what if?

Dan the Man

Having a fairly busy weekend.  So - after reading a basketful of good posts over at my friend Dan Blatt's blog, Gay Patriot, I'm going to let Dan do some of the heavy lifting!

Michael Steele for RNC chair.  Yes!  And for more than one or two reasons.

More than a few things in this life mystify me.  One of them is why purported "liberals" seem to embrace regimes that would torture and/or murder gays and women in a heartbeat.  Dan expounds.

Finally, government has but a few true responsibilities.  Those responsibilities are not providing birth control to everyone, nor sex education in schools - they are not to send us money nor subsidize corn growers or TV stations.  Yet one of those critical responsibilities is to defend our people.  All the fabulous educational programs and health care and fine infrastructure and social programs are utterly meaningless if a huge chunk of us are dead.  So - exactly why might the Obama administration want to slice 10% from our defense budget?  Of course, whether Obama was straightforward in his campaigning is another matter.  (If he was not, surely he would not be the first, either.)

Thanks, Dan!  Enjoy.

Bravo, President Obama

Is there anyone out there, other than those gifting themselves with these ridiculous bonuses, who does not think this compensation is ludicrous?  As Ed Morrissey says, let's get bipartisan. Applaud President Obama for saying what should be obvious to everyone.

UPDATE:  Ron Rosenbaum adds some equally apt remarks.

Something for Nothing

My generation is the "something for nothing" generation.  And - in large part, all the old homilies such as "there is no free lunch" haven't applied to us.  We've had free lunch - and then some.  Many of us had our parents pay for a fine education.  We've had beautiful homes, far nicer than the previous generation - and they've been filled with technological and electronic goodies almost unimaginable to those from earlier times.  We've gone on vacations to island resorts and other continents, driven modern, well equipped vehicles, had wardrobes enormous enough to require his and her walk-in closets - and more.

On top of it all, many of us haven't paid cash for all these goodies.  Oh; perish the thought!  No, we've borrowed for it all - with jumbo loans, equity loans, and credit card financing.  And up until recently, the gravy train kept on chugging along.

Now?  Now that train seems to have stopped in its tracks.

I Tried

I told my Jewish friends and relatives that if they voted for Obama, they might be aiding the end of Israel.  They scoffed at me.

Let's hope that this appointment does not signal that I was correct.

The Best Guy for the Job?

A couple of nights ago I had dinner and discussion with good friends.  They are committed liberals, wonderful people and smart.  Soooo - I asked them about Timothy Geithner, our new Treasury Secretary.  Why had President Obama selected a guy who may well be a tax cheat - or, if not that, incapable of doing his tax returns properly?  My friends explained that Geithner was so superb for the job, it was worth overlooking this gaffe.

Oh really?

Beggar Thy Children

An expert in economics?  Not I.  Knowledgeable about the inner workings of government?  Don't look at me.  Nevertheless, given my experience in work and human nature, it seems like this assessment of our new stimulus bill and other Democratic plans unfortunately is all too true.  While I recommend you read the entire column, a few choice excerpts for your perusal.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that “democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Redistribution, when it is from those with good ideas and strong work ethic to those without, is a special form of “beggar thy neighbor.” As we visit restaurants with empty tables and stores with idle clerks, are we seeing the result of policies that “beggar thy client”? When we see resources siphoned from the public economy into financial institutions that misjudged risk, automakers that misjudged demand, airlines that misjudged costs, a health-care system drowning in paperwork, and so forth, are we “beggaring” the very engines of innovation and economic advancement, including any and all who do not feed at the public trough?

But, of course, the plan is not to pay for this government largesse with current taxes. The plan is to borrow the incremental cost. So, the argument goes, we are not beggaring our bosses, our clients, our innovators and the hardest working among us. But, if current taxpayers are not bearing the cost, then future taxpayers must. Is it possible that the capital markets are reacting to an ambitious agenda which tacitly seeks to “beggar our children”?

Individuals and businesses invest more wisely than governments. If Obama wants to lead from the center, he needs to reassure us that entrepreneurialism will not be discouraged and risk bearing will not be punished. The capital markets will react well if the Obama administration unleashes the power of human innovation; they have reacted badly after the election, and again with the inauguration, because the markets fears that this is not in the cards. To borrow another quote from Jefferson, “I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Madoff and Made Off

Madoff.  At $50 billion, one of the largest heists ever - and thus not surprising in the least that reams are now being written about this sorry excuse for a human and the wreckage left in his wake.  In contrast, reports of waste, fraud and abuse under $100K seems like chump change.

Still, when we have fraud and abuse and ridiculous spending rampant in our government, we are all damaged.  People do not like seeing tax dollars being wasted or used stupidly.  If little is done to stop it, we all begin to cast a jaundiced eye at the system.  And - all those "little" chunks of $100K eventually add up.

My friend Duane, the Black Informant, has the details.

You Choose

Well.  Now it's passed; a stimulus package stuffed with so much pork and spending that our nation may ultimately gag on it.

And speaking of gagging - if you mention the name "Rush Limbaugh" to your favorite liberal, they will make gagging noises and level an array of insults about the talk radio king.  Nevertheless, in reality, sometimes Rush Is Right. 

Take a look at this plan that Rush had for the economy, and Ed Morrissey's analysis.  Then think to yourself; which would you choose? 

Suddenly Muslim

Fascinating how times change.  Remember the 2008 election?  Oh; you can do it.  It wasn't that long ago.

During that time, then candidate Barack Obama, over and over, stressed his Christianity and Christian background.  Muslim?  Not only did Obama's campaign stress that Obama wasn't Muslim, we were told that even to raise the possibility was false and racist.

Of course - that was then; this is now.

Where's the Pony?

Is there one really in there?

RONALD REAGAN loved to tell the story of the unfailingly cheerful little boy who wakes up on Christmas morning to find, instead of presents, an immense pile of manure. Undaunted, he grabs a shovel and starts digging. "With all this manure," he says excitedly, "there must be a pony in here someplace!"

Is there a pony somewhere in the $825 billion "stimulus" plan that Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to bring to a vote this week? The Congressional Budget Office started digging into this immense pile of, uh, deficit spending, and what it found would discourage even a Reagan-caliber optimist.

President Obama is Incorrect

Not all economists agree that we need to "jump-start" the economy with government action..  Here are two hundred who are putting their money where their mouth is with an ad in the Washington Post, the New York Times and Roll Call.

A letter will be placed in the Washington Post, NY Times and Roll Call tomorrow.  This letter is signed by 200 economists declaring that more government involvement to the economic crisis will do nothing to solve the problem as well as refuting the claim that ALL economists are Keynesian.  Hats off to these guys!

Make Mine Skinheads

Jack Engelhard, author and escapee from Hitler's Europe, is utterly blunt in his opinions about those on the left who "march for peace."

Frankly, given a choice, I prefer the skinheads and other brutes who express their anti-Semitism openly. In such places, we know the enemy.

But please spare me the pieties and the righteous indignation of those “good people” protesting throughout Europe against Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza. True, thousands have taken up banners in support of Israel. At the same time, however, the streets of Europe (and even some in America) are in an uproar. These are the “humanitarians” - the good, the noble, the refined, who chant “peace.”

Now you’re up and about? Now you speak? Where were you when, throughout the years, thousands of jihadist bombs fell on Israel? The streets of Europe were empty. There were no pictures in the newspapers of grieving Jewish mothers and fathers. You called it “peace” as long as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying. All was well with the world.

Suddenly, as Israel answered back, you found your Cause; and how self-righteous you are in your Cause.

You are the best and the brightest of Europe. You are educated. You attended the finest schools. You care for the birds, the bees, the bears, the trees. You favor free speech and freedom of religion. Strange it is that the one and only place in the Middle East that shares your world-view is Israel, and it is Israel that you slander.

Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem? At the first hint of Jewish self-defense, how quickly you show your true colors.

Please read the entire post.

 

 

 

Independent

My friend Shay Riley at Booker Rising always tells it like she sees it.  While many are getting "thrills up their leg" over every miniscule action of our new president, Shay gives Obama the boot on a couple of issues.

The Confidence Game

The phrase "confidence game" is generally used to refer to a scam.  One gets the "confidence" of the mark; then takes what can be gotten from him.

Ultimately, however, our financial systems are based upon confidence.  We invest money in a company because we have confidence that the owners and workers will improve the worth of that company.  Stores secure goods for sale, having confidence that if they chose wisely, consumers will purchase those goods and the stores will earn profits.  In my own work, residential real estate, people buy homes to have shelter.  Yet, they do so, believing that their home has a value.  If they need to move from their home, they need confidence that they will be able to sell that home to a new buyer, and at least net a price somewhat similar to what they paid for the home.

As we all know, in the past year, confidence has vanished from our economic system.  Fear has taken its place; fear of markets, fear of losing employment, fear of consumption - even fear of the value of our money.  Greg Mankiw points to economist Bob Shiller discussing this phenomenon - and asserting that we need confidence in our institutions to get the system back on track.

Declaring for Liberty

A number of years ago, I attended a talk by Philip Howard at the Center of the American Experiment.  After the talk, I felt like standing up and cheering.  Mr. Howard, an attorney living in New York City, has devoted this part of his life to urging our nation to return to a time of common sense.  Although obviously a man who has studied law and spent his life practicing it, Howard acknowledges which many of us know; too much law and regulation can choke the lifeblood out of a nation and its people.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Howard has an excellent essay explaining how this constriction of freedom harms us, and what we need to do to be restored to a more healthy judicial system.

Time Travel

Democrats claim that spending like our nation has never seen before is required as a stimulus to the economy.  Can someone explain, however, how spending in 2011 is going to stimulate the economy in 2009?

The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

The stimulus bill is also a time machine in the sense that it's based on an old, and largely discredited, economic theory. As Harvard economist Robert Barro pointed out on these pages last Thursday, the "stimulus" claim is based on something called the Keynesian "multiplier," which is that each $1 of spending the government "injects" into the economy yields 1.5 times that in greater output. There's little evidence to support this theory, but you have to admire its beauty because it assumes the government can create wealth out of thin air. If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise.

Compare and Contrast

  This post called "A Tale of Two Losers" demonstrates how GM and Toyota are dealing with losing sales.

Call It What It Is

In my political email group (which I still read but do not respond), I've seen literally years of criticism of Israel.  Surely, like any country in the world, Israel is at times deserving of criticism.  But - then again, there is criticism . . . . and then, there is criticism.  I and some others find it strange that this minute nation is constantly berated for Crimes Against Humanity when - call me crazy - somehow it does seem that a few other nations actually behave a bit worse.

After months of reading these emails, my friend Lew, an attorney originally from Georgia who happens to be born again and black, said, "They can deny it all they wish.  But these attacks on Israel are irrational; I think these folks are anti-semitic."  Well.  I don't know about that.  Still, like the author of this column, I, too have had quite enough of those who march for Hamas.

In a bizarre reversal of all their commitment to human rights and the struggle of men and women for independence and self-determination, the European Left has chosen again and again to side with the bullies and to condemn a small nation struggling to survive in a hostile neighborhood. It is all self-contradictory: The Left supports gay rights, yet attacks the only country in the Middle East where gay rights are enshrined in law. Hamas makes death the punishment for being gay, but "we are all Hamas now." Iran hangs gays, but it is praised as an agent of anti-imperialism, and allowed to get on with its job of stoning women and executing dissidents and members of religious minorities. If UK Premier Gordon Brown swore to wipe France from the face of the earth, he would become a pariah among nations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to do that to Israel and is invited to speak to the UN General Assembly

Israel guarantees civil liberties to all its citizens, Jew or Arab alike, but it is dubbed "an apartheid state"; Hamas, ever the bully, kills its opponents and denies the rest the most basic rights, but we march on behalf of Hamas. The Left prefers the bully because the bully represents a finger in the face of the establishment? Almost no one on the Left has any understanding of militant Islam.

Do read the whole thing.  An excellent account of how some on the left drift from legitimate caring for Palestinian victims to blatant anti-semitism.

In A Flash

"Live for today," takes on new meaning when you read about Mariana Bridi da Costa. And - once again - my mother was correct.  When you have your health, you have everything.

Nothing Else Matters

When I show a home, most people (and I include myself in this category) care about how attractive the home is, how much space it has where it's located and the convenience of its layout.  Generally, unless my client is an engineer, folks just don't pay that much attention to items like the plumbing, the foundation, the condition of the roof and the like. 

Yet, when push comes to shove, although our sentiments are with "do I love this home and is it beautiful?" - if the mechanicals aren't good, the rest really doesn't matter.  If the foundation collapses... if the home burns down in an electrical fire due to faulty wiring - then handsome crown molding, granite countertops and designer wool carpeting are all moot.

So it is with our nation.  I, like you, want good schools, pleasant parks, a functioning highway system, decent health care, and so on and so forth.  Yet, at rock bottom, our safety, and thus defense, is what is critical.  To be blunt:  if we are dead, virtually anything else about our nation is irrelevant.

And so we come to the topic of what to do about Guantanemo, enemy combatants and torture - or, lack thereof.  You may think it simple and straightforward.  Yet, as the Bush administration judged, and as the Obama administration probably appreciates (having left an "escape clause" for the president to use his judgment), none of it is simple nor straightforward.  An excellent column by Robert Kaplan at the Atlantic about our torture dilemma.

If we act like angels, and another, even more massive attack occurs in the United States, then the public might cry for blood, as it did to an extent in the immediate days and weeks after 9/11, when torture was occasionally spoken of in different terms than it is now. Remember that some Bush Administration policies were drawn up in the context of one public mood, and carried out in the context of another. Were that to happen, detainees’ rights might decline by, say, 50 percent. But if we push the envelope only 15 percent along that dangerous path, then we might avoid the 50 percent trap, and save many of our own lives.

But even 15 percent makes me queasy. To avoid the question, though, is itself irresponsible.