In an earlier post I mentioned that "tea parties" were held last week in Seattle, Denver, Overland Park, KS and Mesa, AZ in protest of the stimulus, bailouts and all other past, present and future government-mandated generational theft. Since that post on Sunday the House passed a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill and Pres. Obama unveiled his $3.6 trillion budget blueprint. Democrats complained last year about the appalling $400 billion deficit in the Bush budget, but have no problem at all with Obama's budget promising deficits of $1.7 trillion.
But don't worry: Obama says he'll cut the deficit in half in 4 years. Which would still put the deficit at twice the size of Bush's last budget.
To quote an Obamoid bumper sticker: "Have you had enough?"
Tomorrow there are tea parties in Nashville, Houston, Atlanta, D.C., St. Louis, Orlando and San Diego and many other cities. The Atlanta event is at noon at the Georgia State Capitol. Details here.
Folks, this isn't about Republicans and Democrats anymore. Its about America. If you're waiting for leadership from your friendly neighborhood elected official you'll be waiting a long time. There isn't any. We're on our own.
I know we all have that, gosh, I'd-love-to-go-down-to-the-capitol-but-I've-got-that-hair appointment-at-noon thing in our heads. But this being America each one of us can still make a difference. We only vote every 2 or 4 years. In the meantime we can make our vocies heard.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A New American Tea Party?
You may have heard Rick Santelli on CNBC last week ranting against the proposed mortgage bailout offered by B.H.O. that would cost taxpayers another coupla hundred billion plus or minus. At the heart of "Rick's Rant" is not the financial cost of the bailout. Its the moral one:
Reading the guy's words in print doesn't really do him justice. Also, you don't get a feel for the atmosphere on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, where Santelli stood during his tirade. As he mentioned Obama's policy the floor traders booed in unison, suggesting a rising tide of populist righteous indignation against the whole bailout mentality. He must have struck a nerve, especially in calling for a "Chicago Tea Party:" he drew a sharp rebuke from Obama's spokesman Joe Gibbs, which only served to raise Santelli's profile and his new found cause.
In case you didn't catch the video, you really owe it to yourself to take a look here. Agree or disagree with Santelli, its gratifying to see someone who is not named Keith Olbermann in full rant mode.
Santelli is not the only one calling for a new American Tea Party. Michelle Malkin over at Michellemalkin.com is doing a great job of marshalling her formidable column- and blog-writing assets as well as her gig at Pajamas Media TV into a force for conservative/libertarian activism. Her main target is the "porkulus" plan signed by the president last week but the "tea party" movement she is encouraging (if not actually leading) is destined to tap into the whole anti-bailout/stimulus/entitlement sentiment out in the land. Malkin has noted successful protests in Seattle, Denver, Mesa AZ, and Overland Park KS so far and reports on other cities in the works.
For most of us the idea of carrying placards at a street protest is something repugnant and distasteful, better left to abortion extremists (pro and con) and other losers. Indeed, Michelle points out that it is much harder to get taxpayin' hard-workin' folks out to protest than it is to get busloads of hard core liberal activists to show up, especially those already on the government dole. Yet some of the anti-pork protests have seen as many as 500 folks show up, including college students who don't cotton to the idea of working their tails off for the next 50 years to cover Amtrak's losses or pay for a bunch of deadbeats' mortgages.
For a 13 minute review of the anti-bailout activities of the last week or so, please see PJTV's Glenn Reynolds interview of Michelle.
If you are riled up enough by all the bailouts and want to just "do something," or simply want to follow the progress of the rolling protests going on out there, I suggest you add MichelleMalkin.com to your favorites button. I am certain that an event is coming sooner or later to a city near you.
'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the
losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for
your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all
stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'...
Reading the guy's words in print doesn't really do him justice. Also, you don't get a feel for the atmosphere on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, where Santelli stood during his tirade. As he mentioned Obama's policy the floor traders booed in unison, suggesting a rising tide of populist righteous indignation against the whole bailout mentality. He must have struck a nerve, especially in calling for a "Chicago Tea Party:" he drew a sharp rebuke from Obama's spokesman Joe Gibbs, which only served to raise Santelli's profile and his new found cause.
In case you didn't catch the video, you really owe it to yourself to take a look here. Agree or disagree with Santelli, its gratifying to see someone who is not named Keith Olbermann in full rant mode.
Santelli is not the only one calling for a new American Tea Party. Michelle Malkin over at Michellemalkin.com is doing a great job of marshalling her formidable column- and blog-writing assets as well as her gig at Pajamas Media TV into a force for conservative/libertarian activism. Her main target is the "porkulus" plan signed by the president last week but the "tea party" movement she is encouraging (if not actually leading) is destined to tap into the whole anti-bailout/stimulus/entitlement sentiment out in the land. Malkin has noted successful protests in Seattle, Denver, Mesa AZ, and Overland Park KS so far and reports on other cities in the works.
For most of us the idea of carrying placards at a street protest is something repugnant and distasteful, better left to abortion extremists (pro and con) and other losers. Indeed, Michelle points out that it is much harder to get taxpayin' hard-workin' folks out to protest than it is to get busloads of hard core liberal activists to show up, especially those already on the government dole. Yet some of the anti-pork protests have seen as many as 500 folks show up, including college students who don't cotton to the idea of working their tails off for the next 50 years to cover Amtrak's losses or pay for a bunch of deadbeats' mortgages.
For a 13 minute review of the anti-bailout activities of the last week or so, please see PJTV's Glenn Reynolds interview of Michelle.
If you are riled up enough by all the bailouts and want to just "do something," or simply want to follow the progress of the rolling protests going on out there, I suggest you add MichelleMalkin.com to your favorites button. I am certain that an event is coming sooner or later to a city near you.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
I'm A Racist Coward!
Gary Graham of the Big Hollywood Blog at Breitbart.com responds to Attorney General Eric Holder's claim that we are not racially sensitive enough.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Banking Crisis: The Rise of the "N" Word
Even taking into account Tuesday's 3%-plus rally the major stock indexes have fallen over 11% since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced to universal derision the Treasury's plan for rescuing the banking sector from collapse. That was just a little more than two weeks ago. Of course the pummeling that stocks have taken these past weeks are not a reaction just to Geithner's plan, but also to the concern--prompted by the ham-handed rollout of the plan--that the Treasury isn't quite up to the task at hand.
At the heart of Geithner's plan was a public-private "partnership" that would buy toxic bank assets and thus clean up the banks' balance sheets. This would require the banks to undergo a balance sheet "stress test," thereby exposing for all to see the sorry state of their balance sheets. According to Andy Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager and author of "How We Got Here" (Collins 2005), the stress test idea is a worthy one, but he doesn't think Geithner's plan will work. Writing in the Wall Street Journal the day after Geithner's announcement Kessler argued that "banks are more than able to sell these toxic loans today. They just don't like the price." TARP didn't work because buying toxic assets at face value is a terrible deal for the taxpayers. But selling the assets at market value (assuming this could be determined) would effectively wipe out the troubled banks' equity and make then insolvent, which is why they don't want to play along.
Kessler calls for using Geithner's stress test to determine the truly dead banks and then "nationalize" them, by which he means a temporary FDIC take-over. Presumably the idea of taking over the banks will rattle the markets, as will any "stress test" that shows that banks are in far worse shape than anyone acknowledges. But the short-term pain may be far more bearable than a continued paralysis of the credit markets.
Under Kessler's plan the government would strip the dead banks of their toxic assets and recapitalize the banks with hundreds of billions of dollars of fresh equity. The toxic assets would sit in a Treasury "holding tank" until their true value can be ascertained and realized. At the same time a new board and new management team would be put in place at the banks and billions of shares would be created and spun off to U.S. taxpayers in rough proportion to their income tax payments. Although current management would be thrown out on the streets, undoubtedly they would receive hefty lifetime sinecures as a reward for having piloted their banks onto the rocks.
The spin-off would have to occur within days of the take-over, according to Kessler, so that the banks do not become politicized. "Politics," says Kessler, "will kill a nationalized bank."
Well, duh. And there's the rub. Kessler's theory, which has appeal even to a capitalist pig like me, falls apart when it meets the reality of our political system. Does anyone think that our geniuses on Capitol Hill or at the Treasury would ever agree to inject hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the capital of the banks without strings attached? And I don't just mean debt-to-equity ratios or other financial regulations, but populist measures like executive-pay caps or lending quotas to members of protected classes or what have you. The banks would become laboratories for all manner of social experimentation, and would not be an attractive investment for shareholders. Beyond that, who in this Congress would actually agree to issue new bank shares only to those Americans who actually pay income taxes?
I don't know if Mr. Kessler was the first to use the "N" word, but he surely wasn't the last. Senator Lindsey Graham, President Obama's favorite Republican, has endorsed some form of "nationalization" as has Alan Greenspan (whose name will one of these days be a synonym for something stinkier than "mud" as his role in the creation of an unsustainable credit and consumerism bubble becomes clearer). Since neither is a socialist presumably they are thinking along the lines of the Swedish model of the 1990s, not the Venezuelan model of the 2000s. Under conservative Prime Minister Carl Bildt-- with the backing of the opposition party-- Sweden undertook a speedy take-over of the banks, aggressively wrote-down the asset values and recapitalized the banks, with the shares being held by the government in trust for the taxpayers. The bad assets--real estate mostly--were sold off rather quickly and the crisis was resolved without political gain for one side or the other.
At the heart of Geithner's plan was a public-private "partnership" that would buy toxic bank assets and thus clean up the banks' balance sheets. This would require the banks to undergo a balance sheet "stress test," thereby exposing for all to see the sorry state of their balance sheets. According to Andy Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager and author of "How We Got Here" (Collins 2005), the stress test idea is a worthy one, but he doesn't think Geithner's plan will work. Writing in the Wall Street Journal the day after Geithner's announcement Kessler argued that "banks are more than able to sell these toxic loans today. They just don't like the price." TARP didn't work because buying toxic assets at face value is a terrible deal for the taxpayers. But selling the assets at market value (assuming this could be determined) would effectively wipe out the troubled banks' equity and make then insolvent, which is why they don't want to play along.
Kessler calls for using Geithner's stress test to determine the truly dead banks and then "nationalize" them, by which he means a temporary FDIC take-over. Presumably the idea of taking over the banks will rattle the markets, as will any "stress test" that shows that banks are in far worse shape than anyone acknowledges. But the short-term pain may be far more bearable than a continued paralysis of the credit markets.
Under Kessler's plan the government would strip the dead banks of their toxic assets and recapitalize the banks with hundreds of billions of dollars of fresh equity. The toxic assets would sit in a Treasury "holding tank" until their true value can be ascertained and realized. At the same time a new board and new management team would be put in place at the banks and billions of shares would be created and spun off to U.S. taxpayers in rough proportion to their income tax payments. Although current management would be thrown out on the streets, undoubtedly they would receive hefty lifetime sinecures as a reward for having piloted their banks onto the rocks.
The spin-off would have to occur within days of the take-over, according to Kessler, so that the banks do not become politicized. "Politics," says Kessler, "will kill a nationalized bank."
Well, duh. And there's the rub. Kessler's theory, which has appeal even to a capitalist pig like me, falls apart when it meets the reality of our political system. Does anyone think that our geniuses on Capitol Hill or at the Treasury would ever agree to inject hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the capital of the banks without strings attached? And I don't just mean debt-to-equity ratios or other financial regulations, but populist measures like executive-pay caps or lending quotas to members of protected classes or what have you. The banks would become laboratories for all manner of social experimentation, and would not be an attractive investment for shareholders. Beyond that, who in this Congress would actually agree to issue new bank shares only to those Americans who actually pay income taxes?
I don't know if Mr. Kessler was the first to use the "N" word, but he surely wasn't the last. Senator Lindsey Graham, President Obama's favorite Republican, has endorsed some form of "nationalization" as has Alan Greenspan (whose name will one of these days be a synonym for something stinkier than "mud" as his role in the creation of an unsustainable credit and consumerism bubble becomes clearer). Since neither is a socialist presumably they are thinking along the lines of the Swedish model of the 1990s, not the Venezuelan model of the 2000s. Under conservative Prime Minister Carl Bildt-- with the backing of the opposition party-- Sweden undertook a speedy take-over of the banks, aggressively wrote-down the asset values and recapitalized the banks, with the shares being held by the government in trust for the taxpayers. The bad assets--real estate mostly--were sold off rather quickly and the crisis was resolved without political gain for one side or the other.
But this ain't Sweden, notes Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr., a former banker and Dallas Fed vice president. Writing this week in The Wall Street Journal, O'Driscoll says a Swedish-style temporary nationalization may be the least costly of a lot of bad alternatives in principle, but in practice it would be a disaster. Says O'Driscoll:
From the beginning, the handling of the U.S. crisis has been politicized. The partisanship is as toxic as the bad assets on bank balance sheets. Both parties are coming up with schemes to impede the process of foreclosing on homeowners who can't afford their homes, which would get those homes into the hands of new owners who can afford them. Does anyone believe that a government bad bank will squeeze homeowners? To ask the question is to answer it.
We have a model already for what happens to government-run financial institutions--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those giant, supposedly independent institutions became vehicles for patronage and crony capitalism on a scale yet to be uncovered. But worse even than the huge
bonuses and the shady accounting practices benefiting the well-connected executives at Fannie and Freddie was the politicization of their lending guidleines for FHA/FHLM loans which encouraged banks to lend to non-creditworthy borrowers for a decade. Fannie and Freeddie were part of the problem, not the solution.
Rather than nationalization or further bailouts, O'Driscoll calls for a lessening of government involvement in the banking sector. Part of what led to this mess is the implicit "public-private" partnership that Geithner has called for. "Deposit insurance, access to the Fed's lending, and the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee for banks 'too big to fail' all constituted a system of financial corporatism. It must be ended not extended," says O'Driscoll.
Fat chance. Based on President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last night, one thing is certain: the banking industry will not escape the government's tight embrace. Obama and the Democrats are committed to sinking their hooks ever deeper into the financial sec(not to mention, inter alia, the automobile, energy and health care sectors). Just yesterday in order to try to calm the markets Secretary Geithner pooh-pooed the talk of bank nationalization. But whatever form this intervention takes--more bailouts, equity and debt purchases or some form of nationalization--you can be sure that the banks will become political playthings.
Politics may not will kill the banks as Mr. Kessler fears. But based on the results of the government's current forays into the mortgage and finance sectors I woudn't bet against it.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Talk Radio: Ten Questions for the "Hush Rush" Crowd
On Friday I suggested that in their quest to consolidate power the liberals who control Congress would press for hearings on updating and reviving the now-defunct "fairness" doctrine in order to restrict objectionable (to them) political speech. I referenced comments made just last week by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Tom Harkin, former President Bill Clinton and other Democrat party officials and elected representatives endorsing government-coerced "balance" and "accountability" for talk radio. Yesterday President Obama's chief aide David Axelrod refused to rule out an effort by the administration to reimpose restrictions on station ownership and content that would amount to a muzzling of conservatives on radio.
It is no coincidence that all these comments found their way into the media within the space of a week. The proponents of regulation of talk radio are serious and they are all on the same page, a page written primarily by the left-wing George Soros-funded think-tank Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP's recommendations are contained in a report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio authored in 2007 by senior fellows at CAP. They are summarized as follows:
It is no coincidence that all these comments found their way into the media within the space of a week. The proponents of regulation of talk radio are serious and they are all on the same page, a page written primarily by the left-wing George Soros-funded think-tank Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP's recommendations are contained in a report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio authored in 2007 by senior fellows at CAP. They are summarized as follows:
- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Seems benign enough, until one reads the full report. CAP's proposal for reigning in talk radio goes far beyond simply enforcing the moribund Fairness Doctrine, which was shelved in 1987. CAP calls for nothing less than a government mandated restructuring of the news and talk radio marketplace, all in the name of fairness, balance and accountability to "local and community needs." In order to more fully understand the implications of these proposals I emailed ten questions to the authors.
Here are my questions. I will post their answers if and when I receive them:
1. You propose to increase "localism" and "diversification" in talk radio station ownership in order to satisfy "local and community needs." What is the basis for the regulation you propose?Is it the fact that station access to the airwaves is licensed by the FCC? If radio were an entirely "private" medium, would the government have the authority to restructure the industry as you recommend?
If government licensing is the basis for regulation, than would the goals of increasing localism and diversity apply to music radio station owners? Would stations that carry local TV news similarly be bound, since they are subject to renewable licenses? If not, what is the basis for distinction between talk, news and music? How would regulation of talk radio pass muster under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?
2. You suggest that the goal of legislation or rule-making in this area is to "encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming." The recommendations would have talk radio station owners meet "enforceable public interest obligations." What are the meanings of terms like "balanced," "responsive" and "public interest?"
Would the FCC itself determine whether programming complies or violates these standards? How would your proposal ensure that these standards are not determined on subjective ideological grounds?
3. Another stated goal is for radio to "better meet local and community needs." How are these needs determined? By a local station owner or by a government agency in Washington? What role does commercial success or viability play in this determination?
Many if not most markets have a "public" radio station serving the market. Do these stations meet local and community needs? If so, how many stations are needed in a market to fully satisfy this need?
4. You call for caps on station ownership, either nationally or locally. How would this achieve your desired results? Presumably caps would require owners like Clear Channel or Salem to sell off stations. Who decides which stations in which markets can be kept and which need to be sold? Would prospective buyers need to meet certain women- and minority-owned business enterprise requirements? What programming obligations would the new owners have to satisfy?
5. The report notes the overwhelming commercial success of talk radio, which translates into profits for the stations and owners. This means that the stations that carry these programs are valuable assets of the companies and individuals that own them. How will a forced sale of stations affect the market value of the assets sold? What rights would shareholders of these companies have under your plan?
6. Your critics argue that your proposal represents an unwarranted government intervention in private markets and an unconstitutional attempt to curtail free speech. Do these arguments have merit, and if so, how would your recommendations address this? Are you concerned that a future administration could use this framework to shut out opinions or points of view dear to you?
7. Do you contend that the FCC can act under its rulemaking authority without further congressional action? If congressional action is required, would you recommend full public hearings before Congress before your policies are implemented? Do you believe that station owners, talk show personalities, advertisers and listeners should be entitled to testify at any hearings and present their views?
8. It can be assumed that if your proposals are enacted popular radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Gallagher and the like will not quietly disappear from the scene. Rather they will avail themselves of internet, cable, print, podcasts and all other methods to continue their programming. Do you propose that the government also regulate in these areas as well to ensure that the "public interest" is served?
9. By your own account there are many millions of radio listeners who enjoy talk radio, presumably many who are not necessarily conservative. Are their rights not violated when their access to opinions and views that they find informative or worthwhile is curtailed? Do you anticipate a backlash by these many millions of listeners against government attempts to restrict their access to talk radio?
10. Finally, if your analysis and recommendations were promulgated by the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation and targeted against broadcast news or print media, would you consider it an outrageous attempt to undermine the constitutional protection of free speech? Absent a showing of dangerous incitement to violence, in what way is any curtailment of political speech defensible in a free society? In what way would such a curtailment be deemed progressive?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Talk Radio in the Bullseye
The new president's uni-partisan $780 billion spending cramdown was passed today by the U.S. House, and the atmospherics surrounding the vote prove that the president's party has no intention of allowing reason and open debate to threaten their agenda to grind down the private sector under the jackboot of government regulation and intervention. The largest spending bill in U.S. history was voted on within hours after the 1000-page final version was made available for review online late Thursday night. One congressman said the bill was covered with hen scratches and handwritten markups making it barely legible. It is certain that no one who voted for this fetid package knows what they voted for.
None of this seems to bother Speaker Pelosi, who wanted a vote today so she can make the evening news with a post-passage photo op and then board a plan for Rome. A few days ago the Democrats and Republicans unanimously passed a motion promising a 48-hour cooling off period between making the final bill available to the public and a congressional vote. But it seems that motion was "merely procedural and non-binding": the Speaker has a date in Italy and we musn't keep Queen Nancy waiting.
So much for the new era of responsibility and transparency promised by President Obama. In fact it is confusion and deception, not transparency and responsibility, that this crowd values in its march to consolidating its power. Arrogance and hubris just comes with the territory.
Speaking of consolidating power, a necessary element of achieving political dominance is to isolate the threats to total power and to target and then neutralize them. The biggest threats to liberals and thus the largest targets are the purveyors of dissenting ideas and the instruments of speech and communication by which they are spread. That is why Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill have set their sights on conservative talk radio.
The emboldened liberals have made no secret of their determination to kill conservative radio. Last weekend Sen. Debbie Stabenow of the economic basket case formerly known as Michigan told the lefty radio host Bill Press that she looks forward to holding hearings on the problem of imbalance and ideological bias on radio, all in the name of "accountability:
None of this seems to bother Speaker Pelosi, who wanted a vote today so she can make the evening news with a post-passage photo op and then board a plan for Rome. A few days ago the Democrats and Republicans unanimously passed a motion promising a 48-hour cooling off period between making the final bill available to the public and a congressional vote. But it seems that motion was "merely procedural and non-binding": the Speaker has a date in Italy and we musn't keep Queen Nancy waiting.
So much for the new era of responsibility and transparency promised by President Obama. In fact it is confusion and deception, not transparency and responsibility, that this crowd values in its march to consolidating its power. Arrogance and hubris just comes with the territory.
Speaking of consolidating power, a necessary element of achieving political dominance is to isolate the threats to total power and to target and then neutralize them. The biggest threats to liberals and thus the largest targets are the purveyors of dissenting ideas and the instruments of speech and communication by which they are spread. That is why Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill have set their sights on conservative talk radio.
The emboldened liberals have made no secret of their determination to kill conservative radio. Last weekend Sen. Debbie Stabenow of the economic basket case formerly known as Michigan told the lefty radio host Bill Press that she looks forward to holding hearings on the problem of imbalance and ideological bias on radio, all in the name of "accountability:
I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’sThis was echoed the next day by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. The latest to weigh in is Bill Clinton, who told an interviewer that there needs to be more "balance" on talk radio. He told radio personality Mario Solis Marich that "enforced media accountability" is necessary "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows."
called
the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I
absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the
airwaves.
This is a curious formulation. Clinton knows that talk radio's "big money" derives from private enterprise, that is to say, consumers paying for goods and services they want from advertisers who pay dearly for a few seconds of airtime on shows hosted by popular personalities in order to reach millions and millions of listeners who become the consumers that buy their goods and services. Perhaps Clinton is more comfortable with "big money" unloosed from Arab sheiks and third world despots instead of earned in the pursuit of profits.
In any case the idea of "enforced media accountability" should be chilling not just to conservatives but to all of us--liberals, progressives, independents alike. Those in the establishment media should be particularly alarmed, for as much as they may resent or hate Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, they have to know that any government that has the power to hush Rush tomorrow can stifle them the day after tomorrow. Yet as far as I can tell the media either ignores hints of reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," or as is the case with Bill Press, encourages it.
Redstate.com reports that all this talk about hearings to revisit imposing the "Fairness Doctrine" is not just idle chatter. The legislators and party bosses are following a comprehensive roadmap to this effort laid out by the left-wing advocacy group Center for American Progress. CAP calls on government to effectively "nationalize" talk radio, by taking the following actions:
1. Limit the number of stations one company can own both
locally and nationally;
2. Shorten license terms so they can use government pressure to get unpopular hosts like Bill Press on more radio stations; and,
3. Require that these broadcasters prove that they operate in the
"public interest" including the government mandated reporting requirements
that the content of the programs contain both popular conservative
viewpoints and unpopular liberal viewpoints.
Yesterday I took the liberty of emailing the staff-members of CAP in charge of the effort to stifle conservative media and politely asked for their response to ten questions about their proposal. I will post these in the next day or two. I ask my readers, especially those who may be unsympathetic generally to conservative media, to ponder these questions and the implications of the efforts of CAP and others on the constitutional values that we all purport to cherish.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Caterpillar CEO: Just Another Greedy Capitalist?
The other day President Obama, in promoting his "stimulus" plan, stated that the Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar had praised the idea of a stimulus package and said that if the package passes, he'll be able to rehire some of the 22,000 people that are slated to be laid off by Caterpillar. Obama made the same claim today at an event at the Caterpillar plant in Peoria.
Problem is, according to ABCNews' Jake Tapper, that after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.
Seems like President Obama is beginning to have somehwat of a credibility problem. He promised that his administration would be a lobbyist-free zone, yet many of his nominees and appointees are former lobbyists. He insisted that there could not be one set of rules for the regular folks and a different set of rules for people in power, yet his Treasury secretary is a confessed tax dodger. He vowed to usher in a new era of post-partisanship, yet allowed his Democrat allies to fashion an ideologically tainted "stimulus" bill in a highly partisan manner.
And now he claims the endorsement of his legislation by a corporate chieftain who says he didn't say what Obama says he said. Perhaps Mr. Owens is just another greedy capitalist who will say anything to keep workers off his payroll.
But until evidence of serial public falsehoods by Mr. Owens surfaces, I'll assume that the one with the proven pattern of dissembling is the one who is dissembling again.
Problem is, according to ABCNews' Jake Tapper, that after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.
Seems like President Obama is beginning to have somehwat of a credibility problem. He promised that his administration would be a lobbyist-free zone, yet many of his nominees and appointees are former lobbyists. He insisted that there could not be one set of rules for the regular folks and a different set of rules for people in power, yet his Treasury secretary is a confessed tax dodger. He vowed to usher in a new era of post-partisanship, yet allowed his Democrat allies to fashion an ideologically tainted "stimulus" bill in a highly partisan manner.
And now he claims the endorsement of his legislation by a corporate chieftain who says he didn't say what Obama says he said. Perhaps Mr. Owens is just another greedy capitalist who will say anything to keep workers off his payroll.
But until evidence of serial public falsehoods by Mr. Owens surfaces, I'll assume that the one with the proven pattern of dissembling is the one who is dissembling again.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Israel Voted
While the major stock indexes were shedding 5% of their value today following Treasury Secretary Geithner's bank bailout announcement this morning, and the U.S. Senate voted to approve the bloated Senate stimulus bill mostly on party lines, Israelis went to the voting booth in one of their most consequential elections ever. The results are stunning.
Stunner #1: Netanyahu's defeat. Bibi Netanyahu has failed to garner more "mandates" (Knesset seats) than Tzipi Livni, the Kadima Foreign Minister. For weeks his Likud party had been leading Tzipi Livni's Kadima party by 4 or 5 mandates, about a 10% lead. Likud's lead seemed to grow as Kadima faded during and after the Gaza war. By the time the last available polls were published on Friday, however, the lead was down to 4%. And now it seems that Livni's party has eked out a victory over Bibi's Likud.
Livni's win doesn't guarantee she will become the next Prime Minister. Netanyahu's failure to win outright is sure to weaken him if he does.
Stunner #2: The Left collapses. Labor, the great ruling party of David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres is now irrelevant. Labor fell to 4th place in mandates, behind the fledgling right-wing party Israel Beiteinu (Our Home). With 13 mandates out of a total of 120, Labor and its leader Ehud Barak are marginalized. Labor's demise as a national party is historic for Israel and nearly unprecedented in the annals of modern democracy.
Meretz, the far left party formed in 1992 as a coalition of smaller parties, lost ground with a total of only 4 seats. In short, the far Left is reeling, and Kadima remains as the only viable center-left party in Israel.
Stunner #3: The winner (probably) cannot win. The irony is that while center-left Kadima won the most mandates, the voters rejected that party's appeasement agenda. Livni will likely not become Prime Minister despite winning the most votes because she cannot form a government with leftist and Arab parties alone. Kadima plus these leftist parties claim only 56 of 120 seats, or 47%, compared to 53% for the nationalist/right-wing bloc (Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas, UTJ, etc). Worse for Livni, if you disregard the seats garnered by the Arab parties, the "Jewish" Left represents only 42% of the total.
Likewise, Livni cannot bring together rightist parties for a center-right "unity" coalition. Likud won't join, and neither will Avigdor Lieberman's anti-Arab party Israel Beiteinu . The president (Shimon Peres) decides who to ask to form a governing coalition on the basis of many factors, only one of which is who received the most ballots. Another factor is which leader has the best chance of forming a stable government.
Peres may feel he has no choice but to give Livni 3o days to try to form a governing coalition even though she has little chance of success. And this being Israel, where money is even more important than power, Livni just might pull it off. Shas, the Sephardic religious party which always has its hand out, can be bought. And who knows, maybe even Lieberman can be persuaded to join a Livni-led government, but given his party's anti-Arab tilt it is hard to see how he would be acceptable to Livni's would-be coalition partners.
If Livni fails then Netanyahu will get a go at it. Either way the unpopular and corrupt Ehud Olmert will continue to serve as interim premier until a coalition is formed. There seems to be no getting rid of this guy.
As political theatre this will all be fun to watch. But the fun will be tempered by the knowledge that at a time of economic distress and existential threats, political theatre is something israel can ill afford.
Stunner #1: Netanyahu's defeat. Bibi Netanyahu has failed to garner more "mandates" (Knesset seats) than Tzipi Livni, the Kadima Foreign Minister. For weeks his Likud party had been leading Tzipi Livni's Kadima party by 4 or 5 mandates, about a 10% lead. Likud's lead seemed to grow as Kadima faded during and after the Gaza war. By the time the last available polls were published on Friday, however, the lead was down to 4%. And now it seems that Livni's party has eked out a victory over Bibi's Likud.
Livni's win doesn't guarantee she will become the next Prime Minister. Netanyahu's failure to win outright is sure to weaken him if he does.
Stunner #2: The Left collapses. Labor, the great ruling party of David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres is now irrelevant. Labor fell to 4th place in mandates, behind the fledgling right-wing party Israel Beiteinu (Our Home). With 13 mandates out of a total of 120, Labor and its leader Ehud Barak are marginalized. Labor's demise as a national party is historic for Israel and nearly unprecedented in the annals of modern democracy.
Meretz, the far left party formed in 1992 as a coalition of smaller parties, lost ground with a total of only 4 seats. In short, the far Left is reeling, and Kadima remains as the only viable center-left party in Israel.
Stunner #3: The winner (probably) cannot win. The irony is that while center-left Kadima won the most mandates, the voters rejected that party's appeasement agenda. Livni will likely not become Prime Minister despite winning the most votes because she cannot form a government with leftist and Arab parties alone. Kadima plus these leftist parties claim only 56 of 120 seats, or 47%, compared to 53% for the nationalist/right-wing bloc (Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas, UTJ, etc). Worse for Livni, if you disregard the seats garnered by the Arab parties, the "Jewish" Left represents only 42% of the total.
Likewise, Livni cannot bring together rightist parties for a center-right "unity" coalition. Likud won't join, and neither will Avigdor Lieberman's anti-Arab party Israel Beiteinu . The president (Shimon Peres) decides who to ask to form a governing coalition on the basis of many factors, only one of which is who received the most ballots. Another factor is which leader has the best chance of forming a stable government.
Peres may feel he has no choice but to give Livni 3o days to try to form a governing coalition even though she has little chance of success. And this being Israel, where money is even more important than power, Livni just might pull it off. Shas, the Sephardic religious party which always has its hand out, can be bought. And who knows, maybe even Lieberman can be persuaded to join a Livni-led government, but given his party's anti-Arab tilt it is hard to see how he would be acceptable to Livni's would-be coalition partners.
If Livni fails then Netanyahu will get a go at it. Either way the unpopular and corrupt Ehud Olmert will continue to serve as interim premier until a coalition is formed. There seems to be no getting rid of this guy.
As political theatre this will all be fun to watch. But the fun will be tempered by the knowledge that at a time of economic distress and existential threats, political theatre is something israel can ill afford.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Compared to Obama, Clinton was a Piker.
The Senate version of President Obama's shamulus debt package is now valued at more than $920 billion, an incredible $100 billion more costly than the House-passed version. The difference between these two proposals is five times larger than the entire fiscal stimulus proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993, which was blocked then by Senate Republicans largely because it was deemed too costly.
By today's standards Clinton's $16 billion package seems precious and quaint. Sixteen billion dollars is about one-sixtieth of the amount of the current Senate bill. Sixteen billion is not much more than the amount in the current proposal allocated for changing lightbulbs, washing windows and retro-greening Federal buildings. Sixteen billion dollars is 25% less than the amount of money allocated in the current package to preparing for universal healthcare, and about equal to the amount of money in the current bill for alternative energy tax cuts and credits.
Indeed, the "cumulus" is loaded up with liberal pet causes that have nothing to do with boosting the economy. The Democrats know this, which is why they are trying to shoulder the bill through both houses of Congress before it begins to stink like three-day-old fish. But worse than not stimulating anything other than the man-glands of liberal appropriaters, the spending orgy would inflict real damage to the economy and our polity.
This is not some merely bad budget-busting appropriations bill or political payoff. This is an unprecedented raping of the full faith and credit of this nation. The package will lead either to runaway inflation or a true debt crisis, or both. While the spending is a matter of fiscal policy, the implications are monetary.
Lets face it: the government will have no choice but to raise the yields on U.S. Treasury notes and bonds in order to attract foreign lenders. This is problematic at a time when the government is trying to spur economic activity by driving yields down. If yields don't rise there won't be enough foreign buyers for the debt, and then we'll simply keep printing money. Either way in a year or two massive inflation is the likely result, choking off any recovery that might take hold.
Far more serious is a looming currency crisis. Eventually the U.S. will have to default on its debt or cheapen the dollar in order to wipe the debt off of its books, because there will never be enough tax revenue to pay the interest on its obligations, much less the principal. The dollar will be in tatters, as will our reputation in global financial and political markets. The world will then really have cause to hate us.
If that happens Don Rumsfeld's thumbing his nose at Old Europe will seem like the good old days.
By today's standards Clinton's $16 billion package seems precious and quaint. Sixteen billion dollars is about one-sixtieth of the amount of the current Senate bill. Sixteen billion is not much more than the amount in the current proposal allocated for changing lightbulbs, washing windows and retro-greening Federal buildings. Sixteen billion dollars is 25% less than the amount of money allocated in the current package to preparing for universal healthcare, and about equal to the amount of money in the current bill for alternative energy tax cuts and credits.
Indeed, the "cumulus" is loaded up with liberal pet causes that have nothing to do with boosting the economy. The Democrats know this, which is why they are trying to shoulder the bill through both houses of Congress before it begins to stink like three-day-old fish. But worse than not stimulating anything other than the man-glands of liberal appropriaters, the spending orgy would inflict real damage to the economy and our polity.
This huge amount of money will be used to grease the wheels of local special-interest politics, funding thousands of projects of questionable value, projects that were unaffordable during the best economic times and are even less affordable now. But thats not the worst of it.
Lets face it: the government will have no choice but to raise the yields on U.S. Treasury notes and bonds in order to attract foreign lenders. This is problematic at a time when the government is trying to spur economic activity by driving yields down. If yields don't rise there won't be enough foreign buyers for the debt, and then we'll simply keep printing money. Either way in a year or two massive inflation is the likely result, choking off any recovery that might take hold.
Far more serious is a looming currency crisis. Eventually the U.S. will have to default on its debt or cheapen the dollar in order to wipe the debt off of its books, because there will never be enough tax revenue to pay the interest on its obligations, much less the principal. The dollar will be in tatters, as will our reputation in global financial and political markets. The world will then really have cause to hate us.
If that happens Don Rumsfeld's thumbing his nose at Old Europe will seem like the good old days.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
VDH on Obama's really, really bad two weeks
The author and columnist Victor Davis Hanson posted a withering post over at National Review Online's The Corner blog chronicling the novice president's ragged first two weeks in office. It isn't pretty, and VDH doesn't think it'll get prettier soon.
And this was before it was revealed that in 2008 alone CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta earned over $800,000 in speaking, director and consulting fees from firms with lobbying clients, failing banks that have been taken over by the government, oil companies and other assorted corporate interests. The Carlyle Group, the private equity firm with ties to the aerospace and defense industries, paid Panetta $28,000 in speaker fees. Liberals loved to beat up George H.W. Bush for his ties to Carlyle--we'll see if they give Panetta the same treatment.
No word yet on how much Panetta inadvertently forgot to pay in self-employment taxes on his winnings.
And this was before it was revealed that in 2008 alone CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta earned over $800,000 in speaking, director and consulting fees from firms with lobbying clients, failing banks that have been taken over by the government, oil companies and other assorted corporate interests. The Carlyle Group, the private equity firm with ties to the aerospace and defense industries, paid Panetta $28,000 in speaker fees. Liberals loved to beat up George H.W. Bush for his ties to Carlyle--we'll see if they give Panetta the same treatment.
No word yet on how much Panetta inadvertently forgot to pay in self-employment taxes on his winnings.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
In Praise of Criers
This story really happened, although perhaps not exactly as I have written it. The names have been changed to safeguard the privacy of those involved.
The boy had been preparing for this day for a year. His mentor and teacher was also his father. There were some bumps, as there often are when a father tries to teach his son. But the rewards of working together far outweighed the frustrations, and over the year their bond, already strong, grew stronger. Finally the boy--call him Eli--was ready for his Bar Mitzvah.
On Saturday morning, Eli's family and many friends gathered at the shul (synagogue) in happy anticipation of the special morning. Eli and his father approached the lectern where the Torah--the holy scroll containing the Five Books of Moses--had been uncovered. After the recitation of the blessing before the Torah reading, Eli picked up the ornate silver pointer, pointed it to the scroll and opened his mouth to form the first word of the Torah portion.
Immediately he began to cry. The congregation sat in awkward silence as he tried to regain his composure. Eli calmed down, started from the beginning and once again the sobs came. After a long moment he tried again, and chanted the Hebrew words perfectly. Clearly he knew his part. But then the tears would come again, and he would stop again. The tension in the sanctuary was palpable as the worshipers agonized along with the boy.
Eli's father, a kind and learned man, did what good fathers do. He comforted his son and then came to his aid. He chanted the Torah portion for Eli, and the next portion and the next. The father's mournful chanting welled up from the depths of his soul and reached beyond the rafters as a supplication: dear God, please save my son from humiliation and pain.
The sanctuary grew silent as Eli approached the lectern for his fourth attempt at the Torah reading. Everyone in Eli's family stopped breathing. There wasn't a soul in that hall who didn't offer a silent prayer to God Almighty: Give the boy strength.
Eli opened his mouth and chanted the first few words of the portion. Flawless. And then he continued until he completed the portion. His father had obviously prepared him well, for he flew through the next three portions without missing a beat. Eli was in full command of his voice, his mind, his emotions. God had listened.
When he completed the Torah reading, and then the Haftorah (an excerpt from the Book of Prophets), the congregation erupted in cheers and whistles and laughter in a final release of the awful tension. As is tradition they threw pieces of wrapped candy at Eli, and he took the volleys with a smile on his face. Still, one could sense his unease and embarassment.
The Rabbi stood up and gave his weekly message. Then he turned to the young man and he said: "Eli, you may not know this, but you and I have a lot in common. Your name is Eli...my name is Eli. You were born in January...I was also born in January. And Eli, you are a crier...and I am a crier."
The young man seemed puzzled. The congregants sat up in their seats. "You see, Eli," said the Rabbi, "most people keep their emotions all bottled up. They keep themselves from feeling pain by feeling nothing at all. They don't cry easily, but they don't laugh so easily either. Eli, I'll bet you laugh a lot." Eli nodded.
"People like you and me feel things. We laugh because so much of life strikes as as funny. And we cry because we recognize what's important and meaningful. Eli, when you approached our holy Torah, you cried because you understood how beautiful and sweet and and important this moment is for you, your parents, family, friends and K'lal Yisrael, the community of Israel.
"The tears you shed are the tears of your grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents and so on going all the way back to Avraham Avinu, Abraham our father. Your sobs are their sobs of joy and happiness in the knowledge that you were called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah. Its called yiddishe nachas, Jewish pride, and its what all Jewish parents and grandparents feel when they see that their holy tradition has been safely passed to their children.
"And I'll tell you something else, Eli. You and I, we are not the only criers. There are lots of us out there." The Rabbi turned to his congregants and said, "if you are a crier, please stand up."
A rumble passed through the crowd but nobody stood. The Rabbi then said, "Look, I know Eli and I are not the only ones. It's ok. If you're a crier, come on, stand up."
Slowly a man stood up. And then his wife. And another person. And another. And still another. Soon there were dozens of "criers" standing. Many in the big hall were crying, some were laughing. Eli's parents were laughing and crying.
Eli wasn't crying or laughing. He was grinning from ear to ear.
The boy had been preparing for this day for a year. His mentor and teacher was also his father. There were some bumps, as there often are when a father tries to teach his son. But the rewards of working together far outweighed the frustrations, and over the year their bond, already strong, grew stronger. Finally the boy--call him Eli--was ready for his Bar Mitzvah.
On Saturday morning, Eli's family and many friends gathered at the shul (synagogue) in happy anticipation of the special morning. Eli and his father approached the lectern where the Torah--the holy scroll containing the Five Books of Moses--had been uncovered. After the recitation of the blessing before the Torah reading, Eli picked up the ornate silver pointer, pointed it to the scroll and opened his mouth to form the first word of the Torah portion.
Immediately he began to cry. The congregation sat in awkward silence as he tried to regain his composure. Eli calmed down, started from the beginning and once again the sobs came. After a long moment he tried again, and chanted the Hebrew words perfectly. Clearly he knew his part. But then the tears would come again, and he would stop again. The tension in the sanctuary was palpable as the worshipers agonized along with the boy.
Eli's father, a kind and learned man, did what good fathers do. He comforted his son and then came to his aid. He chanted the Torah portion for Eli, and the next portion and the next. The father's mournful chanting welled up from the depths of his soul and reached beyond the rafters as a supplication: dear God, please save my son from humiliation and pain.
The sanctuary grew silent as Eli approached the lectern for his fourth attempt at the Torah reading. Everyone in Eli's family stopped breathing. There wasn't a soul in that hall who didn't offer a silent prayer to God Almighty: Give the boy strength.
Eli opened his mouth and chanted the first few words of the portion. Flawless. And then he continued until he completed the portion. His father had obviously prepared him well, for he flew through the next three portions without missing a beat. Eli was in full command of his voice, his mind, his emotions. God had listened.
When he completed the Torah reading, and then the Haftorah (an excerpt from the Book of Prophets), the congregation erupted in cheers and whistles and laughter in a final release of the awful tension. As is tradition they threw pieces of wrapped candy at Eli, and he took the volleys with a smile on his face. Still, one could sense his unease and embarassment.
The Rabbi stood up and gave his weekly message. Then he turned to the young man and he said: "Eli, you may not know this, but you and I have a lot in common. Your name is Eli...my name is Eli. You were born in January...I was also born in January. And Eli, you are a crier...and I am a crier."
The young man seemed puzzled. The congregants sat up in their seats. "You see, Eli," said the Rabbi, "most people keep their emotions all bottled up. They keep themselves from feeling pain by feeling nothing at all. They don't cry easily, but they don't laugh so easily either. Eli, I'll bet you laugh a lot." Eli nodded.
"People like you and me feel things. We laugh because so much of life strikes as as funny. And we cry because we recognize what's important and meaningful. Eli, when you approached our holy Torah, you cried because you understood how beautiful and sweet and and important this moment is for you, your parents, family, friends and K'lal Yisrael, the community of Israel.
"The tears you shed are the tears of your grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents and so on going all the way back to Avraham Avinu, Abraham our father. Your sobs are their sobs of joy and happiness in the knowledge that you were called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah. Its called yiddishe nachas, Jewish pride, and its what all Jewish parents and grandparents feel when they see that their holy tradition has been safely passed to their children.
"And I'll tell you something else, Eli. You and I, we are not the only criers. There are lots of us out there." The Rabbi turned to his congregants and said, "if you are a crier, please stand up."
A rumble passed through the crowd but nobody stood. The Rabbi then said, "Look, I know Eli and I are not the only ones. It's ok. If you're a crier, come on, stand up."
Slowly a man stood up. And then his wife. And another person. And another. And still another. Soon there were dozens of "criers" standing. Many in the big hall were crying, some were laughing. Eli's parents were laughing and crying.
Eli wasn't crying or laughing. He was grinning from ear to ear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)