you can see, even a doubling of our current output will mean that green technology is still a trivial percentage (~0.3%) of our total energy requirements, meaning that the true impact to CO2 emissions, global climate change, etc. will be non-existent.

The question is whether Obama's plans are not only to "double" the output of green energy, but to further reduce the use of all other types of energy.

Or, put another way, to control your use of energy, from dawn to ~~dusk~~ dawn which, in effect, means controlling you.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Obama: Mission Accomplished

2009-03-13T14:00:00.002-05:00

From the AP

Obama: Economic crisis 'not as bad as we think'
Mar 12 06:49 PM US/Eastern
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation's "confidence builder in chief," Obama said Americans shouldn't be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was "highly optimistic" about the long term.

The president's proposals for major health care, energy and education changes in the midst of economic hard times faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as senators questioned his budget outlook and the deficits it envisions in the middle of the next decade.
[...]

Using the politics of fear to sell his socialist agenda fooled the people a few weeks ago, but they won't be fooled a second time - and Obama knows this. It's difficult to convince people that across the board tax increases (in the form of higher energy costs) are good when the economy is still in the tank, so Barry has (prematurely) declared "Mission Accomplished" regarding his infant stimulus bill.

Barry - You own it.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Amateur Hour

2009-03-08T08:25:00.003-05:00

This story is very troubling:

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown

Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 10:03PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

I don't know what's worse, that Obama is overwhelmed by the office or that all of his administration's time has been devoted to what is a disastrous economic policy. I had originally hoped that their economic policies had been designed by the Obama daughters and their intellectual counterpart, Nancy Pelosi - but to learn that it has in truth been the product of the administration's full attention is cause for concern.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

Well, that's reassuring. I seem to recall a lot of ink & bits being dispensed to claim that President George W. Bush was a simpleton in over his head; yet we have a clear demonstration of incompetence and it barely gets coverage in the US.

A British official conceded that the furore surrounding the apparent snub to Mr Brown had come as a shock to the White House. "I think it's right to say that their focus is elsewhere, on domestic affairs. A number of our US interlocutors said they couldn't quite understand the British concerns and didn't get what that was all about."

The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything."
[...]
But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.

Reminds me of a situation where you show up at a new acquaintance's Christmas party with an extravagant gift that you've carefully selected to make the best impression and realize that there was a spending cap of $10.

Perhaps that was indeed the case in this instance. Amazon has a sale on right now...

For more information on our gift snub to the Brits, check out Mark Steyn. It is a must read.

Back to the UK's Telegraph.

Mr Obama rang Mr Brown as he flew home, in what many suspected was an attempt to make amends.

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.

This is a shocking statement, given the history between the two countries, including their support for US national security policies.

If these are the people that are representing our country overseas, we are truly doomed.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Eyewitness in Iraq

2009-03-05T14:00:00.003-06:00

My old friend Kip Allen (aka Desert Rat) of Right Face got the jump on me with this one by posting this report from my nephew, Sgt Shawn Wilson via his dad, my brother Mike.

The story is certainly not what you would expect if all you did is follow the MSM.

Here is the post at Rat's site:

Things went into a news blackout for about three weeks as the 10th Mountain
Division, Military Police Company moved to their new location in Kalsu, Iraq.
Current temperature about 85 degrees at high noon and cold enough at night to
enjoy the comfort of a sleeping bag. Shawn cannot send pictures at this point
due to some restrictions. He noted camels as big as dinosaurs coming in colors
ranging from black to white, so he took some shots of them next to a pickup
truck to put them into perspective.

Shawn enjoys solid ground and vegetation as compared to to the sands of
Kuwait; and, Kalsu provides that stability to walk normally up right. His
description of the town of Kalsu is hard to believe. Lots of energetic
reconstruction being done by Iraqis, or emerging Iraqi contractors, that favor
prestressed post tensioned concrete panels. That is good bunker building
stuff.

The markets are open into the evening mixed with neon lights aglow. This is
Shawn's biggest surprise...people in the streets, running water continuous
electricity and kids are making - make shift American uniforms and are friendly.
They like the solders. No criminal activity on the part of American forces with
very few jihad boys running around Mr. Roger's neighborhood. American
contractors providing excellent food which incidentally can also be found on the
local streets such unbelievable places as as Burger King, Kentucky Fried
Chicken, and even Taco Bell owned by Iraqis'

The local movie theater is not a potential death trap. This indicates a
major victory for the United States and George Bush. This currently unquantified
success is why the American public receives none of this news worthy information
while the minions in press corp. search the Iraqi nation for good old suicide
bomber. They'll find one too under the premise one Robin doesn't make a
spring.

The nice day off in Bagdad and the visit to Hussein's wrecked palace as
seen by Shawn Michael Wilson. It is kind of of a museum where you can enter
fully armed and if your are not caring a weapon you will be searched. Gruesome
highlights and a smash and trash policy, are rules of the road when entering.
Within the palace there is one swimming pool that was not filled with water
intentionally. The blood stains are still there as part of the swimming pool
or... lets have a laugh... execution point. "I was surprised they never washed
it out. Maybe the pool is a message,"Shawn said. Shawn and crew made it up to
Sadam's main office sat in a few filthy chairs that remained. Slabs of beautiful
marble lay shattered all over the palace amongst destroyed crystal chandeliers
which made for souvenirs'. After writing their names and other things on the
walls the troopers headed down stairs to entrance center to a web tunnels and
bunkers.

Shawn described one bunker room with a massive whole it caused a Tomahawk
missile. At the time of the explosion fifty of Sadam's officers were watching
the movie Pretty Woman. Yes Bush lied in this case, he told Saddam that he had
forty eight hours to get out of Kuwait or the war would commence, and wouldn't
you know it Bush showed up twenty-four hours early.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Monterey John

The Obama Economy

2009-03-03T06:44:00.002-06:00

Excellent Op-Ed in the WSJ. Here are the key paragraphs:

The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.
[...]
The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.
[...]

I predicted to Brian a few weeks ago that Dow 6,000 was a reality, given the fact that every single action taken by the government (including those by Bush/Paulson in their last few months) have been exactly the opposite of what should be done. Obama has only increased the mismanagement of this economy.

Brian reassured me that people would riot before things got too bad... and then quickly realized that he needed to visit the gun store.

This isn't sustainable.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Global Warming - How Perfect Is This?

2009-03-02T13:13:00.003-06:00

What could I possibly say that would add anything to this?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Doing Our Part to Make the Stimulus Work

2009-02-24T12:49:00.006-06:00

I was over at Gateway Pundit's website today (h/t to ARC:Brian) and noticed that our new Governor, Jay "3rd times' a charm" Nixon, has requested people to submit projects that can be funded by the stimulus money.

Yes, I have my own shovel-ready project that I just submitted. Be sure to scroll down to the Project Description - I hope I described it well.

Here's a screen-cap of the submission and the text of my proposal below:

[...]
Your Title: Community Organizer
Organization Name: Missourians For Investment In An Environmentally Friendly Infrastructure (or, the M.F.I.I.A.E.F.I.)

Project Information

Project Name: Neighborhood Beautification & Restoration through Environmentally Friendly Infrastructure

Primary Project County: Saint Charles
Primary Project City: O'Fallon

Select the Transform Missouri pillar under which your project falls: Emerging Technology

How does your project fit into the Federal Recovery Program: Energy/Environment

Select the description for your project sponsor from the list below: Not-for-Profit Organization

Please tell us how quickly your project could move forward and how it could impact Missouri's jobs.

Project Status: Shovel Ready
Timeframe to Start: 2 to 4 weeks
Estimated Number of Missouri Jobs created: 5
Estimated Number of Missour Jobs retained: 45

Briefly describe the project below. If you have supporting documents you would like to be included in your file, please check the box below. You will be contacted at the email address you provided if the Transform Missouri staff needs those documents at this time.

Project Description:

My proposed, shovel-ready project is to create a structure that is powered entirely on renewable energy. This would be an example - a beacon - to all future construction in Missouri.

The first aspect of the project involves the enhancement of an existing structure through the installation of highly efficient, state-of-the-art solar electric power modules using a thin-film semiconductor technology combined with several appropriately-sized wind turbines. These two green technologies will feed an underground energy storage facility and a solar-thermal water heater, with any excess energy generation being sent back to the utility grid. In order to maximize the renewable and 100% CO2-free energy, common methods to maximize energy efficiency within the structure will be implemented. Such techniques include improved, environmentally-friendly insulation, installation of low-power LCD displays throughout the structure, etc.

The second aspect of the project is focused on site beautification & natural resource management in order to make the structure appropriate for its intended use. This beautification & resource management aspect includes the planting of a carbon sink comprised of numerous new-growth trees, the establishment of an in-ground water retention system (approximately 50' x 25' x 8' and holding just under 100,000 gallons of natural water!) with a natural managed plant environment surrounding it. In addition to the flora, local terrestrial & aquatic wildlife will be prominently featured as part of a standard natural resource management program.

It is estimated that this project will produce or keep ~50 jobs directly associated with the project and an incalculable number of related jobs. This project could help achieve the President's goal of jump-starting the 21st-century economy through the use of green technology. In addition, the initial costs will be offset through resale of electricity to the grid and through payments from future members of Missourians for Investment in an Environmentally Friendly Infrastructure.

The estimated cost is only $1,000,000. Using the standard economic multiplier effect, this will increase Missouri's GDP by $1.578M in 2009.

I can't wait for the checks to arrive so I can get started on the in-ground pool and solar panel installation!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Why the Porkulus Will Fail

2009-02-17T09:36:00.006-06:00

Excellent Op-Ed at the WSJ today by Amara Bhide. Here are the key paragraphs:

Don't Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers
Americans are losing faith in the fairness and wisdom of economic policy.
By AMAR BHIDé
[...]
The economic theory behind the nearly $800 billion stimulus package may be cloaked in precise mathematics but is ultimately based on John Maynard Keynes's speculative conjecture about human nature. Keynes claimed that people cope with uncertainty by assuming the future will be like the present. This predisposition exacerbates economic downturns and should be countered by a sharp fiscal stimulus that reignites the "animal spirits" of consumers and investors.

But history suggests that dark moods do change on their own. The depressions and panics of the 19th century ended without any fiscal stimulus to speak of, as did the gloom that followed the stock-market crash of 1987. Countercyclical fiscal policy may or may not have shortened other recessions; there are too few data points and too much difference in other conditions to really know.

Unfounded assertions that calamitous consequences make opposition to the rapid enactment of a large stimulus package "inexcusable and irresponsible" are likely to offset any placebo effect the package might have. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, as our last Treasury secretary did to peddle the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), didn't restore financial confidence. Similarly, a president elected on a platform of hope isn't likely to spark shopping sprees by painting a bleak picture of our prospects.
[...]

This is exactly right. Not only is the porkulus bill ineffective because of the targets of its spending (substantial amounts either budgeted for $0 ROI projects), but also because of the way in which it was sold.

This was not sold as FDR sold the New Deal - We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. This was sold through the tactics of fear. So, the population sees massive government spending (whose own proponents admit will be ineffective) combined with dark scenarios that would scare the bejeesus out of any sane person.

Combine this with the understandable perception that our government - local, state, and federal - has completely lost its way in terms of restraint (both fiscal, political, and personal) and the people's confidence in government's ability to solve this problem is eliminated.

Understandably, people rationally contract their spending.

If you don't agree, ask yourself this question:

What number of people are going to have a more positive perception of our economic future because Barry inks the stimulus bill today?

If you answer any number greater than zero, you are a fool.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Obama distorts opponents like Bush (Well, not really)

2009-02-11T11:09:00.003-06:00

Washington Post has an interesting article "attacking" Obama for employing an all or nothing tactic against his opponents. They even compare him to Bush, which is where they lose any credibility with me:

Obama Paints America's Choice as His Plan or Nothing

By Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; A06

FORT MYERS, Fla., Feb. 10 -- President Obama likes to portray the battle over the economic stimulus package that passed the Senate on Tuesday as a stark choice between his approach and that of those who would "do nothing."

"Nothing is not an option. You didn't send me to Washington to do nothing," Obama told a gathering of 1,500 here on Tuesday, bringing the crowd to its feet as he campaigned for passage of the more than $800 billion package.

The president used the same language Monday in his first prime-time news conference, suggesting that lawmakers who opposed his prescription want the government to ignore the deepening economic crisis.

"There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing," he said.

But in truth, few of those involved in the stimulus debate are suggesting that the government should not take action to aid the cratering economy.

Many of the president's fiercest congressional critics support a stimulus package of similar size but think it should be built around a much higher proportion of tax cuts than new spending. Others have called for a plan that is half the size of the one headed for a House-Senate conference -- still massive by historical standards.

Even those who think that no new government spending is necessary do not advocate a stand-still approach. A newspaper ad by the Cato Institute, signed by 250 economists, argued for removing "impediments to work, saving, investment and production" and said that "lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

"I don't know of a single Republican in the House or Senate who thinks Congress should do nothing in the wake of this recession," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said Tuesday. "We want to do something that will work."

But if Republicans express frustration about Obama's rhetorical device, they need only look back to the man he succeeded for precedent. George W. Bush was proficient at setting up straw men when arguing for his policies, only to tear down the positions of those phantom opponents as irresponsible, unworkable or downright shameful in comparison with his own.

During debates with Democrats about the Iraq war, Bush often cast his rivals as believing that "the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day." He sometimes derided critics of his health-care policies as people "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care." Talking about the fight against terrorism, Bush often warned of those "who say we are not at war."
[...]

Now, what's the stark difference between Obama's recent use of characterizing his opponents positions on the stimulus vs. the exculpatory Bush examples provided by the Post?

Bush's characterizations weren't lies.

The War Is Lost was a common refrain of Democratic Party, especially by its leaders.

The Democratic Party also repeatedly pointed to the costs and called for an end (timetable for exit) regardless of the situation on the ground.

And who can honestly assert that the Democrats don't think that the federal government should have a clear responsibility for managing the health care system?

And finally, the term "so-called War On Terror" is not something that was coined by the right side of the aisle. When combined with the policies sought by the Democrats to undermine the War On Terror and extend protections typically provided to US criminals to foreign illegal combatants (aka those at war with us), I would say that this isn't a mis-characterization by Bush either.

Just saying...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Ideology vs. Pragmatism

2009-02-11T06:31:00.004-06:00

This op-ed by Peter Ferrara in the WSJ is excellent and points to the fact that, despite the rhetoric, Obama's porkulus bill is guided more by partisan ideology than it is by "what works."

Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
The current president wants higher taxes, more regulation, more spending and loose money.
By PETER FERRARA

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."

Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.

The first indicator that this was the case was the following statement by Barry: "I won."

The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components.

The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work. The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. [...]

Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today.[...]

The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983.

It would seem that Obama thinks that the opposite of these 4 policy positions will produce results similar to those during the Reagan administration.

I expect they'll have the effect of Carter's policies .... squared.

We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually.

The Obama administration's economic policies do not include any of the four Reagan components. In fact, the stimulus plan is the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet.

And I'd like to comment on Barry's ridiculous assertion that he was handed a $1 trillion deficit, therefore criticizing him for doubling the deficit is inappropriate.

What are you smoking, Barry?!?

Eight years of irresponsible spending (much of it bipartisan) does not mean that even more irresponsible (and partisan) spending is warranted.

Meanwhile, the Fed is furiously reinflating, sowing more havoc down the line. Mr. Obama is still promising future increases in tax rates by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, because for ideological reasons he thinks even current rates are too low. And instead of deregulating for more energy production, he is still promising massive increases in regulatory barriers -- through global warming cap-and-trade legislation -- to increased production from proven energy sources to serve an extreme environmentalist ideology.

This is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions.

A natural economic recovery will begin sometime this year, not because of the president's policies, but because soon this will be the longest recession since World War II. However, thanks to the administration's retrograde policies -- cut from the cloth of the 1970s and even the 1930s -- the recovery will not be what it should be. Rather, unemployment will remain too high, and inflation will resurge, recreating the disastrous economic results we suffered the last time Keynesian policies were dominant

Those that forget (or ignore) history are doomed to repeat it.

Given the scope of the porkulus bill and the general malaise (a word not uttered since Carter) among average consumers, business leaders, etc, I am not as optimistic as Ferrara that the economy will recover sometime this year.

I don't expect to see an actual recovery until sometime in 2010, assuming that any negative economic results this year are not met with even more ridiculous economic policies.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Fiasco - The "Stimulus" Bill

2009-02-10T09:42:00.005-06:00

Well, here we are on the verge of plunging the country into massive debt, and for what?

I watched the President's presser last night with interest. He is impressive, no doubt about it, expecially after the eight years of W's fumbling such opportunities to persuade. He is impressive and at the same time more than a bit disturbing.

What disturbed me was the dishonesty. What he and the congressional Democrats are passing of as "stimulus" is little more than forty years of pent up liberal programs that could not pass on their own merits in the ordinary course of legislative business all swept together under the umbrella of this bill and sold as economic relief. The deception is astounding.

Example: health care. Never mind that health care has no place in a stimulus bill as it will not create job one, it is also a foot in the door to government guidelines to treatment and intrusion by the government into the doctor patient relationship. This will start with data bases of of what are known as procedure codes. These have been used for years by insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid for payment purposes. What is being proposed is to use these codes to get treatment modalities authorized on the basis of efficacy and cost effectiveness as determined by someone in government. As if that were not enough, YOUR treatment codes will be entered in that data base.

This is but one example. What did the President have to say about that last night? What else is in there with regard to global warming? Alternative energy? Education? Goodies for organized labor? What other intrusions on our liberty are buried in this monster?

And for all this, there have been NO hearings on this bill. We must rush it through or the world as we know it will come to an end. Perhaps there is a reason for the rush. Perhaps if folks knew what was really going on they would be up in arms.

In the words of Glenn Beck, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Here is the article that appeared on Bloomberg yesterday:

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaugheyCommentary by
Betsy McCaugheyFeb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the
stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008
book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to
Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo
practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.New PenaltiesHospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative
Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow
the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are
driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept
“hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises
Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be
more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly
patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye
before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost
three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate
in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders
of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice
later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and
nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid.
The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy,
Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to
debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act
quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a
health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too
important to be stalled by Senate protocol.
”More Scrutiny NeededOn Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17
percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care
the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry.
Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry
during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the
economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an
adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her
own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Another Hero Off to War - Prayer Request for Sgt Shawn Wilson

2009-02-07T19:10:00.002-06:00

Something personal ... My nephew, Sgt Shawn Wilson of the 10th Mountain Division, deploys to Iraq this evening. The family is of course greatly concerned for him and hopes that all who know him and us keep him in their prayers.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Paul Krugman Thinks You're Stupid

2009-02-06T16:57:00.004-06:00

This OpEd by Paul Krugman shows that this guy is completely off his rocker. Either that or he's a liar.

February 6, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
On the Edge
By PAUL KRUGMAN

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

One could argue that the Democrats turned a serious debate, what with their asinine description of contraception funding as just the type of economic stimulus that is timely, targeted, and temporary - not to mention all of the other special interest pork that they threw into the bill.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

I wonder why they have been on the defensive? Perhaps it is because the American people are rejecting what their elected representatives (the Democrats) have decided to put into this porkulus bill and the Democrats realize that the've been caught.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

Again, I would say that the moment someone wrote the pork into the bill and the fact that most of the spending wouldn't hit until 2011 or later - that was a sign that legislators lost any sense of what's at stake.

The debate that is raging now is the first serious debate we've had in a long time!

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Exports were a strength in the economy in the last 8 years? Huh... thought I would've seen that on the front page of the Times somewhere. Oh, well...

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

I would argue it's in free fall because the government is doing too much. People are uncertain what the future holds and some key political lobbying by this or that group could make or break their company or their industry.

And taxpayers are also uncertain of the future, what with the expectation of high inflation, business and industries being completely nationalized or eliminated, future tax increases, etc, etc. It's the governments action, rather than inaction, that is the major force for uncertainty today.

I would also say that the Mark-To-Market principle for asset valuation - while intended to provide increased transparency into the value of assets has (as usual) actually created additional uncertainty.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Of course, the CBO also said the stimulus package is a net negative on the economy in the long run, but no need to mention that!

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

The probability of this gets higher as we start to enact legislation which mirror that of Hoover or Roosevelt's New Deal.

[...]
And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

The only thing? But I thought the Japanese spent their way out of their "lost decade"?

Oh, that's right... they spent like drunken sailors during the lost decade and it had zero effect except to bankrupt future generations.

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

We could be on the precipice if ACORN doesn't get it's 2.4billion! We might face another Great Depression if we don't fund contraception to the tune of billions! We might all die if we do not re-sod the Washington Mall!!!

Quick! The sky is falling - Throw some money in the air to keep it from hitting us!

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

Actually, it wasn't Rush but the actual stupid parts of the bill that made it a farce. Only Nancy Pelosi & Barry "The Novice" Obama get the credit for that. You can't blame Rush, the CBO, or anyone else who can read for pointing those things out, can you?

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

The American people are smarter than you, Paulie. They realize that what is being offered is not stimulus.

It's not timely. (18 months from now?!?!)
It's not targeted. (At least not in targeted where it should be - Contraceptives? $400 Million for STD research?)
And none of it is temporary. (How are increased salaries for Federal employees 'temporary'?)

Paul Krugman: You are a pinhead and a partisan hack.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Obama's Porkulus, the CBO, and Average Joe Economists

2009-02-06T13:40:00.005-06:00

Here are two related stories that I wanted to comment on today. First, from AP:

President Barack Obama says in Washington these days, everyone's an economist—or thinks they are.

Obama introduced a team of outside economic advisers Friday at a White House ceremony in which he also renewed his demand that Congress act quickly on his economic recovery package.

As the country struggles with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama said there has been no shortage of advice on how to solve the nation's woes.

"You've got some economists and some folks who think they're economists. By the way, these days everybody thinks they're economists," he joked.

How elitist of you, Barry. While you may have been elected to the highest office in the land, your years of study in Columbia and Harvard Law, when combined with your years as a community organizer, Illinois State Senator, and Senator, make you probably the least qualified person to make such a statement. Unless by economics, you are referring to the skills you picked up learning of the myriad of ways that Illinois politicians "monetize" every decision they make.

The reason your porkulus package isn't getting the public's support is because deep down, in their gut, the voters know that the true problem with our economy is not a lack of government spending but a lack of government restraint. They see the amount of ridiculous projects that the Democratic party has thrown into the stimulus bill and rightly reject the whole package.

Most people recognize the fact that 2+2 does not equal 5.7 and understand that someone is going to have to pay for this unbelievable amount of spending.

And, while you may not like that assessment and may choose to ignore such wisdom, you should listen to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (you know, the guys who perform cost analysis of specific bills):

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
Stephen Dinan (Contact)

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

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

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

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.
[...]

While I certainly don't agree with most analysis by the CBO (they tend to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs), this should be a wake-up call.

We're in a terrible financial situation and the government is going to tax, borrow, or print money to increase its long-term power and wealth.

It's time for the Feds to tighten their belts. Let's start to see some layoffs from the country's largest employer, Barry! Or is every single government bureaucrat "indispensable"?

Oh, right... it turns out that part of the stimulus is to give federal employees a raise and to redecorate Federal buildings.

And you want to frighten people into supporting this bill? Well, I fear that passage of anything resembling what you describe as stimulus is going to throw us into a new Great Depression.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Stimulus

2009-02-06T10:23:00.002-06:00

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Bill McClellan is Off the Reservation ... bless his heart

2009-02-06T00:19:00.004-06:00

My goodness, somebody at the Post actually gets it.

When will ethical actions start paying dividends?
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS
POST-DISPATCH
Wednesday, Feb. 04 2009
Last year, I earned $1,130 in dividends. I just received a note to that effect from my employer, Lee Enterprises Inc.
"This is important tax information and is being furnished to the Internal Revenue Service," the note said.
Well, fine. I consider that a warning, and an appropriate one. If I were inclined to cheat on my taxes, this is probably where I would do it. That's because I feel that my dividends are misleading.
Let me explain. Several years ago, Pulitzer Inc. began offering its employees a 15 percent discount on Pulitzer stock. I sought the advice of a friend, who said, "If somebody offers to sell you a dollar for 85 cents, buy it."
I did.
I'd accumulate a little bit of the stock, and then I'd sell it. When Lee Enterprises bought Pulitzer, it offered the same program and I enrolled. Sadly, the stock has not done well. It has gone from about $44 to about 35 cents. I have ridden it down. I began last year with about 1,100 shares of stock worth about $16,000. I ended the year with about 3,000 shares of stock worth about $1,000.In other words, I took a beating.
But while my stock was plummeting, it continued pumping out dividends, which, in my case, were automatically used to buy more stock. Although my investment went from $16,000 to $1,000, that represents a paper loss, and does not become a real loss in the eyes of the IRS until I sell.
But the dividends are real. I will have to pay taxes on them. Here is the question I have to ask myself: Would I pay taxes on that $1,130 if the IRS didn't know about it?
Timothy Geithner wouldn't.
He's the new secretary of the Treasury. He's in charge of the IRS. He was selected for that post, and confirmed to it, despite the fact that he cheated the IRS out of tens of thousands of dollars in payroll tax.
Before becoming the chief of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he worked for the International Monetary Fund, which did not withhold payroll taxes but compensated U.S. citizens who were then supposed to pay those taxes on their own. Geithner took the extra compensation but didn't pay the taxes.
The IRS audited him and forced him to pay the back taxes for 2003 and 2004. All right, he was caught and he paid. But he didn't go back and pay for 2001 and 2002, even though he clearly knew he owed for those years, too. So there is no doubt that he intentionally cheated the IRS.
Why then was he confirmed for the post? Because he's smart. That's what the senators said. Our financial system is a mess, and we need somebody smart to work on it. Think about that. Our new president and our senators did not believe they
could find somebody who is both smart and ethical.
That tells me two things. One, this country is in worse shape than I thought, and two, we have to forget this business about a tax collection system based on voluntary compliance. For voluntary compliance to work, people have to have faith that other people are paying what they're supposed to pay. If you have that faith, you haven't been paying attention.
On Tuesday, two people slated for big jobs in the administration had to withdraw because of tax problems. Former Sen. Tom Daschle was going to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Nancy Killefer was going to be the government's chief performance officer. Think about that for a minute. Chief performance officer.
Part of the problem is human nature. People tend to try to get away with things. Part of the problem is the fact that the tax code was set up to be gamed. It is thousands and thousands of pages long. It contains millions of words. Every few years, somebody talks about simplifying the tax code — "It's a disgrace to the human race!" said Jimmy Carter in 1976 — but there's a reason it's long. None of those words got in there by accident.
People wanted them in there.
Why do you think that is?
This would be a good time to reform the system. Never has it been so apparent that it's broken. We've put a tax cheat in charge of the IRS. That is the proverbial elephant in the room, isn't it? The first thing we ought to do is go to a simple flat tax. It could still be progressive. But no more deductions. Maybe just charities, but that
would be it.
A 10-page tax code. The truth is, you could write it over a weekend.
Get a few economists together, keep the politicians away, and presto. Here it
is. If you make this much, you pay this percentage. If you make that much, you
pay that percentage. Benefits count, too. No trying to finesse things. If
somebody gives you a car and driver, that counts as income. Of course it
does.
Naturally, corporations and other businesses would be required to report
all compensation to the government. Penalties would be severe if they didn't —
and it would be the corporate chiefs who would pay those penalties.
Such a system would make ordinary citizens feel better. I know the thing that has always bugged me is the suspicion that I pay everything I am supposed to pay while
richer people somehow avoid taxes. Now that's no longer just a suspicion.
Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and pay taxes on my misleading dividends. But
I'll think about Geithner while I pay, and it will hurt.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Martini Blogging

2009-02-04T12:05:00.004-06:00

The Washington Post opines on the age old question: How much vermouth to put in a martini?

Wednesday, February 4, 2009; Page F05

What is the proper ratio of gin to vermouth for a dry martini? That's about as subjective as life gets. First, understand that "dry" does not mean vermouth is absent altogether: It simply indicates the use of a dry vermouth rather than a sweet one.

[...]
What if the Fifty-Fifty isn't to your taste? Play around with different ratios. Robert Hess of DrinkBoy.com suggests sampling a cold glass of straight gin, then an 8-to-1 gin-to-vermouth ratio, then a 2-to-1 ratio and finally a cold glass of straight vermouth as a baseline. You'll be able to see which point along the spectrum best suits you.
Over time, for instance, I've learned that when I use Plymouth gin, I like either Noilly Prat or Dolin dry vermouth, but I use different ratios for each. With Plymouth and Noilly Prat, I go with 4 to 1. With Plymouth and Dolin, I go with 3 to 1. I use a dash of orange bitters in both cases.

Thanks, Bill, you have restored my faith in humanity.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:

This is the end...

2009-01-30T11:00:00.006-06:00

my only friend, the end...

Excellent column by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ today. I feared that she had gotten too smitten with Obama over the past few weeks (months?), but she demonstrates that Obama doesn't seem to "get" his own message, at least based on what's contained in the stimulus package.

Look at the Time
In Congress and the boardroom, failure to recognize a new era.
By PEGGY NOONAN

It looks like a win but feels like a loss.

The party-line vote in favor of the stimulus package could have been more, could have produced not only a more promising bill but marked the beginning of something new, not a postpartisan era (there will never be such a thing and never should be; the parties exist to fight through great political questions) but a more bipartisan one forced by crisis and marked by—well, let's call it seriousness.

President Obama could have made big history here. Instead he just got a win. It's a missed opportunity.

It's a win because of the obvious headline: Nine days after inauguration, the new president achieves a major Congressional victory, House passage of an economic stimulus bill by a vote of 244-188. It wasn't even close. This is major.

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

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

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

What was needed? Not pork, not payoffs, not eccentric base-pleasing, group-greasing forays into birth control as stimulus, as the speaker of the House dizzily put it before being told to remove it.

"Business as usual." "That's Washington." But in 2008 the public rejected business as usual. That rejection is part of what got Obama elected.
[...]
People are getting the mood of the age in their inboxes. How many emails have you received the past few months from acquaintances telling you in brisk words meant to communicate optimism and forestall pity that "it's been a great ride," but they're "moving on" to "explore new opportunities"? And there's a broad feeling one detects, a kind of psychic sense, some sort of knowledge in the collective unconscious, that we lived through magic times the past half-century, and now the nonmagic time has begun, and it won't be over next summer. That's not the way it will work. It will last a while.

There's a sense among many, certainly here in New York, that we somehow had it too good too long, a feeling part Puritan, part mystic and obscurely guilty, that some bill is coming due. Hard to get a stimulus package that addresses that. [...]

I think there is an illness called Goldmansachs Head. I think it's in the DSM. When you have Goldmansachs Head, the party's never over. [...] It is the delusion that the old days continue and the old ways prevail and you, Prince of the Abundance, can just keep rolling along. Here is how you know if someone has GSH: He has everything but a watch. He doesn't know what time it is.

I remember the father in the movie script of "Dr. Zhivago," inviting what's left of his family, huddled in rooms in what had been their mansion, picking up the stump of a stogie and inviting them to watch the lighting of "the last cigar in Moscow."

When you have GSH, you never think it's the last cigar.

But you don't have to be on Wall Street to have GSH. Congress has it too. That's what the stimulus bill was about—not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you're a slob.

That's how the Democratic establishment in the House looks, not like people who are responding to a crisis, or even like people who are ignoring a crisis, but people who are using a crisis. Our hopeful, compelling new president shouldn't have gone with this bill. He made news this week by going to the House to meet with Republicans. He could have made history by listening to them.
[...]

Meanwhile, Obama declares that Big Labor now has an open door to the White House and has appointed Joe "I'm a Joe Six-pack b/c I know of a restaurant that closed down 14 years ago and have visited a Home Depot" Biden to lead a task force on the middle class.... which will inevitably decide that the lack of unions is what's causing our middle class such problems.

Every economic decision made by the Bush Administratio, Congress, and Obama are exact replicas of decisions made by Hoover and FDR.

Increase financial uncertainty and eliminate the rules of the game? Check! (Thanks, W!)
Increase financial uncertainty about the future because the new administration's governing philosophy hasn't been truly uncovered, vetted, etc? Check!!
Ridiculous and ineffective demand-side stimulus in 2008? Check!!
Increase the power of labor unions to make starting and continuing a successful business enterprise an impossibility? Check!!!
Increase the amount of onerous regulation on businesses? CHECK!!!
Increase the price of energy so that businesses cannot afford to operate? CHECK!!!!!!
Signal to the financial community that future tax rates (already the highest in the world) will be higher in the future (and that it's patriotic to pay them - unless you're a politically connected future Treasury Secretary)? CHECK!!!
Pass a stimulus bill which provides neither stimulus nor fiscal discipline, but rather delivers on 40 years of unfulfilled dreams? CHECK!!!
Insert your political wishes into business decisions of companies that you are supposedly attempting to help? CHECK!!!
Call (and potentially enact) laws that are protectionist? Check!!!
Deflect any blame that can be laid on the government's (and politicians') involvement onto the backs of businesses and general greed? CHECK!!!!!
Begin the process of blaming any future contraction on the previous administration? CHECK!!!!!

My only solace is that John McCain would be only marginally better in a similar situation.

And that's no solace at all.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Non-stimulating "Stimulus"

2009-01-28T07:06:00.003-06:00

Pretty good post by Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic on the stimulus package. I'll interrupt with my comments throughout.

Jan 27 2009, 3:30 pm by Megan McArdle
Good. Fast. Expensive. Pick Two.
[...]
But in the context of stimulus, eighteen months is a long damn time. Eighteen months is, in fact, about how long it takes a stimulus to work through the system. If for no other reason, that ought to be a little worrisome for progressives because that means the stimulus won't have even 2/3 of its full effect until after midterms.

18 months in the 21st century might accurately be compared to 5-10 years in previous decades. The pace of business (and of the decisions that are made) has significantly increased over the years thanks to technological innovations. Even if federal government spending on condoms, sod for the national mall, etc were truly stimulating, the stimulus won't come in time to change anything in the economy.

It is simply not "even truer" that conservative intransigence is causing worse delays than the focus on spending the money on massive new projects. It's not even as true. It's not true at all. No matter how you assess the relative benefits of spending to tax cuts, tax cuts could be 95% out the door in April. So could many other kinds of rapid government spending--preventing fare cuts on transit systems, sure, but also repainting all the faded yellow lines on highways, or repairing park benches, redecorating government offices, etc.

Not sure of the stimulative effects of repairing park benches (what's the "multiplier effect" there???), but it is true that tax cuts would have an immediate stimulative effect.

And why is it that Dems previously framed tax cuts as "spending," yet when they call for stimulus spending, they forget this framing?

And the benefit of cutting taxes at all income levels? In addition to being quick, it's intelligent. 300 million individuals making individual decisions in the aggregate will be more efficiently spent than spending decisions made by 100 bureaucrats. (Could you make effective decisions on how to wisely spend $10,000,000,000 that had been assigned to you?)

Why does speed matter so much? Because the primary argument for fiscal stimulus right now is not that we need to alleviate the pain of a temporary economic contraction--that's what things like beefier unemployment insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance are for (the first and the last are very good ideas, by the way.) The argument is that we're in danger of a liquidity trap--that we could end up at a permanently lower level of output, as described by Keynes and popularized by Paul Krugman in the story of the Capitol Hill Baby Sitting Collective. (Though it's worth noting that the ultimate solution was to double the money supply...)
[...]
The basic idea is that if everyone is afraid to spend money because they might be laid off, and sits at home in the dark, all the people who made money selling the things they used to buy will get laid off--and so will they, because they're part of "everyone". The government basically shocks us into a higher level of output by spending the money we're afraid to.

And this is the Catch-22 we're facing. No one is willing to spend because of the implied risk of the economy and their personal economic future. The driving factors for this uncertaintly are numerious, but here are a few of the main issues:

New Obama administration which answered very few questions during the campaign, resulting in very few people understanding the man's core principles and how he'll lead the agenda.
The Democratic congress, which has very few guard rails from keeping it from implementing its most radical, anti-capitalist agenda.
The lack of free market proponents in either party, but especially the GOP. The fact that McCain was the nominee of the GOP - and would likely have a similar approach to "finding a solution" - does not increase people's confidence in our economic future.
The uncertainty infused by the Bush Administration and Hank Paulson - the first stimulus and the actions by the Feds in the fall of 2008 had disastrous long-term effects on the market, although they may have avoided severe pain in the short-term. Right now, no one knows what the rules of the game are (and the only thing I know is that I am not too big to fail).

Sorry... back to Megan

Though you wouldn't think it from the really quite shocking incivility emanating from the pro-stimulus side, the empirical evidence that this works in a large industrial economy like ours is basically nonexistant. The problem is, we have very, very few examples to test on: America during the Great Depression, and Japan in the 1990s. And neither America nor Japan managed to stimulate their way out of their troubles. You can argue--and many do--that this is because we, and they, didn't stimulate enough.

e.g. Paul "Krazy Eyes" Krugman)

That may be true. But unless you can forward test your theory, it's a just so story. . . as we just painfully found out about the "It was all the Fed's fault" narrative of the 1930s banking collapse. There is no excuse for calling people who question your highly theoretical model fools and charlatans.

I would point out to Megan here that we do have empirical evidence that shows the stimulative effects of tax cuts, both historical and recent.

What we've got, since Japan really never did emerge from its lost decade, is basically one fact: America entered World War II in a depression, and emerged from World War II without one. Hopefully, the relevant variable was the massive, massive amount of spending, rather than any of the other explanations one can plausibly build about the effect of Total War on depressions--like the slaughter of some of your excess labor force, or the substitution of more immediate fears of being killed for panic about the financial future.
[...]
So if we're going to do stimulus, judging from our not-very-good best example, what we want to do is pack a massive wallop as quickly as possible, to shock those "animal spirits" back into a more normal economic rhythm. I am skeptical that this will work even if tried, for reasons I have outlined elsewhere. But if we are going to try it, we should be focusing less on the Democratic wish list and more on figuring out where money can be most quickly and effectively spent.

Unfortunately for this country, the Dems in Congress don't really understand economics, capitalism, free markets, or American entrepreneurship.

All they know is how to win in the game of political influence.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

New "Special Interests" Set Up Shop

2009-01-25T06:48:00.004-06:00

I thought that the Obamessiah & the Democrats were going to get rid of special interests!

Google ready to pursue its agenda in Washington

Its employees supported Obama and four Googlers served on his transition team. Now the Internet giant hopes to win support for so-called network neutrality and expanding high-speed Internet access.
By Jim Puzzanghera and Jessica Guynn

6:18 PM PST, January 23, 2009

Reporting from Washington — Another inauguration took place in Washington this week -- Google Inc. officially became a political power player.

In October, Google was only hours from being sued by the Justice Department as a Web-search monopolist. Today, less than three years after it made its first Washington hire, the Internet giant is poised to capitalize on its backing of President Obama and pursue its agenda in the nation's capital.

Google's executives and employees overwhelmingly supported Obama's candidacy, contributing more money than all but three companies or universities. And only DreamWorks employees gave more toward inauguration festivities.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama and was one of four Googlers on his transition team. He is now as likely as any corporate chieftain to get his calls to the White House returned.

At the top of the company's policy priorities are two that consumer advocates largely champion. First, it wants to expand high-speed Internet access so people can use its Web services more often. It also is pushing for so-called network neutrality: prohibitions on telecommunications companies charging websites for faster delivery of their content.

"Google is not just a benign corporate entity. It has a variety of special interests," said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who has sparred with Google over data-privacy issues. "They're in a great position to push their agenda through with the support of the president and the Democrats in Congress."

But Google's newfound political ties heighten concerns about its grip on the online advertising market. The company could play better defense against strong competitors trying to curb its influence.

Last fall, Justice Department lawyers, who had been lobbied heavily by Microsoft Corp. and large telecommunications companies, were about to sue Google on antitrust grounds. They wanted to block its controversial search-advertising partnership with Yahoo Inc., but Google abandoned the deal rather than fight in court.

Competitors worry about Google's close relationship with the Obama administration, said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

"The question going forward is: Will Google turn into just another business entity looking for favors in Washington, or will it manage to keep the 767 flying at 30,000 feet above the political din?" he said, a playful reference to the Google founders' private plane.
[...]

As I've said numerous times, the negative connotation of "special interest" should not be assigned to private enterprises (individually or groups of people in business together) that are seeking them, but rather on the government officials who continuously seek to increase their power so they can have this very influence over individuals (or groups of people in business together).

The amount of money spent lobbying our government is not an indication of the power of businesses, but the government. And, for many companies, their lobbying representatives in D.C. and state capitols around the country are in some cases more strategic to their future than their R&D and business development organizations.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Geithner and the US Treasury

2009-01-21T14:10:00.005-06:00

I read this article in the WSJ and laughed out loud:

JANUARY 21, 2009, 2:44 P.M. ET
Geithner Apologizes Over Taxes
Treasury Nominee Supports Bold Government Action to Stimulate Economy
By BRIAN BLACKSTONE and MARTIN VAUGHAN

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner apologized Wednesday to members of the Senate Finance Committee for tax errors he committed earlier this decade that came to light during his nomination process.

"These were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes, but they were unintentional," Mr. Geithner said. "I should have been more careful."

"I want to apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues, when there are so many pressing issues facing the economy," he added.

Under questioning from lawmakers, Mr. Geithner said he initially failed to remit payroll taxes for his income from the International Monetary Fund in 2001, when he changed jobs twice during the year. That means Mr. Geithner had three sources of income: from the Treasury Department, from the Council on Foreign Relations, and from the IMF.

"When I made that initial mistake, and I failed to correct it initially, I repeated it, even when a tax preparer prepared my returns," Mr. Geithner said.

He said he used Intuit Inc.'s TurboTax program to prepare his return in 2001, and said he didn't recall the software prompting him for payroll taxes owed on his IMF income. But Mr. Geithner said the mistakes were his own, not the fault of the software.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the committee's ranking Republican, called the errors "deeply problematic," and said they could have been corrected with "minor due diligence." In particular, he criticized Mr. Geithner for failing to amend his 2001 and 2002 returns, when an Internal Revenue Service audit uncovered the failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on his 2003 and 2004 IMF income. IRS didn't demand payment for the earlier years because they were outside the three-year statute of limitations.

"The person ultimately responsible for tax policy must be credible on issues of tax reform and compliance," said Sen. Grassley.

Two things:

He failed to pay taxes which he was compensated to pay... this isn't some guy who forgot to send in a check. This is a guy who forgot to send in a check that he had been paid to write.
Instead of apologizing to the Committee, he should be apologizing to the American people. He's a tax cheat and is seeking the very office responsible for investigating tax cheats.
Nothing instills confidence in the financial system more than someone who is too stupid to pay his taxes correctly. And Geithner is in a Catch-22 here. If he claims that he made a stupid mistake, then why would we let him run the US Treasury? If he's intelligent, then he must be a tax cheat who's willing to skirt the law - and commit perjury at the same time.

I just don't understand why the idiots in the Senate think that Geithner is our only savior in this economic crisis. There are plenty of qualified individuals... Sure, they're probably not in Obama's circle of comrades, but why must we turn a blind eye to such a ridiculous case of stupidity or outright tax fraud?

If Bush had nominated Geithner (with this same economic situation), he would not be confirmed.

*** UPDATE ***
It would seem that I am not the only one who's concerned about Tim Geithner.

[....]
Congress is "all in a panic" and "really clueless" about this all-important member of Obama's cabinet, says Christopher Whalen, managing director and co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics. "I'm just not sure Tim Geithner is the guy we should have driving the bus."

Beyond his tax gaffe, which will mainly serve to politically weaken Obama's pick, Whalen says Geithner is the wrong many for the job because of his decision-making as President of the New York Fed.

"I believe Tim Geithner only represents part of Wall Street - Goldman Sachs," he says, suggesting Goldman was the "primary beneficiary of the AIG bailout" and notes Goldman alum Stephen Friedman serves on the board of the NY Fed. (Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin, with whom Geithner had frequent meetings in the past year, are also Goldman alum.)

Whalen further questions the inconsistency of the Fed's decision to rescue Bear Stearns - in the end, their debt and shareholders got something - while letting Lehman Brothers "go to hell."

In the end, Whalen says he'll fully support Geithner if and when he's confirmed: "We have to be successful," he says. "This is not about personality."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Goodbye George W. Bush - Good and Faithful Servant

2009-01-20T11:51:00.003-06:00

This day can not pass without heartfelt thanks to former President George W. Bush for keeping us safe these last eight years.

You are a good man "W," and I for one will miss you.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Call Me Naive, but President Obama Strikes Me as a Thoroughly Decent Person - Decent but Wrong

2009-01-19T11:48:00.004-06:00

Ever since Obama emerged from the pack in Iowa last year, I have liked the man. He has qualities that cannot, in my opinion, be faked. If he is faking those qualities, he is the most amazing actor I have ever seen. He has none of the transparent slickness of the odious Bill Clinton. He is real much like Reagan was real. I do not think we are going to see huge character flaws emerge in this man.

A friend of mine, a severely "progressive" Democrat, says of Obama that he is "all sizzle and no steak." Given Obama's talent for saying nothing wonderfully, my friend has a point. I think the reason for that is that Obama is still feeling his way through what should be done and what can be done to deal with some real problems the country is facing.

And that brings me to my second point, that though he is a decent man, the general outline of his plans for his administration are wrong, not bad or evil, just wrong. They could even be dangerously wrong. Placating our enemies sounds good if it would work, but I do not think it will. Spending trillions of dollars that we do not have to pull the economy out the tank sounds good but will likely only prolong the problems we face in delaying inevitable market corrections and leave us with a totally debased dollar. That and more give me pause for serious concern.

No, Obama is not a sleezoid like Reid, Pelosi or the race hucksters descrcibed in Desert Rat's column cross-posted below. But his New Deal / Appeasement attitudes and plans are wrong for this country, wrong for the world and wrong for all our futures, dangerously wrong. He has the votes in Congress for the most part. He is going to get his way.

So while I hope he is right, and will pray for his success, I am not holding my breath for signs of positive results.

And if, and likely when, he fails, we will be ready to do what is necessary to get on the right track

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

The Dream Betrayed

2009-01-18T21:16:00.001-06:00

I am cross-posting this from my old friend Desert Rat's Blog, Right Face.

Not only is it well written, it is right on point.

I’m old enough that I remember Martin Luther King. I read about him in the newspapers. I saw him on television. I heard his “Dream” speech. I wept when he was murdered.
I have no patience for those who claim that America is just as racist as it was in years gone by. I remember those days. I remember federal troops in Little Rock. I remember Gov. George Wallace blocking the school door. I remember Sheriff “Bull” Conner and the fire hoses being turned on marchers in Birmingham. I remember the Freedom Riders. I remember separate drinking fountains and “white only” signs. I remember the fear. I remember the hate.

But mostly, I remember the sound of a Georgia preacher’s voice calling out. I remember him calling out, not just to his followers, but to his enemies as well. He told us that we were better men and women and that hate and fear shouldn’t divide us. He reminded is that we were all one people, regardless of skin color or religion. He didn’t defeat his enemies; he converted them.

That voice was heard. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act became the law of the land with the support of more than 80% of the Republicans in Congress and slightly more than 60% of the Democrats (among those opposing the measure were Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore’s late father who was a senator from Tennessee).

Those were heady days. Then the dream started to sour. Government programs aimed at aiding African Americans ended up causing mortal harm. The welfare structure effectively destroyed the black family. Other programs, such as affirmative action, conveyed the message to both African Americans and others that blacks were incapable of competing. Some claimed it was needed to fight vestiges of racism against minorities, while completely ignoring the success of Asian Americans, some of whom in modern times faced incarceration solely based on their ethnicity.

Whatever the intent, the effect was to make African Americans dependent upon government largess and intervention rather than encouraging their own genius.

What was perhaps even worse were Dr. King’s successors. They stood in the footsteps of a giant and were found wanting. His inheritors stood at the threshold of greatness … and stepped back.

Instead of following Dr. King’s message of inclusion, they preached a message of separation and divisiveness. Instead of finding strength in self and family, they found dependence upon the government.

Some of their leaders, specifically Jessie Jackson, Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton, have preached a strong message of anti-Semitism. Many leaders have refused to denounce or even distance themselves from such vile demagogues as Louis Farrakhan.

As a nation, we honor Martin Luther King. His spirit soars in the heavens with angels, while many of his successors slither in the mud with an entirely different creature.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Deficit Spending as Stimulus

2009-01-14T13:38:00.006-06:00

As Philip I. Levy points out in the Wall Street Journal today, if deficit spending is supposed to stimulate the economy, we're already awash in "stimulus."

An 8.3% Deficit Is Plenty of Stimulus
By PHILIP I. LEVY

Hey everybody, I found the stimulus. And we're in luck -- it requires no additional action on Congress's part. It's already in the works.

The Congressional Budget Office projected last week that even without a stimulus package, the federal budget deficit will hit $1.2 trillion this year. That's 8.3% of gross domestic product. Followers of the late John Maynard Keynes should be thrilled. Such a gap between government spending and taxes was just what he prescribed to stimulate a slumping economy.

And yet the stimulus enthusiasts seem unsatisfied. President-elect Barack Obama argues that this level of stimulus would leave us with shattered dreams and long-lasting torpor. Our only chance is to adopt his plan of $800 billion in additional stimulus spending over the next two years. So $1.2 trillion in deficit spending leaves us in despair, but $1.6 trillion in deficit spending brings prosperity.

The basis for this reasoning is unclear. Keynesian macroeconomics argues for deficit spending. We've got lots of that. We also know there are costs to overdoing it. Ultimately, government borrowing must be paid back. And if government borrowing is excessive, at some point we will have some combination of inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. The danger now of excessive borrowing is exacerbated by the impending retirement of the baby boomers and the resulting strain on public finances.

So how does Mr. Obama come to the conclusion that we need more stimulus spending now?

Perhaps he's shooting for shock and awe. The current deficit estimate was somewhat predictable with falling tax revenues and rising spending. Therefore, the thinking goes, to fix the economy we need a policy that moves us beyond the bounds of the ordinary.

But even if that were true, an 8.3% federal budget deficit ought to do it. The previous post-war record was 6%, set in 1983. And what's more, the idea that pushing surprising policies is the best way to kick-start the economy is itself flawed. As we learned in the 1970s, people base their economic actions on beliefs about the future. Attempting to game those expectations about the future with policy surprises is usually fruitless.

As I've discussed with friends and family, the real problem with the economy is that most people have no clue what the future brings in terms of government policy. Because of the shoddy reporting during the 2008 campaign, few have any idea whether Obama is a centrist or an unreconstructed socialist.

No one knows whether they will be hit with increased taxes (either themselves personally or their employer), meaning that each person's economic future is uncertain. And in times of uncertainty, the safe thing to do is prepare for the worst.

So, no new car purchases.... less spending during the holidays.... less nights out at the restaurant...

Bush's final year in office and Obama's incoming administration have done nothing but exacerbate the problem.

Inevitably, bold government actions introduce greater uncertainty into an already uncertain marketplace. We have seen the malign effects of this with our latest experiment in urgent, dramatic action, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of last fall.

Consider the perspective of someone contemplating an investment in a beaten-down U.S. bank. Is that investment a good idea? Yes, if the government is going to take the troubled assets off your hands; no, if the government is going to demand a dilutive equity stake and impose onerous conditions.

Our government announced one plan and implemented the other. When it added this uncertainty to the unpredictability of the broader economic environment, it was hardly a recipe for encouraging private activity. An $800 billion tax-and-spending package would likely rework incentives in many parts of the economy.

[...]

Despite all the recent cries of "Shovels at the ready!" it is very difficult to agree on and disburse emergency spending quickly and effectively. Fiscal stimulus is among the weakest tools available to counteract a contraction. Japan's failed attempt to spend itself out of recession in the 1990s and the U.S.'s futile stimulus of last year underscore the point.

None of this is to dispute the gravity of the present economic situation. But the nation's long-term fiscal challenges are grave as well. No one is arguing for a return to the 1930s, with proposals for balanced budgets and tight money in the face of depression. The argument is over the magnitude of the stimulus. We have an unprecedented deficit already in the works. How far beyond unprecedented do we need to go?

Mr. Levy is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

As I was watching The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson on PBS last night (enjoying some of what is bound to be the last expensive bottle of scotch), I remarked to my wife how the tailspin is almost impossible for us to get out of - and that the Obama administration is just the wrong medicine at this time. I also remarked that John McCain - and many of the other republican candidates - would be just as disastrous for the economy.

She asked what I would do if I were in Obama's situation.... I'll provide my 10 (20?) point plan in an update, so check back later. (I have to run to a meeting!!!!)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

We're Doomed - Panetta at CIA

2009-01-05T15:44:00.004-06:00

Barry Obamessiah has apparently selected Leon "Monica Worked For Me" Panetta as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

January 5, 2009, 2:30 pm

Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director
By Carl Hulse AND Mark Mazzetti

President-elect Barack Obama has selected Leon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign for using interrogation methods he decried as torture, Democratic officials said Monday.

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

And there certainly weren't any issues before the 9/11 attacks.... the CIA was always on top of its game, what with being surprised by how far advanced Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs had advanced after the first gulf war.

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

"Unusual choice" is an apt desription; I would prefer "ridiculous choice," but I don't write for the Times.

This paragraph provides two other relevent points:

The CIA doesn't like folks who aren't familiar with the CIA...
Obama had to make this ridiculous selection because of the box he & the Democrats painted themselves in over FISA, etc. It's good to know that the next terrorist attack will likely be successful because Obama wanted to placate the moonbats in his political base instead of selecting someone who knew what they were doing.

It all comes down to placating the moonbats.

Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Obama: I really like this guy Brennan... he knows his stuff. He won't disappoint me and will keep up the fight against terrorist networks. Let's go with him.

Adviser: Umm, Mr. President? San Franciscans under the age of 75 and the Film Actors Guild think that anyone who's even thought about detaining or interrogating terrorists is unqualified to be your CIA Director...

It's unfortunate, but they really swooned for that Hope & Change stuff.

Obama: Yeah, good point. Hope & Change.... Hope & Change... What's Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff ....ummm, what's his name? Leon... Leon Panetta! What's he doing?

Adviser: Isn't he starting up some half-baked, "non-partisan" institute?

Obama: Get him on the phone... I think we found our CIA Director, people!!!

Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

Obama Adviser: But sir!!! We can't pick someone with actual intelligence experience!!! They've got to bring absolutely nothing to the table in regards to intelligence. It's what the 20-45 demo in Chicago & New York are demanding!!!

Obama: But Jane Harman is qualified, damnit!!!

Obama Adviser: Mr. President-elect... she supported the FISA program. I don't have to remind you what Markos will say if he were nominated.

Obama: All of the democratic leadership supported FISA, detentions at Guantanamo, and terrorist interrogations!!!! How in the hell am I supposed to staff a administration when I can't pick the most qualified people?!?

Obama Adviser: Sir, we do have the media to provide cover.

Obama: fine, let's go with Panetta. He gives good interview.

In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills, his strong bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House and his service on the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that examined the war and made recommendations on United States policy. The officials noted that he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.

This will be great... nothing the field agents like more than having some accountant who tried to slash their budget leading them!

And how are those Iraq Study Group recommendations going? That was such a huge success!!! Although it's difficult to say, since Bush decided to go with the Surge instead of begging the Iranians to play nice.

It's really sad... I just hope this won't end up in yet another CIA embarrassment when there's a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Aristocracy of Pull Is Here To Stay

2009-01-02T08:41:00.005-06:00

This article in the Times points to the coming Aristrocracy of Pull. (H/T to Tyler Cowen @ Marginal Revolution)

December 29, 2008
Veterans of ’90s Bailout Hope for Profit in New One
By ERIC LIPTON and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON — A tight-knit group of former senior government officials who were central players in the savings and loan bailout of the 1990s are seeking to capitalize on the latest economic meltdown, enjoying a surge in new business in their work now as private lawyers, investors and lobbyists.

With $700 billion in bailout money up for grabs, and billions of dollars worth of bad debt or failed bank assets most likely headed for sale or auction, these former officials are helping their clients get a piece of the bailout money or the chance to buy, at fire-sale prices, some of the bank assets taken over by the federal government.

“It is a good time to be me,” said John L. Douglas, a partner in Atlanta at the law firm Paul Hastings and a former lawyer for bank regulators who helped create the agency that administered the last federal bailout, the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Some of these former federal officials, like L. William Seidman, the first chairman of the R.T.C., are serving as advisers — sharing ideas with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama — even while they are separately directing investors or banks on how to best profit from this advice.

“It is an enormous market,” said Mr. Seidman, who has already joined two such potential money-making efforts and is evaluating proposals to participate in a third. “I am enjoying this.”
[...]
What is obvious to former R.T.C. officials is that, like the last go around, a great deal of money will be made by a select group of investors and business operators, particularly those with government contacts. The former government officials said in interviews that much of what is motivating them is a desire to help the nation recover from this latest stumble. But they acknowledge they intend to be among the winners who emerge.

“Fortunes will be made here, no doubt about it,” said Gary J. Silversmith, one of more than a dozen former R.T.C. officials interviewed who now are involved in enterprises seeking to profit from bank bailouts.

The busiest money-making arena so far for these R.T.C. alumni is in helping distressed banks line up cash infusions from the Treasury, as they seek a piece of the bailout.

Robert L. Clarke, controller of the currency under the first President Bush and a former Resolution Trust board member, has been advising banks throughout the South on how to get their share of the bailout money.

“I have been absolutely inundated,” said Mr. Clarke, who now works at Bracewell & Giuliani, the law firm based in Houston affiliated with the former New York mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Clarke’s labor on behalf of his clients has included calling federal regulators to urge them to reconsider plans to reject applications for federal bailout money. He would not identify the banks, saying it might undermine public confidence in them.

But Mr. Clarke said his intervention, in at least some cases, has been successful.

Eugene Ludwig, the comptroller of the currency under President Bill Clinton during the final stages of the savings-and-loan cleanup, runs Promontory Financial Group, a banking consultant group whose clients include struggling banks.

“I must get an e-mail a day from people who I worked with back then about what to do about the current mess,” Mr. Ludwig said. “It is not so much capitalizing on it as really just, how do we contain the flames?”

Many of the former federal officials like Mr. Ludwig have stayed in the field, working as lawyers or contractors who buy up and resell seized bank properties. What is remarkable now is just how busy they are.

“It is a great time to be a banking lawyer,” said Thomas P. Vartanian, a partner in the Washington office of Fried Frank, who is the former general counsel to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which led a bank bailout effort in the 1980s.
[...]
Although the financial meltdown is a disaster for the country, Mr. Oros said, “the opportunity going forward is unprecedented. It is fantastic. It is as if I had been training for this for the last 40 years of my career.”

The biggest profits will most likely be made, the former federal bank officials agreed, by those who figure out a way to benefit from what could turn into one of the greatest fire sales of bad debt and bank assets in American history.
[...]
The question right now is just how this unloading of bad debt will take place.

So far, the federal government is relying on financial institutions to find a way on their own to sell off bad debts or assets they end up with as a result of foreclosures. But some financial industry players are arguing that a modern-day R.T.C. should be established, to help set prices for this bad debt, and speed the move toward a recovery.

The R.T.C. alumni are prepared to profit through either route.

If only the human capital and effort that is now being focused on getting their piece of federal tax dollars would be directed into productive efforts...

I know, it's utopian to even think of such a thing, but when your attorneys, lobbyists, and political connections become more of a strategic asset to your enterprise than the actual productive assets, we have lost our way.

We truly are in the Age of Pull and all I want to know is where is Galt's Gulch.

Looking back, Bush failed to stem the tide on this effect and with his actions on the Credit Crunch, he has only exacerbated the problem.

I have little confidence that Obama, product of the Chicago political machine, will be any improvement.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Presidential Bubble

2008-12-31T08:36:00.003-06:00

I read this post on how Obama is starting to dislike the bubble that is being established around him and found this paragraph to be very funny:

All presidents suffer culture shock when the office's lack of person freedom hits home. There's a reason that Bill Clinton whined that the White House was "the jewel of the federal prison system." Not being able to sneeze, jog, or choke on a pretzel without its being documented for historical purposes takes a toll on a body.

Yes, that's why Clinton wasn't fond of all the secret service guys around him - he didn't have enough privacy to sneeze, jog, or choke on a pretzel.

I think there were other activities that Clinton had on his mind when he complained about the lack of "alone" time.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Home prices

2008-12-30T10:57:00.004-06:00

Glenn at Instapundit had the following yesterday:

HOUSE PRICES: Still too high? I think so, and I’m surprised at how unrealistic sellers still seem to be. I’m seeing people put houses on the market for 10-15% more than they paid two years ago, when those houses are probably worth 10-15% less. Or worse.

UPDATE: Reader Bob Molyneux writes:

Amen.

My wife and I are in the market for a house in the Duluth, Georgia area and we have seen a ton. So many are junked up–don’t you folks know what a garbage bag is? Are banks really that uninterested in selling foreclosed houses that they make it almost impossible? I don’t know about a buyers’ market but our credit rating is great and our current locked in interest rate is 4.97%, we have money in the bank, and this will be an oldie but goody: a “conventional” loan. Maybe we are picky but I would guess that you are right that the better houses are 10-20% high. The bad houses are 90% high.

Yeah, I think people are still in denial. Don’t know why the bankers aren’t better about prepping these houses for sale.

I don't have any personal knowledge of the business decisions that go on inside banks on these foreclosed properties, but from my experience with other businesses (especially "big" businesses), it seems to me that there's just no process at the bank to do the prep work.

The only person at the bank that actually looked at the house is most definitely someone with no authority at the bank (how many bank CEO's are doing property tours of their run-down assets?) So whoever actually looks at the dilapidated properties would have to convince someone at the bank to fork over money to sell an asset for which they have already lost money. That money would have to be accounted for at some point, and it would be entirely subjective. So there's no reward for the individuals in the bank to clean up the property.

There used to be a market for this sort of thing - speculators would buy up foreclosed properties, "flip them" and sell for a profit. But with the housing downturn, nobody wants to buy anything, and in addition, speculators can't get loans to do it.

So the buyer in Glenn's post is going to see a lot of really crappy, overvalued homes while looking. If he can get past the garbage and look at the house from a non-cosmetic standpoint, he might stand to make a heck of a deal in this market.

I agree with his consensus that prices are too high. People are in denial right now. Soon they will be moving to the anger side. That's when the federal government will be pressured to "step in". My only worry is that someone is going to make the case that vast swaths of housing will need to be bulldozed to drive down prices, in line with the fallacious "broken window" theory of economics.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Cohen - Bursting Bush's Bubble from Inside His Own

2008-12-30T09:57:00.005-06:00

Richard Cohen has this column today on Bush's reading list:

Reading Into Bush's Book List
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, December 30, 2008; Page A15

In what without a doubt is the most astounding op-ed piece of the year, Karl Rove reveals that his friend and former boss, George W. Bush, has read probably hundreds of books over the course of his presidency. One of them was Albert Camus' "The Stranger," with its unforgettable opening lines: "Mother died today. Or perhaps it was yesterday, I don't know." After reading Rove's Wall Street Journal column, it's clear there's much we all don't know.
[...]
In his column, Rove says that Bush read 95 books in 2006 alone. In 2007, he read 51 books and as of last week, he had read 40 in 2008. The numbers are precise because Bush challenged Rove to a contest: who could read the most books. Rove always won, but Bush had the ready excuse that he was, as he put it, busy being "Leader of the Free World." This, though, is not an excuse. As Dwight Eisenhower once told me (I'm not making this up), he had more time as president to dabble in painting than he did in retirement. Such is the virtue of The Bubble.
[...]
Still, the fact remains that Bush is a prodigious, industrial reader, and this does not conform at all to his critics' idea of who he is. They [ed. meaning Richard Cohen] would prefer seeing him as a dolt, since that, as opposed to policy or ideological differences, is a briefer, more bloggish explanation of what went wrong. Still, in fairness to these critics (see Rove above), Bush himself has encouraged this approach. Aw shucks is an infuriating defense of a policy.
[...]
It is awfully late in the day for Rove -- and, presumably, Bush -- to assert the president's intellectual bona fides. Now feeling the hot breath of history, they are dropping the good ol' boy persona and picking up the ol' bifocals one. But the books themselves reveal -- actually, confirm -- something about Bush that maybe Rove did not intend. They are not the reading of a widely read man, but instead the books of a man who seeks -- and sees -- vindication in every page. Bush has always been the captive of fixed ideas. His books just support that.

The list Rove provides is long, but it is narrow. It lacks whole shelves of books on how and why the Iraq war was a mistake, one that metastasized into a debacle. Absent is Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," Tom Ricks's "Fiasco," George Packer's "The Assassins' Gate" or, on a related topic, Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" about "extraordinary rendition" and other riffs on the Constitution. Absent too is Barton Gellman's "Angler," about Dick Cheney, the waterboarder in chief.
[...]
My hat is off to Bush for the sheer volume and, often, high quality of his reading. But his books reflect a man who is seeking to learn what he already knows. The caricature of Bush as unread died today -- or was it yesterday? But the reality of the intellectually insulated man endures.

Prof Matthew Franck has an excellent retort at NRO and I sent the following email to Richard Cohen myself.

Hi, Richard - Enjoyed your column ("Reading Into Bush's Book List," Tuesday, December 30, 2008; Page A15), although I think it's ridiculous for you to suggest that the arguments put forth in any of the books you recommended weren't considered by Bush, either through his own analysis or through the analysis of those in his administration.

One question: Can you share your reading list for 2008? I suspect that it would consist of fewer books than the President and at the same time be just as "narrow." I have no doubt that most of the books on your reading list for 2008 only reinforce your worldview and that you are just as captive to your fixed ideas.

I am not a cheerleader for George W. Bush, but anyone can see the bubble you're trapped inside by simply reading each of your columns.

Regards & Happy New Year!

The fact that Richard Cohen is surprised that Bush reads - books and everything!!! - is just amazing.

The oft-cited ridicule about the President being incurious because he does not read the New York Times every day is similarly amazing.

If the President is reading the New York Times to inform himself about the events in the world, than we have some serious problems.

If the left thinks that not reading the predictable opinions and columns in the New York Times and opting instead for the multitude of information sources available to him (both inside and outside of his administration) makes Bush incurious and unintellectual, I would counter that it is they who are insulated and unintellectual.

*** UPDATE ***
It would seem that others in the blogosphere had a similar reaction to Cohen's column.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Krugman: Barry Be Good

2008-12-26T13:50:00.004-06:00

This column by Paul "Please Give Me A Position" Krugman is just laughable:

December 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Barack Be Good
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Times have changed. In 1996, President Bill Clinton, under siege from the right, declared that “the era of big government is over.” But President-elect Barack Obama, riding a wave of revulsion over what conservatism has wrought, has said that he wants to “make government cool again.”

Clinton was under siege because, well... the GOP took Congress in 1994 and held it in 1996, despite Clinton being re-elected - meaning that he had no coattails.

So, according to Paul, the voice of the people equates to a president being "under seige."

And he forgets to mention that the "era of big government" statement was simply a clintonian lie - unless you were part of the armed forces, since those were the only folks who got pink slips from the Feds.

Before Mr. Obama can make government cool, however, he has to make it good. Indeed, he has to be a goo-goo.

Goo-goo, in case you’re wondering, is a century-old term for “good government” types, reformers opposed to corruption and patronage. Franklin Roosevelt was a goo-goo extraordinaire. He simultaneously made government much bigger and much cleaner. Mr. Obama needs to do the same thing.

Yes, it really is a shame that the government has gotten so much smaller since FDR.

While Paul would want to give readers the impression that government spending hasn't grown since FDR, the facts paint a different picture. I gathered data from the Office of Management & Budget on the Federal Budget from 1930 to 2003 and put this nifty chart together (click the image to see the full-size version):

As a percentage of GDP, the Federal Government receipts have increased from approximately 5% in the 1930s to an average of 20% today. (The huge red spike in outlays corresponds with World War II.) Also note the meteoric rise in GDP and how the % of GDP that goes to government is relatively flat... that means that the federal budget is growing just as rapidly.

Back to the dork with the Nobel Prize.

Needless to say, the Bush administration offers a spectacular example of non-goo-gooism. But the Bushies didn’t have to worry about governing well and honestly. Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can’t do anything right.

Bush spent like crazy... he expanded the number of healthcare clinics.. he nearly doubled the federal budget from 1996.

Yeah.. he was a hard-core conservative, cutting government waste wherever he saw it.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, will find itself in a position very much like that facing the New Deal in the 1930s.

Like the New Deal, the incoming administration must greatly expand the role of government to rescue an ailing economy. But also like the New Deal, the Obama team faces political opponents who will seize on any signs of corruption or abuse — or invent them, if necessary — in an attempt to discredit the administration’s program.

Yeah, if there are any signs of corruption or abuse, it's just because the opponents are so nitpicky. It will have nothing to do with the fact that it is actual corruption - the very type of corruption for which Chicago pols are famous.

[...]
How did F.D.R. manage to make big government so clean?

A large part of the answer is that oversight was built into New Deal programs from the beginning. The Works Progress Administration, in particular, had a powerful, independent “division of progress investigation” devoted to investigating complaints of fraud. This division was so diligent that in 1940, when a Congressional subcommittee investigated the W.P.A., it couldn’t find a single serious irregularity that the division had missed.

F.D.R. also made sure that Congress didn’t stuff stimulus legislation with pork: there were no earmarks in the legislation that provided funding for the W.P.A. and other emergency measures.

Memo to Dr. Paul Krugman, in bold, large type:
The New Deal was not stuffed with pork because the entire thing was pork!!!

You can't stuff pork with more pork!

However, now that I think of it... a pork tenderloin stuffed with bacon does sound scrum-diddly-icious.

*Homer Simpson voice* mmmmm.... pork & bacon.... aaaarrrrggghhhh

Question: What is the difference between the Robert C. Byrd Lock & Dam and the various projects made by the WPA?

Answer: Nothing - it is all pork.

Perhaps it takes a PhD to lose any common sense.

Last but not least, F.D.R. built an emotional bond with working Americans, which helped carry his administration through the inevitable setbacks and failures that beset its attempts to fix the economy.

An emotional bond... yeah... that's one thing that Obama won't have any problem with, since he's already got an emotional bond with the media which covers him, what with all the tingling, crying, etc that's going on by our objective, professional journalists.

Continue reading Krugman's column... it is truly ridiculous, but entertaining as you watch yet another person with a Nobel prize make a complete ass out of himself.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Most Admired Man in America

2008-12-26T09:09:00.002-06:00

From USA Today:

Poll: Obama is man Americans admire most
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A month before his inauguration, Americans choose Barack Obama as the man they admire most in the world, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. It's the first time a president-elect has topped the annual survey in more than a half-century.

President Bush falls to a distant second after seven years as the most-admired man.
[...]

Interesting that it took Obama's ascension to most-admired man before the MSM would mention that Bush happened to be the most-admired man for the past seven years.

I don't seem to recall any blaring headlines over the past seven years about Bush being the most admired man.

Here's the headline from 2007:

Hillary Edges Out Oprah as Most Admired Woman in ‘07

They get to the Most Admired Man going to Bush in the 10th paragraph.

Oh, and by the way.... what % do you think Clinton got in the Most Admired man poll in 2000? 6%, tied with Pope John Paul II and 1 point better than the then-Governor of Texas, George W. Bush.

Bush received 5% this year.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Merry Christmas

2008-12-24T11:33:00.002-06:00

Thanks for this great link from Kip at Right Face.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

The Dealership Model, the Big Three, & Supply Chain Efficiency

2008-12-24T09:39:00.005-06:00

Excellent analysis by Bob Krumm on another unsustainable factor in the US automobile market - the dealership concept.

A picture of the problem
Byline: bob | Category: Economy, Above the Fold | Posted at: 9:35 am

This picture was above the fold at Drudge earlier today. It accompanied a story about the ever-evolving proposed auto-bailout. The picture, however, illustrates much of the problem, and contra-everything else you’ve read, it’s a problem that has nothing to do with the unions.

I have to say, the Supply Chain currently used by the Big Three - and in use for several decades - has been a traditional Push supply chain strategy: Build it and they will come.

The new mantra is all about transforming your supply chain to be Pull and to combine it with LEAN principles - originally developed by (surprise!) Toyota: Only build what your customer wants, when they want it.

In the go-go 90s, when the internets were just starting to be recognized as the transformational technology that it was, I argued that dealers should be put out of business and replaced with demo rooms with service facilities (owned & operated by the manufacturers). A customer would research their car on the web, select possible models of interest and schedule a test drive with the local demo room. They'd drive the car, kick the tires, etc and then place the order through the web, the Just-In-Time manufacturing process would kick in, and the car would be delivered to the buyer's door within a matter of days.

Benefits to the manufacturer? Control of the customer experience (which has devolved into one of the most painful experiences that people have when shopping) and elimination of an unnecessarily complex distribution system. It would also provide for a more efficient upstream supply chain, as only what is needed to meet actual customer demand is purchased, hired, etc.

Of course, this would hurt the dealers... and the unions, since there would be less labor required for the reduced (in reality, more efficient) demand. And, if one thing is clear from the entire Big Three debacle, it's that the management has a soft spot for the line workers, the dealer networks, and the status quo.

Also, pundits keep saying that there doesn't have to be a Big Three - there could be a Big Two. While their point is that some companies should be allowed to fail and the government shouldn't bail them out (which I agree with), I would counter that instead of a Big Two, there should be a Medium 20.

Innovation is the product of competition - the fiercer the better.

The coopetition that is taking place between the Big Three, Big Labor, and Big Government will doom the entire industry.

Unfortunately, we're going to Labor, Government, and Failed Business Models are all going to get a lot bigger in the near future - at the expense of the individual.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Governator Wants to be President

2008-12-22T16:19:00.002-06:00

From his interview on CBS' 60 Minutes yesterday:

[...]
Running California means running the eighth largest economy in the world and with two years left as governor, Schwarzenegger will soon have to find an encore. Being born in Austria would seem to disqualify him from the next political step.

"Well, you're a man of no small ambition. If the Constitution was changed, you'd like to be president, wouldn't you?" Pelley asked.

"Yeah, absolutely," Schwarzenegger acknowledged. "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high, that are almost impossible to achieve. Because then, you're always hungry for climbing and climbing. Because it's always interesting. The climb is always interesting. When you get there you just have to pick another goal."
[...]

Well, at least he has one fan - himself.

Read the entire interview and see if this is a guy who should be talking about running for the presidency or dog catcher.

His understanding of the world is very shallow:

he had a conversation with some guys in Detroit in 2000 about hydrogen cars and they said 5-10 years to get them to market; since they're not on the market, he think they lied to him.
He thinks that solar panels in the Mojave desert is the answer to fossil fuels. While Mojave is a great place, there isn't enough energy given today's technology to make a dent in our base power requirements.
he thinks global warming is to blame for the fires in California, not the spread of development into wildfire zones, the lack of controlled burns in the off-season due to environmental concerns, etc.

Let me ask our resident californian - Would you recommend Schwarzenegger to the presidency?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Our Economic Solution - INFLATION!!!

2008-12-19T09:29:00.004-06:00

This video from 1933 on the solution to the Great Depression, namely inflation.

I love the condescending tone throughout the video - you're too stupid to understand, so let me speak freely. And the belief that economic activity is controllable through just a few movement of the levers by those in power is just laughable.

My only question - Does Paul Krugman believe this bullsh!t?

H/T to Russell Roberts @ Cafe Hayek who provides this description:

This video from 1933 touts the virtues of inflation for ending the Great Depression. How will that work? When people see prices rising, they'll buy now before the prices go up. That will stimulate aggregate demand and the multiplier will kick in. Really. That's the argument. Along with some bizarre arguments along the way about high prices leading to higher incomes. Watch the video. It's good for some laughs and illustrates how hard it is to keep multiples things in mind at the same time. Thanks to Walter Williams for the pointer.

And if only the screenwriter, producer, and narrator could see into the future, this film would've never been created. As Mark Steyn often points out, only in the US do people refer to this time period as the Great Depression; elsewhere it's simply the depression.

If only they knew that there were 8 more years of economic disaster followed by years of death in World War II.

This is the same logic that saw entire herds of livestock slaughtered by the Fedsand left to decay in their pens. The same logic that saw wheat fields burned to the ground.

This fireside chat by FDR in 1938 only proves the point:

[...]
Five years ago we faced a very serious problem of economic and social recovery. For four and a half years that recovery proceeded apace. It is only in the past seven months that it has received a visible setback.

And it is only within the past two months, as we have waited patiently to see whether the forces of business itself would counteract it, that it has become apparent that government itself can no longer safely fail to take aggressive government steps to meet it.

This recession has not returned to us (to) the disasters and suffering of the beginning of 1933. Your money in the bank is safe; farmers are no longer in deep distress and have greater purchasing power; dangers of security speculation have been minimized; national income is almost 50% higher than it was in 1932; and government has an established and accepted responsibility for relief.

But I know that many of you have lost your jobs or have seen your friends or members of your families lose their jobs, and I do not propose that the Government shall pretend not to see these things. I know that the effect of our present difficulties has been uneven; that they have affected some groups and some localities seriously but that they have been scarcely felt in others. But I conceive the first duty of government is to protect the economic welfare of all the people in all sections and in all groups. I said in my Message opening the last session of the Congress that if private enterprise did not provide jobs this spring, government would take up the slack -- that I would not let the people down. We have all learned the lesson that government cannot afford to wait until it has lost the power to act.
[...]

Our innate desire to "fix" our problems through government action will doom us.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

For My Nephew Shawn Wilson Who Deploys to Iraq Next Month - We Are Proud of You

2008-12-17T11:22:00.007-06:00

Well, we are getting close now, and the Wilson family is acutely aware of the troops this Christmas.

Hug your soldier, pray for him and his comrades.

A Christmas Poem

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.

The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the
sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.
I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..
Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

" So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

The Bailout & The Aristrocracy of Pull

2008-12-16T16:05:00.004-06:00

All news these days points to the ever growing Aristocracy of Pull. Read this OpEd in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review by Don Boudreaux. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing

Would you buy a new car from this company?
By Donald J. Boudreaux
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Pay attention and you'll be impressed (or, rather, depressed) by how fast baseless claims for government intervention become accepted as monuments of wisdom and of incontrovertible truth.

A current example is the now-conventional wisdom that some "special" quality of GM, Ford and Chrysler make them deserving of a government bailout. That special quality is the fact that cars are long-term investments by consumers -- ones that require warranties, special servicing and parts available only from their original manufacturers.
[...]
Chapter 11 will remove the unsustainable debt, thus allowing the Big Three to return not only to efficient but also profitable operations. It will also send a signal that government will not coddle automakers, which will tell the world that these firms must survive by pleasing consumers rather than by genuflecting and pleading in the halls of government power.

A bailout, in contrast, will only sustain the problem, making Detroit's survival ever-more dependent upon the whims and fancies of politics.

Any consumer who doesn't want to buy a car from a shaky company would wisely avoid one living on the dole.

Personally, I can't get away from the simple fact that 2+2 really does equal 4. Some people truly believe that you can make things better by making this or that tweak in the system - always with the predictable result that government power will increase.

And, speaking of unsustainable, does anyone really think that the Federal Government has a sustainable business model?

I wish McCain would've lobbied against the TARP - I have no doubt that he would've increased his chances of winning on November 4th. But we know that McCain was always a Republican who thought that Washington could offer solutions to all of our ills.

It's a shame that we are so fearful of the short-term pain that we are willing to exacerbate the situation and let the wound fester and turn gangrenous.

The Big Three should be allowed to fail.. their current productive assets would be redeployed by people who are more proficient at using them.

As people complain about the level of lobbying, graft, corruption, and money that is involved in politics, I can only respond that it is that way because politics has become even more important to being successful. A free market would not require huge lobbying efforts because consumers - aka The People, aka The Market - would ensure that companies that cannot produce products or services that meet their customers' needs would go out of business.

If you hate corruption, lobbying, and influence peddling, there is an easy answer - reduce the size, scope, & power of government.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Saint, Call Your Office - Fine New Blog at "Right Face"

2008-12-12T08:01:00.009-06:00

There is some fine new blogging available at Right Face provided by a rarity in this world, a REAL conservative journalist, a graduate of Northwestern of all places, Christopher J.(aka Kip) Allen.

Now for our readers to have access to this good writing, someone needs to wake up Saint, who has control over the bells and whistles here, and get him to add Right Face to our blogroll :)

Call your office, Saint!

*** UPDATE FROM THE SAINT ***
Ok, back from Houston. Had to go visit some of our co-conspirators in the petroleum industry... muuuwaahhaaahhaa (<--- Evil laugh that sends moonbats into a panic)

I've added Right Face to the blogroll (which needs to be reviewed & cleaned up). To our readers, we highly recommend you visit Kip Allen's RightFace. From Kip's blog description:

Right Face

I am a life-long conservative alarmed at the direction I see the country taking. I see the modern progressive movement as not so much an evolution of traditional liberalism, but an outgrowth of fascism. I will address this and other issues. Hopefully, there will be some lighthearted moments as well.

Enjoy!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Snow in New Orleans and Houston - Al Gore Call Your Office

2008-12-11T09:20:00.002-06:00

What can I say? What needs to be said? I can't wait to hear the explanation for this.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn Photography

Somali Pirates to Buy Citicorp

2008-12-10T10:33:00.003-06:00

Stole, er ... borrowed this, from NRO Corner who got it at Option ARMageddon:

Somali Pirates to acquire CitigroupDecember 2, 2008 – 5:57 pm
(hat tip Walnuts)

November, 2008 (Bloomberg) — The Somali pirates, renegade Somalis known for hijacking ships for ransom in the Gulf of Aden, are negotiating a purchase of Citigroup.

The pirates would buy Citigroup with new debt and their existing cash stockpiles, earned from hijacking numerous ships, including most recently a $100 million Saudi Arabian oil tanker. The Somali pirates are offering up to $0.10 per share for Citigroup, pirate spokesman Sugule Ali said earlier today. The negotiations have entered the final stage, Ali said. ”You may not like our price, but we are not in the business of paying for things. Be happy we are in the mood to offer the shareholders anything,” said Ali.

The pirates will finance part of the purchase by selling new Pirate Ransom Backed Securities. The PRBS’s are backed by the cash flows from future ransom payments from hijackings in the Gulf of Aden. Moody’s and S&P have already issued a AAA investment grade rating for the PRBS’s.

Head pirate, Ubu Kalid Shandu, said “We need a bank so that we have a place to keep all of our ransom money. Thankfully, the dislocations in the capital markets have allowed us to purchase Citigroup at an attractive valuation and to take advantage of TARP capital to grow the business even faster.”

Shandu added, “We don’t call ourselves pirates. We are coast guards and this will just allow us to guard our coasts better.”

Bloomberg News 10:24 AM
CITI IN TALKS WITH SOMALI PIRATES FOR POSSIBLE CAPITAL INFUSION
WILL REQUIRE ALL CITI EMPLOYEES TO WEAR PATCH OVER ONE EYE
SOMALIAN PIRATES APPLY TO BECOME BANK TO ACCESS TARP
PAULSON: TARP PIRATE EQUITY IS AN “INVESTMENT”, WILL PAY OFF
KASHKARI SAYS “SOMALI PIRATES ARE ‘FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND’”
MOODY’S UPGRADE SOMALI PIRATES TO AAA
HUD SAYS SOMALI DHOW FORECLOSURE PROGRAM HAD “VERY LOW” PARTICPATION *
FED OFFICIALS: AGGRESSIVE EASING WOULD CUT SOMALI PIRATE RISK
FED AGREED TODAY TO TAKE “WHATEVER STEPS” NEEDED FOR SOMALI PIRATES
More on this topic (What's this?)
Citi in Talks With US to Create "Bad Bank"; CNBC Now Reports That Gov't is Cool (naked capitalism, 11/23/08)
Meredith Whitney Says Citi is a Goner; BBC Says Citi "Seeking 'Emergency Cash'" (naked capitalism, 11/23/08)
You Should Listen to Jim Rogers (World Beta - Engineering Targete..., 11/19/08) Read more on Citigroup at Wikinvest
Posted in funny

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

House Inquiry as to What Happened at Freddie and Fannie

2008-12-09T23:27:00.004-06:00

I have been watching Waxman's committee on C-Span which is conducting the inquiry into the meltdown at Freddie and Fannie tonight. Four previous CEOs of Freddie Mac were there as witnesses. It has been enlightening. I particularly appreciated Stephen Lynch (D-Ma). He suffered the fools (CEOs) not gladly at all. When former CEO Mudd repeatedly ducked and evaded, Lynch went right after him. He said that he really was feeling good about conservertorship after listening to Mudd's non-answers. At least these clowns were gone. Lynch did not sound like a Democrat at all.

One little item, if you call $16 million in salary and bonus to CEO Mudd "little," was the matter of the CEO's bonuses. Their answers could have come out of Uncle Remus (that might be a bit politically incorrect but extremely apt). "Who, me? We weren't in the room with the committee that set the goals. That was the independent directors etc etc etc blah blah blah." What baloney, do they really think anybody believes that? Of course they had a roll in setting their own goals and their own resulting huge bonuses and, more importantly, what drove those bonuses, you know, like buying up LOTS of subprime mortgages of folks who couldn't afford them, but gave the appearance of high profitability (at least until the defaults started) and thus driving that market

The situation at Fannie and Freddie, I think, lies at the root of what has happened to our enconomy in this year. I am going to follow these hearings as closely as I can. I think when the time comes for holding people accountable (it would have been nice if that happened BEFORE the election), this is going to be Ground Zero.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

The Idiotic Leftist

2008-12-08T14:00:00.003-06:00

*ahem* check check *cough*

Is this thing on??? *tap tap feedback*

Sorry for the absence... the conspirators have been busy establishing blockades for our undisclosed location ever since the disaster of November 4th.

Anyway, ran across this cartoon from one Mr. Ted Rall and had to post on it. I may actually create a new series that focuses on the ridiculously stupid perspectives of the Left.

Can anyone point out what's wrong with his understanding of economics? My 6 year old son has a better grasp than him...

Post your answers in the comments.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Minnesota Recount

2008-11-24T14:00:00.003-06:00

From the Politico:

Franken hopes turns on absentee issue
By: Daniel Libit
November 24, 2008 01:13 PM EST

One of the closest elections in U.S. Senate history is hurtling towards a critical juncture in its ongoing recount this week, as the campaign of Democratic challenger Al Franken opens a new legal front in its battle to break a virtual tie with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

On Wednesday, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board will hear arguments from Franken’s camp for why previously rejected absentee ballots should now be counted.

Coleman ended the initial count with an advantage of just 215 votes out of nearly 3 million cast, and has held a slim lead thus far in the recount.

“We’re 70 percent through [the recount] now,” Coleman Communications Director Mark Drake told Politico Sunday, “and a lot of the ballots that are looked at are in areas where Franken’s done well. We’re surprised he didn’t do better in terms of picking up more votes.”

Robert Hentges, a veteran Minnesota election law attorney not involved in this year’s recount, cautions that results rarely change in recounts of optical scan ballots, as are used in almost every county in the state, “Very few votes change,” he said, and “more often or not, for the winner on election night, the gap grows.”

While the conventional wisdom is that these recounted ballots should break the same way as the broader election results, Republicans fret that sloppy Democratic voters might mean Franken votes emerging as the recount continues.

“Democrats are [thought to be] more creative, free-spirited, so the idea is they’re more likely to make a mistake that the optical scan won’t pick up,” explains Hentges. “But when they recount the hard copy, those votes will be counted for Franken. If you talk to Republicans, they say it will be Franken’s advantage, because Democrats are stupid and will screw up ballots more often.”
[...]
Republicans are moderately confident that the canvassing board will reject the Franken line on absentees, based on the assessment encapsulated in a letter Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Ken Rashke wrote to Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. In it, he cited Minnesota statute 204C.35, which states: “Only the ballots cast in the election and the summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process.”

In an opposing brief, Franken lawyers said that Raschke’s analysis “contains significant errors.”

“In fact,” the Franken team argued, “both state law and key decisions from other states require that improperly rejected absentee ballots be included in the recount in this election.”

Those absentee ballots that Franken is trying to count were "found" in the backseat of a Democratic election supervisor days after the election. The Immaculate Election!^TM

continuing...

[...]
Presuming that he doesn’t catch up, Franken could hypothetically take a recount fight all the way to the floor US Senate, which according to the Constitution can involve itself in election certification. Some Republicans think Franken’s legal machinations now are more about creating political momentum for a long-winded pursuit.

“For right now, that is really putting the cart before the horse,” says Franken campaign spokeswoman Colleen Murray. “Right now, we’re still just trying to make sure where the ballots are counted. It really is too early to speculate.”

For a state abounding with civic pride, stupid is not something that anyone wants to look as the recount battle continues.

“This is part of the Minnesota pride in our elections process,” says Janecek. “It is a collegial process, because everybody agrees that we don’t want to be the laughing stock of the nation.”

Ummmm, I hate to inform Ms. Janecek, but the fact that Al Franken - let me repeat - AL FRANKEN ran statewide as a candidate to be your Senator in the United States Senate and nearly prevailed already makes you the laughingstock of the nation.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Change You Can Believe In!

2008-11-24T13:19:00.002-06:00

From the WSJ today:

The Sidwell Choice
The Obama family leads by example.

Michelle and Barack Obama have settled on a Washington, D.C., school for their daughters, and you will not be surprised to learn it is not a public institution. Malia, age 10, and seven-year-old Sasha will attend the Sidwell Friends School, the private academy that educates the children of much of Washington's elite.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden's grandchildren attend Sidwell -- as did Chelsea Clinton -- where tuition is close to $30,000 a year. The Obama girls have been students at the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where tuition runs above $21,000. "A number of great schools were considered," said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. "In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now."

Note the word "selected," as in made a choice. The Obamas are fortunate to have the means to send their daughters to private school, and no one begrudges them that choice given that Washington's public schools are among the worst in America.

Most D.C. parents would also love to be able to choose a better school for their child, but they lack the financial means to do so. The Washington Opportunity Scholarship Program each year offers up to $7,500 to some 1,900 kids to attend private schools, but Democrats in Congress want to kill it. Average family income for kids in the voucher program is about $22,000.

Mr. Obama says he opposes such vouchers, because "although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." The example of his own children refutes that: The current system offers plenty of choice to kids "at the top" while abandoning those at the bottom.

Change you can believe in - unless it's change to our wonderful education system. We'll keep that just the way it is because

The Teachers Union is very powerful and can really turn out the vote
Indoctrination centers are important for the future of our country
Actual learning which provides children with the faculties to think for themselves is dangerous to the republic
How could we get elected in the future if students actually had the skills to become productive, self-sufficient citizens instead of serfs of the state?

That is all...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Rachel Maddow: The New Center

2008-11-24T10:48:00.004-06:00

This piece in Newsweak about Rachel Maddow is absolutely ridiculous.

Here's a snippet:

[...]
The times have suited her as well. Not only did her show launch in an electrifying election period, but it was also a moment when "the repressed political fervor" of the left had erupted, says Olbermann, who has also both benefited from and symbolized this mood. In this climate, MSNBC's commentary moved left, and now is often criticized for presenting a liberal alternative to the sharply partisan Fox. But Ariana Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post (and Maddow's fill-in host last week) says it is wrong to think of Maddow as a liberal riposte to Fox. "People were surprised by her success because they saw her as an anomaly, but she is the opposite. She has tapped into a zeitgeist where what was considered to be left wing is now mainstream." Like Obama, "she is representing the center." Or at least the center in Huffington's world view.

I have to point out that when Fox has a conservative on, they often balance that conservative with someone from the other side. With MSNBC, Olberman, Maddow, et al only interview leftist and occasionally Pat Buchanan (whose conservative bona fides expired when he left the GOP.

[...]
Maddow has her own fable. On Nov. 5, when the clock clicks 9 p.m. and "The Rachel Maddow Show" begins, her "tired and cranky staff" has either gone home or settled into their seats in the control room to monitor the broadcast. A calm and focused Maddow is made up and wearing one of her identical pantsuits (she refuses to say who the designer is for fear of "insulting them"). As an interview closes, she turns to a camera in the chilly, large, red-white-and-blue-splashed studio she broadcasts from and looks directly into the lens. This election, she says with a grin, has destroyed many archaic ideas. There is triumph in her voice: "The idea that America is too flawed, too scarred by racism to elect a black president? That idea is over. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said back in April that neither a woman nor a black man could ever get elected in a country like this? How satisfying is it to prove that guy wrong? The idea that liberals can't succeed on television? That's over. Yes, we can." It's a fable for a new age.

Would anything closely resembling this be written about that pinhead Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh?

I think not.

However, it is good to know that Rachel can shoot an AR-15 with the best of them.... I just wonder what her position on gun control is - is she for it (as long as it only restricts AR-15s from the "little people?"

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

This is the End.... my beautiful friend, The End

2008-11-21T19:20:00.003-06:00

Excellent article in US News & World Report on how Obamacare will spell the end of any sort of conservative - nah, let me be more accurate - free market, classically liberal party in the United States.

How Tom Daschle Might Kill Conservatism
November 21, 2008 02:00 AM ET | James Pethokoukis

The GOP strategist had been joking about the upcoming presidential election and giving his humorous assessments of the candidates. Then he suddenly cut out the schtick and got scary serious. "Let me tell you something, if Democrats take the White House and pass a big-government healthcare plan, that's it. Game over. Government will dominate the economy like it does in Europe. Conservatives will spend the rest of their lives trying to turn things around and they will fail."

And it turns out that the fearsome harbinger of free-market doom is the mild-mannered ex-U.S. senator with the little, red glasses, Tom Daschle. He'll be the guy shepherding President Barack Obama's healthcare plan through Congress via his probable role as secretary of health and human services. At the core of Daschle's thinking on the subject is the creation of a "Federal Health Board that would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board" and ensure "harmonization across public programs of health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency." (Forget secretary of state, Hillary Clinton should shoot for chairman of Fed Health and run one seventh of the U.S. economy.) And the subject of that "harmonization" would be a $100 billion to $150 billion a year plan that would let individuals (and small businesses) buy insurance from private companies or from a government plan.

Daschle and the Obamacrats certainly have the momentum: a near-landslide presidential election victory, at least 58 Democratic votes in the Senate, and a nasty recession that will make many Americans yearn for economic security. Already the health insurance companies seem set back on their heels. The industry's trade organization now says it would accept new rules requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions as long as there was a universal mandate for all Americans to have health insurance. On top of all that, Obama clearly wants to make healthcare reform a priority in his first term, as evidenced by the selection of a heavy hitter like Daschle. And even if he wasn't interested, Congress sure is, with Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy readying a plan in the Senate. A few observations:

1) Passage would be a political gamechanger. Recently, I stumbled across this analysis of how nationalized healthcare in Great Britain affected the political environment there. As Norman Markowitz in Political Affairs, a journal of "Marxist thought," puts it: "After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party when health care, social welfare, education and pro-working class policies were enacted by labor-supported governments."

Passing Obamacare would be like performing exactly the opposite function of turning people into investors. Whereas the Investor Class is more conservative than the rest of America, creating the Obamacare Class would pull America to the left. Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, who first found that wonderful Markowitz quote, puts it succinctly in a recent blog post: "Blocking Obama's health plan is key to the GOP's survival."

2) Shrinking government would get exponentially tougher. Republicans would face the same problem with healthcare that they currently do with Social Security, persuading people to trade one in the hand (the current system) for two in the bush (a reformed system). And we see how well that has worked out. Combine Obamacare with plans to take away the tax-advantaged status of 401(k) plans and IRAs and you would end up with government responsible for both healthcare and retirement. The big-government constituency would grow and deepen. And remember that fewer and fewer people are paying the incomes taxes that would help pay for increased government services. That breakage of the linkage between taxes and government "benefits" creates toxic incentives for more of both — and an economy more shackled than ever by taxes, debt, and regulation.

3) Republicans better earn to competently talk healthcare. John McCain's healthcare plan was perhaps the most provocative policy proposal of the entire 2008 campaign. Too bad he could neither fully explain how it worked nor persuasively argue why it was better than Barack Obama's plan. Also too bad since his plan would have smartly reduced healthcare costs by getting companies out of the healthcare benefits business and empowering individuals to buy insurance on their own. This would have helped fix what economist Arnold Kling calls the insurance vs. insulation problem: "Insulation relieves the patient of the stress of making decisions about treatment. The patient also does not have to worry about shopping around for the best price. The problem with insulation is that it is not a sustainable form of healthcare finance."

Another interesting healthcare reform option is highlighted by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam in the book Grand New Party. Uncle Sam would require individuals and families to put 15 percent of their income into health savings accounts. If you run out of money before year-end, the government steps in. If you don't, you get the money back or it rolls over into a retirement account. Of course, any conservative alternative would be easier to implement if it doesn't first have to kill an existing nationalized health plan. But thanks to Tom Daschle, that is just what might have to happen.

All I know is that my 3 year old (at the time) son understood the fact that Soshsecurity was an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, yet a majority of the electorate couldn't give a damn. (For all you leftards out there, asking current workers to pay for current retirees is a Ponzi scheme - without new workers, the house of cards (aka the pyramid) collapses.)

I also know that once socialized health care is passed, our public debates will no longer be about important topics, but rather the number of beds in the nationalized system, the average waiting time for certain procedures, etc, etc. I know, because I've watched these types of debates in Germany's Bundesrat, Britain's Parliament, etc, etc.

I for one am stoked about becoming 21st Century Serf.^TM Doing business in America is just too cumbersome to make it a sane investment. Add up the regulations (cost of doing business), the taxation (cost of doing business), the federal and state mandated employee benefits (cost of doing business), and the out of control plaintiff's bar and you can understand why companies would seek to move elsewhere.

I suppose that my contribution will be, as William F. Buckley said, to "stand athwart history, yelling 'STOP!'"

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Aristocracy of Pull

2008-11-12T12:46:00.004-06:00

One of my favorite phrases from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is "The Aristocracy of Pull." It was a phrase used by Dagny Taggart to describe what the world had become - where business and its leaders advanced not through merit or providing value to their customers, but by their political connections. Those without connections (or who refused to call in their favors) simply couldn't compete. And while those who made the back room deals thought they were setting themselves up for the future, in reality they were just delaying the inevitable decline - since there will always be someone else with greater influence who can undermine you with a sweeter deal.

I've had increasing opportunity to use it over the past year and it would seem that I'll continue to use the phrase for quite some time. This story in the New York Times only proves the point:

November 12, 2008
Lobbyists Swarm the Treasury for Piece of Bailout Pie
By MARK LANDLER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON — When the government said it would spend $700 billion to rescue the nation’s financial industry, it seemed to be an ocean of money. But after one of the biggest lobbying free-for-alls in memory, it suddenly looks like a dwindling pool.

Many new supplicants are lining up for an infusion of capital as billions of dollars are channeled to other beneficiaries like the American International Group, and possibly soon American Express.

Of the initial $350 billion that Congress freed up [...] the Treasury Department has committed all but $60 billion. The shrinking pie — and the growing uncertainty over who qualifies — has thrown Washington’s legal and lobbying establishment into a mad scramble.

When free money is available and when the gravy train gets started, everyone lines up at the station.

This is news?!?

The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — [...]

The lobbying frenzy worries many traditional bankers — the original targets of the rescue program — who fear that it could blur, or even undermine, the government’s effort to stabilize the financial system after its worst crisis since the 1930s.

[...]

“By the time they get to the community banks, there may not be enough money left,” said Edward L. Yingling, the president of the American Bankers Association. “The marketplace is looking at this so rapidly that those who have the money first may have some advantage.”

It would seem that the "pull" of community banks and their lobbyists in the ABA isn't as great as the "pull" of AIG, AmEx, GM, Ford, Chrysler, et al. Get in the back of the line!!!

[...]
Meanwhile, the list of candidates for a piece of the bailout keeps growing.

On Monday, the Treasury announced it would inject an additional $40 billion into A.I.G., amid signs that the government’s original bailout plan was putting too much strain on the company. American Express won approval Monday to transform itself into a bank holding company, making the giant marketer of credit cards eligible for an infusion.

Then there is the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which is asking whether boat financing companies might be eligible for aid to ensure that dealers have access to credit to stock their showrooms with boats — costs have gone up as the credit markets have calcified. Using much the same rationale, the National Automobile Dealers Association is pleading that car dealers get consideration, too.

So, the bailout may now be going to support pleasure boat dealers?!?!?!

Perhaps they didn't get the memo, but it's unlikely that people will be spending a boatload (pun intended) on luxury items like pleasure boats, yachts, etc.

“Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of good news for them individually,” said Jeb Mason, who as the Treasury’s liaison to the business community is the first port-of-call for lobbyists. “The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers among industries.”

I'm sure Mr. Mason's replacement (hand-picked by Barry, no doubt) will be able to provide some good news for everyone.

Mr. Mason, 32, a lanky Texan in black cowboy boots who once worked in the White House for Karl Rove, shook his head over the dozens of phone calls and e-mail messages he gets every week. “I was telling a friend, ‘this must have been how the Politburo felt,’ ” he said.

First, it's critical that Mason used to work for Rove... wouldn't want to leave that important tidbit out. (It's hilarious to see ARC's 1st Law at work in the MSM.)

Second, yes... this is exactly how a politburo apparatchik would've felt. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, komrade! Where is the line for toilet paper again?

[...] Under the terms of the $250 billion capital purchase program announced last month, cash infusions are available to “qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged only in financial activities.”

That definition has grown to include private banks and insurers like Allstate and MetLife, which own savings and loans. It may also encompass industrial lenders like GE Capital and GMAC, the financing arm of General Motors, provided they win approval to reclassify themselves as a bank or savings and loan holding company.

[...]

Law and lobbying firms that specialize in government contracting fired off dispatches to clients and potential clients explaining opportunities in the new program. Capitalizing on the surge of interest, several large firms, including Patton Boggs; Akin Gump; P & L Gates; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; and Alston & Bird, have set up financial rescue shops.

Urgent Memo: Would you like billions in free government money? Contact your representative at Patton Boggs immediately. For a small lobbying fee, you too could benefit from this important government program, regardless of need!!

Alston & Bird, for example, highlights its two biggest stars — former Senator Bob Dole and former Senator Tom Daschle. Mr. Dole “knows Hank Paulson very well” and has been “very helpful” with the financial rescue groups, said David E. Brown, an Alston & Bird partner involved in its effort.

“And of course, Senator Daschle is national co-chair of the Obama campaign,” Mr. Brown added, noting that because Mr. Daschle is not a registered lobbyist, his involvement is limited to “high level advisory and strategic advice.”

Not that there's any real difference between lobbying and high level advisory & strategic advice (aka back channel communications), but we have to say that, okay?

Ambac Financial Group [...] never needed lobbyists before, said Diana Adams, a managing director. But its clients persuaded the company to hire two Washington veterans — Edward Kutler and John T. O’Rourke — who helped arrange a recent meeting with Phillip L. Swagel, an assistant Treasury secretary. “We haven’t really asked for much in the past,” Ms. Adams said.

Well, Ms. Adams - Time to get your lobbying team staffed, because it will become the most strategic asset for your company over the next four years.

Initially, the banks reacted coolly to the prospect of the government taking direct stakes in them.
[...]

“The biggest surprise was how quickly it went from ‘I don’t need this,’ to ‘How do I get in?’ ” said Michele A. Davis, the head of public affairs at the Treasury, who is Mr. Mason’s boss.

If your competitors are getting free money, you pretty quickly realize that you'd better get your slice of the pie before you find yourself out of business.

Underscoring the many ways companies can take part in the rescue fund, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and other Hispanic business groups met with Mr. Paulson to push for minority contracts in asset management, legal, accounting, mortgage services and maintenance jobs, like plumbing and masonry.
[...]

Ah, yes... we must not leave out the other, tangential stakeholders who will all use their influence to get their little payout.

As the automakers have pushed for federal help, the trade groups for car dealerships and even boat dealerships are pressing their own cases. They argue that showrooms are feeling a squeeze between higher borrowing costs to finance their inventory and slowing consumer sales to move it out the door.

“We have been encouraged by reports that Secretary Paulson is looking to broaden the program,” said Mathew Dunn, head of government relations for the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Translation: We've been lobbying hard and want to put a good spin on our conversations with Hank, just in case he's still on the fence. Pull and influence is so hard to gauge, you know?

On Friday, the automobile dealers sent Mr. Paulson a letter urging him to keep them in mind.

“A well-capitalized, financially sound dealer network is essential to the success of every automobile manufacturer,” wrote Annette Sykora, a car dealer in Slaton, Tex., and the chairwoman of the National Automobile Dealers Association. “Any government intervention should include provisions to preserve the viability of dealers.”

Actually, I would argue that the dealer network is an outdated relic that impairs the ability of automakers to directly control the quality of the distribution chain of their products. Compare the way people feel about going to a Best Buy to buy a flat panel TV for several thousand vs. going to a car dealership. I don't think the car dealers will get too many positive ratings.

But, we fear change, so the dealer network continues - and may soon be subsidized by the US taxpayer.

In other news, Best Buy, TJ Maxx, and Macy's are all future prospects for a government bailout.

Because no one - absolutely no one - should suffer in these economic times. (Unless you're a current or future taxpayer, of course.)

***UPDATE***
Yet more evidence of the Aristocracy of Pull (H/T Instapundit).

A car czar... just what we need! I just hope he has a Russian, Eastern European, or German accent... might as well get the full effect, right???

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

US Auto Industry, the UAW, and Washington

2008-11-12T10:09:00.005-06:00

The US Auto Industry provides a simple demonstration of exactly what happens when major corporations, socialist labor leaders, and regulators (in the form of D.C.) get in bed together.

The socialist labor leaders lobby for (and get) uncompetitive wages.
Washington imposes regulations on fuel standards, but limit the companies' ability to meet them with cars already produced overseas.

The companies accept these "short-term" impositions because

they understand that regulation in reality shields them from other small-fry competitors that may try to unseat them; and
they think that the increased and uncompetitive labor costs won't impact them in the short term and, by the time they do snowball, the company will be so profitable that it won't have any impact

This excellent OpEd in the Wall Street Journal explains why Obama may run into difficulty before he's even sworn in.

Obama's Car Puzzle
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

You have in GM's Volt a perfect car of the Age of Obama -- or at least the Honeymoon of Obama, before the reality principle kicks in.

Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, its forthcoming plug-in hybrid continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget. This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money. It's a car that can't possibly provide a buyer with value commensurate with the resources and labor needed to build it. It's a car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government.

The first subsidy has already been written into law, with a $7,500 tax handout for every buyer. Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg -- allowing GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage SUVs under the cockamamie "fleet average" mileage rules.

Even so, the Volt will still lose money for GM, which expects to price the car at up to $40,000.

We're talking about a headache of a car that will have to be recharged for six hours to give 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. What if you park on the street or in a public garage? Tough luck. The Volt also will have a small gas engine onboard to recharge the battery for trips of more than 40 miles. Don't believe press blather that it will get 50 mpg in this mode. Submarines and locomotives have operated on the same principle for a century. If it were so efficient in cars, they'd clog the roads by now. (That GM allows the 50 mpg myth to persist in the press, and even abets it, only testifies to the company's desperation.)

[...]

The media have been terrible in explaining how the homegrown car companies landed in their present fix, when other U.S. manufacturers (Boeing, GE, Caterpillar) manage to survive and thrive in global competition. Critics beat up Detroit for building SUVs and pickups (which earn profits) and scrimping on fuel-sippers (which don't). They call for management's head (fine -- but irrelevant).

[...]

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi now want to bail out Detroit once more, while mandating that the Big Three build "green" cars. If consumers really wanted green cars, no mandate would be necessary. Washington here is just marching Detroit deeper into an unsustainable business model, requiring ever more interventions in the future.

The Detroit Three will not bounce back until they're free to buy labor in a competitive marketplace as their rivals do. In the meantime, private money, even in bankruptcy, almost certainly will not be available to refloat GM and colleagues. Nationalization, with or without a Chapter 11 filing, is probably inevitable -- but still won't make them competitive.

[...]

[Obama] ran a brilliant campaign, but his programmatic prescriptions amounted to handwaving designed to capture the presidency rather than tell voters what really to expect. This may have been a virtue in campaigning but it becomes a handicap in governing. The public now has no idea what to expect -- except miracles, reconciling all opposites, turning all hard choices into gauzy win-wins. Thanks to Detroit, his honeymoon is about to end before it begins.

That the MSM has allowed Obama to offer unicorns, change, and hope without getting him to lay out any specific details - at least details which are realistic - is a shame.

We've had several posts how the US auto industry has been crippled by big labor and its own incompetence, from labor's demands to continue the use of Rubber Rooms to the faux strikes that it holds to keep its workers in line to the lack of innovation (scroll down).

This chart from Carpe Diem blog is illustrates how it is impossible for our auto manufacturers to be competitive in this global economy. (This chart does not include management personnel for the Big Three or Toyota.)

***UPDATE***
Tom Friedman weighs in on the subject in today's New York Times. He lays the blame primarily on the automaker management (for everything from lack of innovation (agree) and caving in to union demands (agree, but where's the blame for the unions?).

Anyway, his analysis is good, until we get to an idiotic recommendation (originated by a reporter for the Wall Street Journal) on how to fix the mess:

[...]
O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do? I am as terrified as anyone of the domino effect on industry and workers if G.M. were to collapse. But if we are going to use taxpayer money to rescue Detroit, then it should be done along the lines proposed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday by Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for that paper.

“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management [of G.M.] should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”
[...]

First, I should note that any "government-appointed receiver" will, by definition, be political.

And perhaps these people do not understand capitalism, but the whole point is that if you do not manage costs and provide sufficient innovation to address your customers' needs, you'll go out of business.

The truly free market response to the failure of GM, Chrysler, Ford to abide by free market principles (albeit with their hands tied behind their backs by the Feds and unions) is for those companies to cease to exist.

Instead of a government-appointed (and politicized) receiver taking over GM, it should be allowed to fail and then private industry could pick up the pieces and make the very difficult decisions which Friedman calls for with the goal of meeting consumer demand. Whether that's an entrepreneur in the US or in China, Japan, etc. is not something that the government can determine. It's for the American entrepreneur to determine.

And, let's assume that the government does assign a receiver with broad powers over decisions involving GM. Who in the hell do you think will be at his door every single day, attempting to influence this "non-political" receiver? Union bosses, shareholders, and government regulators... All will seek to influence any decision of this apparatchik.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Andrew Sullivan Undeterred by Election Results

2008-11-10T20:38:00.000-06:00

He continues to investigate Sarah Palin's hoo-hah.

It would appear that my statement that one silver lining of electing Obama was that Andrew Sullivan would lay off Sarah Palin's hoo-hah was incorrect.

Brian's prediction was spot on - Sullivan would continue to investigate, since that hoo-hah was out there, plotting.

He will leave no stone unturned!!!!!!! He is a serious journalist!!!!!

Andrew Sullivan continues to demand evidence to refute the moonbat conspiracy theory that Trig Palin is actually Bristol Palin's son.

From his absolutely terrible blog at The Atlantic:

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin XXI: "Correcting The Record"

Just to get back to her looniness. A classic quote from the KTUU interview:
A. Regarding information regarding my record, that is now out there, much of it that was based on misinformation was a very, very frustrating thing to have to go through when the record was never corrected. And we would try to correct the record and too many in the media chose not to make those corrections. I felt too often that we were a bit defenseless, with so many things reported wrongly that could have easily been corrected based on facts.

Q. What misinformation are you talking about?

A. Some of the goofy things like who was Trig's mom. Well, I'm Trig's mom (raises her hand) and do you want to see my medical records to prove that? And days would go by before the mainstream media would even correct that ... well you know it's proven that she is is Trig's mom.
Proven? Where? And where in the MSM did anyone report that Trig was not her biological son? All I did was ask questions - and never received any proof of anything. In fact, there was virtually no attempt to correct the record with Palin's series of increasingly unhinged lies about her own record during the campaign - of all the lies I chronicled, not one was rebutted with facts from the McCain campaign. On the Trig question, I tried for two months to get some kind of basic, evidentiary proof. I asked publicly; I asked privately; the McCain campaign simply refused to give any actual records and attacked the press merely for asking questions. The quote above is therefore another total lie.

What is wrong with you???

Andy - You weren't given any information because your line of questioning is absolutely batsh!t-crazy.

There is no evidence to suggest that Trig is Bristol's son, other than some musing of an internet crackpot who has some serious flaws in character (link is not Safe For Work... seriously).

Again, let me again explain to you how hoo-hahs work, since you understandably have no clue.

You can't give birth to a baby and then get pregnant again in a few days or weeks. The whole birthing process is a little, ummmm, "disruptive" to the whole biology down there.

Imagine passing a cantelope out of your rectum.

Back to Andy

Give us some records of the last pregnancy: maybe a record of the amniocentesis, or doctor visits clearly about a pregnancy, or an interview with the doctor who delivered Trig, Catherine Baldwin-Johnson. Palin has a press avail on Wednesday. Ask for the records, please. She just asked if we wanted them. We do!

"Gimme Gimme Gimme... I demand!!! I will not be deterred from finding out if Trig is really Bristol's son!!!!"

Why should they give you anything? Who the @#%# cares besides some two-bit hack writing for the The Atlantic?

What evidence do you have that gives you the right to demand medical records from Governor Palin?

Stop, jackass. We thought you'd give this up after your last display of idiocy.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Education Indoctrination

2008-11-07T12:44:00.004-06:00

This is why my child does not attend a public school.

It's a wonder that our kids learn anything.... I wouldn't damn any child to get an education from this woman. No doubt she's teach of the year in her school.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Good Dog! (First Dog Barney Bites Reuters Reporter)

2008-11-07T08:04:00.001-06:00

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Iowahawk's Exit Interviews - this is perfect!

2008-11-05T12:24:00.003-06:00

At least conservatives have a sense of humor and can laugh in the face of loss.

Then I watched is all the way through, kind of sad.

Now there is nuance for you.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Musings from Instant Messaging

2008-11-05T11:04:00.003-06:00

What do Saint and I talk about?

Saint Wendeler: One silver lining to the election being over? Andrew Sullivan won't have to obsess about Palin's hoo-ha anymore

Brian: but he will... he will...

Brian: that hoo-ha is out there somewhere

Brian: plotting

Saint Wendeler: lol

Saint Wendeler: Iowahawk should do a detective dick series on that

Feel free, Mr. Hawk. Feel free.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Prop 8 Passes in California

2008-11-05T09:00:00.003-06:00

Almost lost in the hoopla over the election of Obama is the passage of Proposition 8 in that bluest of the blue states, California. Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. This comes on the heels of a 4-3 state supreme court decision striking down previous legislation to that effect. It passed on the strength of black and hispanic votes.

Conservatives need to take a close look at what happened here.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Addendum - 3 million uncounted votes out there - fat lady may not have sung afterall. News at 11!

Oh Brother! - What Hath Minnesota Wrought?!

2008-11-05T08:02:00.001-06:00

Republican NORM COLEMAN 1210247 42.00
Democratic-Farmer-Labor AL FRANKEN 1209124 41.96

Recount is ineveitable.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

One Old Guy's Reaction to the Election - Something to be Proud Of

2008-11-04T21:59:00.007-06:00

While I am hugely disappointed in the election results tonight, especially in what I see as the "Eurofication" of this great country, I am immensely pleased, and even proud, to see our first African American president. It says something profound to ourselves and the world. We are free of our past, free at last. It is a wonderful thing.

At the same time, I oppose Barack Obama on almost every issue. I will continue to oppose him and what he stands for. But for tonight, I am proud to be an American.

During this campaign some ugly things were said and implied about those of us who opposed Obama. It was said that if the United States did not elect Obama, that we were a racist country. It was further implied, by a person I thought to be a friend, ironically a Frenchman, that I was a racist for supporting McCain. There are not words to express how angry that made me.

I opposed Obama then for the same reason that I oppose him now, his ideas and his agenda.

But for tonight, lets us celebrate what has happened here. It is the Year of Jubilee, thanks be to God!

And tomorrow the fight begins anew.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Addendum: I am listening to McCain's concession and am pleased beyond words how he so eloquently voiced my feelings. Well done, John McCain. God bless you and keep you.

Lessons learned - Could Not Have Said It Better Myself

2008-11-04T21:33:00.002-06:00

From the David Kahane of the NRO staff at The Corner:

Why O Why O Why [NRO Staff]

from David Kahane's amanuensis:

1) We got this the old-fashioned way: we earned it. The other side took the fight to us, and we never took the fight to the other side, except coyly and obliquely. That's not a mistake we should make the next time. "Honorable campaigns" are for losers. Next time, call 'em as they really are, not as you wish to see 'em.

2) Where was Bush? Once again, and right to the bitter end, he let his passion for "loyalty" supersede what was stragetically right for the party, not to mention what was best for the country. I think his reputation has nowhere to go but down; yes, he got one big thing right,
but he got everything else wrong. Enough of this family in our
country's politics!

3) Good riddance to Liddy Dole, the woman who gave us the national drinking age of 21 and a host of sozzled underage college students. She won't be missed.

4) Hillary comes out smelling like a rose, plus unbloodied. She and Bill are already scoping out 2012.

5) Time to clean house. McCain should have been president in 2000, not in 2008. No more "it's my turn" for the last loser. We need to be looking for our candidates in the ranks of returning war vets — think Eisenhower in '52 as the model — and let the Dem's shifty lawyers run the country for a couple of years. Then hit them across the board with people who know how to lead. Gen. Petraeus might be a good place to start. Lots of junior officers, too.

6) You know what? McCain never did sell himself as a leader. He sold himself as a maverick.

7) One upside: McCain/Feingold is now dead, as is public financing. Talk about being hoist with your own petard!

8) That Gang of 14 thing really worked out well, didn't it? Say good-bye to the courts. And we were so close...

9) Joe Lieberman was worse than useless. When he could have made a difference, he didn't cross the aisle to caucus with the Republicans.
Now, it doesn't matter. Thanks, Joe.

10) Age matters. McCain ran an "honorable campaign" because he never really understood in his heart that the other guy had no intention of doing so; he didn't "get" Obama's generation, or Axelrod's.. Obama would lie about public financing, "oppose" gay marriage but also oppose Prop. 8 and never see it as morally contradictory. The world that McCain understood and operated in is vanishing, and tonight is visible evidence.

11) Unlike the Democrats, let's show some class in defeat. That doesn't mean lie down and roll over: it means fighting for what we believe in, doubly so now. But their sneering childishness is not for us; and now that they've won, they won't be able to control it even in victory. This is an unlovely party filled with unlovely people, as America's about to find out once the Obama pixie dust wears off.

12) Understand, once and for all, that the old media is part of the Democratic Party now. Ignore it. Never send Michele Bachmann onto Hardball again. Never send Sarah to play nice with Katie. We need to develop and create our own work-arounds — Fox, talk radio, NRO, etc. — and use them. Don't play by their rules: make our own.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:montereyJohn

The Big Night

2008-11-04T18:24:00.002-06:00

So here we are, the culmination of 2 years of campaigning.

Fox News just called VT for Obama and KY for McCain. GA, VA and IN(!) too close to call. I only have to say that if its close in Indiana at the end of the night... Gary, IN will bring it in for Obama, there always the last to report it seems. So close to Chicago too. I wonder how many busses are going across the skyway as we speak.

Follow along in the comments.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

21st Century Bull Connor in the Philadelphia Hood

2008-11-04T13:50:00.001-06:00

Now isn't that just lovely.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Speaking of Maps - Here's the Last One from POLITICO

2008-11-04T13:11:00.003-06:00

Click on image to enlarge and see details.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Important Aalysis by Sullivan On Election Day

2008-11-04T12:06:00.004-06:00

No worries!!!! Andrew Sullivan is still on the case of Sarah Palin's hoo-ha! Writes Sullivan:

04 Nov 2008 12:47 am
[...]
We have been given no actual records of the last pregnancy, or any reccords at all, although we are told by the elusive Dr. Catherine Baldwin-Johnson that labor was at 35 weeks - not as premature as previously believed (if you research the average weight of full term DS babies, you find, by the way, that Trig was not underweight). There is no time for any reporters to ask any questions, of course, or any time for the questions raised by the pregnancy to be aired in the press. I doubt Baldwin-Johnson will respond to further queries. Obama gave Palin a precedent for this kind of letter as a replacement for records with his equally secretive and brief doctor's note. But at least he did so well ahead of time, and has no serious questions pending about his own health history.

The timing of the release should also surely be interpreted as a giant finger to the press. Releasing this letter one hour before polling day begins and refusing to provide any actual documentation is not an answer. We need documentation to verify the last pregnancy: the amniocentesis results with Sarah Palin's name on them, for example, would be readily available and easy to disseminate, and would help raise awareness of Down Syndrome. So why not give us something? All we have in this literally last minute letter is Baldwin-Johnson's name. We had that already.

Andrew Sullivan will not be stopped in his quest to figure out whether Trig Palin was actually the baby of Bristol Palin!!!!

BECAUSE OF ~~THE HYPOCRISY~~... ummmm, actually I have no idea why the HELL he's still digging into this.

He is an absolute tool. I can't believe this guy actually gets paid for this crap.

Perhaps he has some incriminating photos or something...

*** UPDATE ***
I agree with Jeff on this one (NSFW).

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Where Are the Heroes?

2008-11-04T10:06:00.004-06:00

My heart yearns for a speech like this. I fear we won't be hearing anything like it for a long while to come.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

Obamessiah vs. Obamessiah

2008-11-03T17:27:00.002-06:00

Excellent Video from Mary Katherine Hamm on Obama.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Predictions from The Conspiracy

2008-11-03T15:15:00.016-06:00

Welcome Instapundit readers (and thanks, Glenn)! Throw in your two cents in the comments.

My fellow co-conspirators and I sat down recently and submitted our electoral projections on the Obamessiah / McCain election. (Is it just me or does "electoral projection" sound like some sort of sexual innuendo used by guys like Chuck Todd as a pickup line?)

Here, in no particular order are our predictions:

First, MontereyJohn says that The Obamessiah's ability to turn back the tides will not help him with the electorate. I'd like to point out that this prediction has McCain doing better than Bush '00, but slightly worse than Bush '04.

Here's MontereyJohn's commentary on his prediction:

This is just "informed gut," but I just am not believing these polls, and I think the Joe the Plumber economy has real life. I think the Obama infomercial was a fiasco last night and did more harm than good. It appealed to his base, but regular folks are not going to like it. I could be just as wrong as can be, but this is how I see it.
[...]
just maybe ... Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine!

Yes, I know some of these are tossup or even leaning
Obama, but this is what my old gut is telling me this morning.

All I have to say is "Bully for being bold!"

Now, on to Brian, who's been stockpiling ammunition with Penelope for the past few months.

Here are his results:

His analysis?

Indiana is supposedly the first to report results at 7:30ET, so we'll know pretty early if its going to be even worse for McCain than I predicted. Ditto for the next states of NC, VA, PA. If Obama wins any 2 of those, its over.

FL will be in the list of what to watch for next. I expect that Obama will lose that, but by a close margin. If he wins that.. it's over.

OH I have falling to Obama despite the effective use of the Joe the Plumber issue, mostly due to the voter registration issues that have been brought to light. 600k registrations will translate into SOME votes. And Mickey Mouse doesn't get polled etiher.

Finally, I have MO as a loser for McCain as well. I'd like for him to win it very much, especially since I live in the state and would hope that I can help to bring McCain over the finish line. I expect, however, that St. Louis and Kansas City, to be the last to report (again) on election night, as the votes are "found" to bring Obama in as the winner.

Finally, I will add, that although my prediction is rather downbeat for McCain fans, its not, it appears, as bad as the Architect's. Suffice it to say, that I'm always wrong on these predictions, and I'd admit my mistake, if McCain can pull out a win tomorrow.

Finally, here is the prediction from Saint Wendeler (patron saint of country people and herdsmen - or a cheap German beer that you could only stomach if you already had a few - you be the judge):

Analysis:

I actually think Colorado could flip to red in my map, meaning that the electoral score would be 269-269 and the days following the election will be filled with lawsuits, etc. and with Nancy Pelosi handing Obama the Presidency.

It's highly unlikely that McCain will be able to pull it out, not with the ground game that Obama has put together, the voter fraud, the 15-points that the media has given him by not finding out anything about the man (other than he's dreamy and has a calm voice...), and the idiotic belief by the electorate that our troubles are due to too much unfettered capitalism.

McCain will pull out Ohio, but Pennsylvania is a bridge too far. Obama's convention in Denver and the demographic shift in the Mountain West is what will sink McCain.

Instead of "Florida Florida Florida!!!", the mantra in 2008 should've been Colorado, Colorado, Colorado!!!

Before we go, I thought I'd also provide you with my prediction on how the MSM will portray the election results from 11:00 am EST to November 6th, 2012.

Here you go:

NBC will be eager to call Virginia and Pennsylvania early on Tuesday, and will cite exit polls throughout the day to give the impression that all is lost. They'll couch their statements with the following:

"We're not going to call the state until the polls close at x:xx pm, but it certainly looks like this is going to be a good night for Obama."

prepare for it....
Watch for it...
ignore it and get to the polls.

*** UPDATE ***
H/T to the Anchoress

It would seem that some networks are already stating that they'll be using the language I provided above. From tomorrow's NYTimes:

“Given what we know about the results, or the projected results in various states, it’s beginning to look like it will be very difficult for John McCain to put together enough votes to win this election.”
[...]
In 2004, early exit poll data suggested that Mr. Kerry was ahead began circulating within newsrooms — and leaking out on Web sites, including Slate’s — early in the afternoon on Election Day. This year, the consortium of six news organizations gathering the exit poll data — NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and The Associated Press — have agreed to keep the information under quarantine until 5 p.m.

Representatives of those news organizations will begin analyzing that information at a secret location beginning in late morning, but will have to surrender all electronic devices at the door; even restroom visits will be supervised. There were already signs on Monday that the additional security was paying off.

“We won’t call off exit polls,” Mr. Plotz said, “in part because we don’t expect to get them leaked to us much before the first results.”

rrrrrrrright....

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

I love the Obamessiah - I won't have to pay my mortgage!!!

2008-10-31T15:19:00.006-05:00

Average Obama voter speaking their mind without a filter.

All I have to say is OMFG

"It was the most memorable time in my life. It was a touching moment. I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he’s gonna help me."

Peggy Joseph
Obama Devotee

Good to know that the birth of her daughter - the girl she yanked out of school to see the Obamessiah - doesn't even stack up to seeing the Obamessiah from across the room... Good thing that her daughter won't need any education once the Obamessiah changes America. He'll re-educate every one of us.

Wait... she makes a compelling argument. And, what with the important conservatives throwing their support behind Obama, like T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII, I think I could really use an Obama presidency.

Just close your eyes, push the pedal to the metal, and ignore the signs that say the bridge ahead is out.

WOOOT!!!

H/T GatewayPundit

*** UPDATE ***
In keeping with the new obligation of those of us in the Media^TM to investigate and tear down anyone we disagree with, I did a simple search for Ms. Joseph's political contributions. I don't know what to say... I certainly hope she's not expecting Mr. Obama to pay her mortgage or fill her gas tank.

She hasn't contributed one dime....

Obama doesn't play that way, Peggy. Best give him his money if you want him to take care of you...

Further investigations will commence immediately - by the Obamessiah campaign to determine how much she makes and why she's holding back on the donations.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Iowa Hawk Cited on Rush - Sendup of Pseudo Conservatives for Obama - Must Be Read in Its Entirety!

2008-10-31T11:12:00.004-05:00

My favorite, Iowa Hawk finally get his due!!! Rush read from Hawkster's latest post on air this morning.

As a Conservative, I Must Say I Do Quite Like the Cut of this Obama Fellow's Jib
By T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII
Columnist, The National Topsider
Membership Chairman, The Newport Club

When my late father T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI founded the iconoclastic conservative journal National Topsider in 1948, he famously declared that "Now is the time for all good conservative helmsmen to hoist the mizzen, pour the cocktails, and steer this damned schooner hard starboard." In the 60 years since he first uttered it after one-too-many Cosmopolitans at one of Pamela Harriman's notorious foreign policy black tie balls, father's pithy bon mot has served as a rallying cry for conservatives from Greenwich to Chevy Chase. Today, I say it's time for we conservatives to once again grab the rigging and set sail with the flotilla of the true conservative in this race: Barack Obama.

Trust me, I haven't taken this tack lightly. No Van Voorhees has supported an avowed socialist since great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpapa Cragmont Van Voorhees lent Peter Minuet $24 and a sack of wampum to swing a subprime mortgage on Manhattan Island. Old dad himself often recounted how, as a lad, he would command the family chauffeur Carleton to drive the Duesenberg down to the Times Square Trans-Lux so he could hiss Roosevelt. But I've taken a good measure of this Obama fellow, and I must say I like the cut of the man's jib.

How can I say this, you ask? One look at this Obama chap is all the answer you need. Suave, tanned, unflappable, Harvard connections; it's obvious that here is a man to the conservative manor born. One imagines him at the helm of the Ship of State, basked in the sunlight diffusing through the seaspray over the bow, like some beautiful rugged Othello from a rapturous Ralph Lauren catalog, calmly issuing instructions to the deck crew in that magnificent mellifluous baritone of his. It's that easy-going, almost effortless grace that has all the A-list conservatives like David Frum and Kathleen Parker whispering Reaganesque in hushed tones. Even Peggy Noonan -- the Grand Dame of Gipperism -- has succumbed to Obama's undeniable conservative charms. Just last month I listened to her wax poetic about the Adonis of Chicago between chukkers at the Newport Club polo tournament final. "Why Peggy, you old dowager," I quipped, "I believe you just had an orgasm."

Certainly, my endorsement has raised more than a few eyebrows around the National Topsider water cooler, particularly among the alumni of jejune cow colleges like Michigan or Dartmouth. They sometimes point to Mr. Obama's radical Rolodex and his hooey about "weath redistribution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat." But, as I patiently explain, this is precisely the point - it is hooey, over-the-top rhetorical flourishes obviously designed by Mr. Obama to win over benighted inner city hoi polloi (a feat, I might add, that even the Great Communicator himself was unable to accomplish). As for his so-called radical ties, who among us hasn't sent dinner party invitations to Gore Vidal and a leftwing terrorists or two to enliven the postprandial conversation? Leonard Bernstein loved hosting all manner of Weathermen and Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army celebrities at his Park Avenue pied a terre, but it didn't mean the Maestro wasn't in favor of low taxes. On the contrary; I know for a fact he itemized every cent of the catering bills for his famous terrorist cocktail parties.

Just so, I have every confidence that Obama's true conservative butterfly will emerge once in office, coaxed from its Maoist cocoon by conservatives like myself and Frum and Parker and Noonan -- all of whom I am pleased to report are already under consideration for the Obama Administration State Dinner shortlist. Certainly there may be a tax increase or two, but isn't that what estate attorneys and Cayman Island banks are for? Under a worst case scenario some of us may have to set up a lease-back depreciation arrangement on one or two of our vacation compounds, as Dad was forced to in the dark years of Carter. But I'm not worried. I've got a pretty good sense for character, and I'd be willing to bet my Weejuns that inside this Obama fellow lives the soul a rock-ribbed old money Brahmin. Ask yourself: could a seriously committed Marxist carry off a Brooks Brothers suit like that? I mean, other than Dad's old commie nemesis and Harvard fencing club foe Alger Hiss.

But there is an even more compelling reason to support Barack Obama: Sarah Palin.

If you are a conservative like me, you guffawed when you heard John McCain announced this declasse rube as a running mate, followed by good-natured applause, thinking it was some sort of whimsical campus prank he was reenacting from his Annapolis years. This was, of course, quickly followed the shock of realizing that he wasn't joking, and all that Hanoi unpleasantness had finally driven him around the bend.

It's an inescapable conclusion that this woman has, in 6 short weeks, single-handedly destroyed the Republican party. Certainly George Bush may share some of the blame; but we conservatives must remember how our hopes were buoyed by his impressive bloodlines and Yale degree before we realized his excursion to Texas had caused him to "go native." But la Palin offers true conservatives no such extenuating graces. I mean, my God, this woman is simply awful; the elided vowels, the beauty pageantry, the guns, the crude non-Episcopal protestantism, the embarrassing porchload of children with horrifying hillbilly names, the white after Labor Day. As fellow conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan quipped to me the other day outside a Martha's Vineyard antique shop, it's gratifying to know the Gipper isn't alive to see what has become of his party.

But it's not just American conservatives who are appalled. Just last week conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks and I were enjoying an apres-badminton apertif at the family weekend house in Montauk with my good friend Viscount Klaus-Maria Von Wallensheim, the conservative EU Agricultural Pricing Minister with whom I shared an Alpine chalet and manservant during our years as classmates at a Swiss boarding school. "Kloonkie" (my old school appellation for the Viscount) reported the growing dismay of the Continental Right over Palin's embarrassing enthusiasm for childbirth and Israel.

"Coddsie, old chap, " he warned, "You know I've always been been America's biggest defender in Monaco. But if you elect this ill-bred charwoman, I will be be forced to move anchor to St. Tropez out of pure shame."

David and I were left nodding silently, for how else could we respond? If Palin has lost Kloonkie, she has surely lost the entire conservative movement. The idea of this dreadful woman in Washington is almost too much to contemplate. Not only would it be a fashion disaster, one can scarcely imagine the White House social calendar -- mooseburger fetes to that ghastly Joe the Plumber, perhaps followed by snow machine derbies through the Rose Garden?

For now, we conservatives must do what we can to sabotage the ill-fated McCain-Palin fiasco and hope for the best. Once the election is over we can lick our wounds, read the entrails, and decide where the movement should go from here. In anticipation, the Topsider will be holding a top-level exclusive strategy conference in Nassau next January, featuring tout le monde of conservative intellectuals from the Back Bay Review, The Prospective Standard, National Bowtie, and The Swartmorean. If you are attending, please be advised that gentlemen's jackets will be mandatory after six PM.

Until then, do not despair; the election of Mr. Obama means that at least some conservatives will still have a place at the table. I do hope I get seated next to this William Ayers fellow -- I've heard he has some amazingly droll anecdotes!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC:MontereyJohn

A Message for Community Agitator Senator Obama

2008-10-30T22:50:00.006-05:00

This message to Senator Obama from an Iraq War veteran is spot on.

Dumbass Progressive retort in 3, 2, 1:

*Snark Level set to 11*

It's a shame that this uninformed victim of Chimpy W. McBushitler is so deluded that he's willing to vote for a guy who's going to wage war for oil for another 100 years... It's probably because of the fact that he lost his leg and everything....

right???
*spittle flying*
right????

What state does this guy live in? Can we look into his government records? Has he been paying his taxes???? Does he have a rap sheet?

Can we get the FCC to take this racist video down???

HELLO!?!?!?

Nuance

Be sure to head to the polls on Tuesday... if not for yourself, than for this vet.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Obama Calls Hillary at 3:00 AM - I Needed a Chuckle

2008-10-30T12:09:00.002-05:00

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

MJ's Forecast of States for MCain

2008-10-30T08:06:00.004-05:00

This is just "informed gut," but I just am not believing these polls, and I think the Joe the Plumber economy has real life. I think the Obama infomercial was a fiasco last night and did more harm than good. It appealed to his base, but regular folks are not going to like it. I could be just as wrong as can be, but this is how I see it.

Here's my list. What do my fellow conspirators think?

New Hampshire
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Ohio
Indiana
Missouri
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
N Dakota
S Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Montana
Wyoming
Idaho
Utah
Colorado
Nevada
Arizona

and ... just maybe ... Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine!

Yes, I know some of these are tossup or even leaning
Obama, but this is what my old gut is telling me this morning.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

The Obamessiah Will Look Out for the Little Guy

2008-10-29T19:08:00.004-05:00

If you think the Obamessiah has your interests in his heart and that he'll "look out for you," think again. The number of relatives around this guy who are living in dire straights around the world suggests that he won't.

If he can't help out those in his own family, how in the hell can you expect him to look out for you?

His aunt in Boston lives in government housing:

Found in a rundown Boston estate: Barack Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango
The aunt of Barack Obama, Zeituni Onyango

Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

The US press has repeatedly rehearsed Mr Obama’s extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family’s American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Mr Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

In his book Mr Obama writes that “Uncle Omar” had gone missing after moving to Boston in the 1960s – a quarter-century before Mr Obama first visited his family in Kenya. Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city.

Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”
[...]

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Card Check under the ObamaMessiah

2008-10-28T13:09:00.002-05:00

One of the expected pieces of legislation that Obama is expected to sign into law is the Employee Free Choice Act (which is the biggest misnomer in Congressional history!). Peter Kirsanow mentions it in a Corner item today:

Employee Free Choice Act and Joe the Plumber [Peter Kirsanow]
Proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act ("EFCA") maintain that card check unionization will protect employees from the alleged employer coercion and intimidation that accompanies secret ballot election campaigns. This, say proponents, is why card check better protects an employee's free choice than the present system of secret ballot elections supervised by the National Labor Relation Board.

Peter then extrapolates a hypothetical card check organizing drive:

The Union targets Joe's employer for unionization. There are 100 employees in the proposed bargaining unit, so under EFCA the union only needs to convince 51 of them to sign authorization cards for the union to be certified as the collective bargaining representative for all 100.

...

Let's review: Joe had no choice in being represented by the union. He had no choice in paying union dues. He had no choice in accepting the arbitrator's order that might lead to his lay-off.

Joe concludes that the correct title is the Employee No Choice Act.

Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't even take 51 cards. It would likely only take about 25. After 35, you could get 10 more by further organization of the ones that signed:

Union Boss: Hey Bill, do you know anybody else in the company that would sign? Say, aren't you playing softball with Joe this weekend? Why don't you talk to him about signing the card in the bar after the game. Tell him you've signed already!

The remaining 55 would be all of a sudden be on the hot seat. You only need 6 out of the 55 to "come on board". And as anybody that has watched Congress, will know, the "gang of 6" will be easy enough to find.

In addition, because its just a roving card signing, you can just keep asking people to sign until they give in. Every time they increase their numbers it will be harder to resist.

Not to mention the potential for graft and corruption. The magical 51st worker might find a sweetheart deal on a new bass boat.

Right out of college I worked for a company that underwent a unionization drive. I have not found a more destructive force on a workplace. I'd hate to imagine it without the anonymity of the secret ballot.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

A Must See - Escaping the Liberal Plantation in California

2008-10-28T09:45:00.002-05:00

In contrast to the video I put up yesterday, here is a guy who says it like it is without any Hollywood crap. More than worth watching. This guy "escaped the liberal plantation" against all odds.

Wait till you hear him hit Matt Damon and Hollywood near the end. Who is this guy? Who cares: Palin-This Guy 2012!

We’ve seen a half-dozen slicky produced Hollywood, star-studded Oh!-Oh!-OH!-OBAMA! viral videos and not one rises above cringe-worthy, but along comes this guy in his basement who wins you over in the first moments and never lets go.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Obama Be Thy Name

2008-10-27T18:01:00.004-05:00

I don't know whether to applaud, get angry or cry. This video is so damn well done that it nearly takes my breath away. Then, at the same time, it is profoundly sacreligeous. And finally it is alarming in keeping with the ongoing theme of Obama's cult of personality and the fact that the country looks to be buying into it.

Watch it and make up your own mind.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn