Some people are wondering aloud if Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama in the 2012 primary. However, I wonder if that really is the story.
What if the Obama presidency was planned to be one term from the beginning? What if this were the plan:
1. Pretending to fight one another in the 2008 primaries, but Hillary would eventually concede.
2. Obama, with an in-the-tank media and the moniker of "first black president," wins the general.
3. Obama appoints Hillary to Sec. of State to keep her in the news and give her foreign policy street cred.
4. Obama would focus on getting the "big ticket" items they both want (i.e. healthcare) through Congress and appoint a couple of Supreme Court judges. These bills would be very rough and wildly unpopular, but it doesn't matter because Obama doesn't want to be re-elected.
5. Obama puts up a weak re-election fight against Hillary when she declares her candidacy as the more "responsible" Democrat.
6. As long as they torpedo any good GOP challengers, Hillary is elected in 2012 for eight years of what she really wants---fine tuning the rough bills that Obama put in place.
Obama gets to be president and then gets to move right on to campaigning to be Sec. General of the UN or King of the World or whatever new high office with little accountability he is interested in. Hillary only has to wait four more years to be president and will look "moderate" campaigning for the office. He's happy. She's happy. The only people that have to be aware of the plan are Barack and Hillary---everyone else can be counted upon, with the right stimulus, to move the plan forward. Yes, it's a conspiracy theory with very little chance of being proven, but doesn't it explain a lot of things?
Okay, back to posting actual news stories, I promise. :>
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Why did the media snow job work on Bush but isn't working for Obama?
In hearing some stats about Obama's approval numbers (which are getting pretty darn low), a thought occurred to me. Things may not have been perfect under Bush, but the media managed to convince many Americans, including many normally very thoughtful and intelligent Americans, that Bush was the worst President in history, even though there was little, if any, data to support this. This snow job helped Obama get elected. Now Obama is in office and the media has mostly been trying their hardest to keep public opinion of him high (although there have been some defectors more recently), but the snow job doesn't seem to be working this time. You could say that people can just look out the window and see how bad things are, but I would say again that things were not all that bad (relative to today or other bad times in history) when Bush was President and the media still succeeded in convincing people that times were terrible. Why is it not working this time?
Lessons from the Oil Spill
It looks like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may finally be finished, as the cap on the well appears to be holding and the relief well will be completed in the near future. What are some things we have learned?
1) There is a lot of oil in the earth. Lots. Enough so that millions of gallons can pour from a broken well for days and days and it doesn't affect the supply. This well was going to be abandoned by BP and it still had lots of oil in it---just not enough to make it worth drilling.
2) Regulations can make things worse by introducing unintended consequences. BP would probably not have been drilling in 5000 feet of water, but in shallower waters instead, if government policies hadn't forced them to do so. A broken well would have been much easier to fix in shallower water.
3) Don't rely on the government to do much of anything right in a crisis. They might (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but it seems unlinkely at this point. They had laws on the books about how to deal with a large spill like this, and they didn't even follow their own procedures. Instead, government agencies endlessly argued with other government agencies about what to do. Don't depend on them---have your own personal emergency plans and supplies in place for natural disasters, etc.
Any other suggestions for lessons learned?
1) There is a lot of oil in the earth. Lots. Enough so that millions of gallons can pour from a broken well for days and days and it doesn't affect the supply. This well was going to be abandoned by BP and it still had lots of oil in it---just not enough to make it worth drilling.
2) Regulations can make things worse by introducing unintended consequences. BP would probably not have been drilling in 5000 feet of water, but in shallower waters instead, if government policies hadn't forced them to do so. A broken well would have been much easier to fix in shallower water.
3) Don't rely on the government to do much of anything right in a crisis. They might (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but it seems unlinkely at this point. They had laws on the books about how to deal with a large spill like this, and they didn't even follow their own procedures. Instead, government agencies endlessly argued with other government agencies about what to do. Don't depend on them---have your own personal emergency plans and supplies in place for natural disasters, etc.
Any other suggestions for lessons learned?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Hello behemoth bank bill!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012361072_apusfinancialoverhaulhighlights.html
Executive Summary:
The new bank regulatory bill has passed the Senate and appears set to become law. This is another buge bill like the health care bill (>2000 pages) and it will take months to determine all the effects. Some of the provisions include:
A10-member council led by the Treasury secretary may identify companies they feel are "too big to fail." Companies identified in this way could be liquidated by the government.
A great deal of "watching" and "regulating" by new and old divisions of government, sometimes government agencies seemingly watching other government agencies being watched by other government agencies.
More restrictions on what products banks can offer and what banks can invest in.
(Mostly) non-binding rules about executive pay. However, if executive pay appeared to "promote risky business practices," the feds could block it.
The end of the TARP program passed in 2008 to buy up toxic mortgages. $11 billion from some of the remaining funds will be used to fund some of the new oversight programs in this bill. The rest of the funds needed will come from additional fees the government charges banks.
Opinion:
Where do I start? Another day, another huge bill to be passed that no one knows exactly what is in it. However, if what the AP summary says is accurate, there is plenty to be worried about. 10 people (and the Treasury Secretary) will now have the power to determine if a company (maybe the one YOU work for) is "too big to fail" and seize it whenver they wish. This is not something that will make people want to invest in large companies, regardless of their financial health. Not to mention that this would be taking private property without due process. But the Constitution is a living document that means whatever we want it to mean, right? What this bill means for the average person is that 1) their bank fees are going up, as banks now have fewer ways to make money and 2) you had better hope you don't work for a company that is "too big to fail".
Will we also now get an acknowledgement that TARP was an ill-advised bill that perhaps was never intended to buy up bad mortgages? Nah.
Executive Summary:
The new bank regulatory bill has passed the Senate and appears set to become law. This is another buge bill like the health care bill (>2000 pages) and it will take months to determine all the effects. Some of the provisions include:
A10-member council led by the Treasury secretary may identify companies they feel are "too big to fail." Companies identified in this way could be liquidated by the government.
A great deal of "watching" and "regulating" by new and old divisions of government, sometimes government agencies seemingly watching other government agencies being watched by other government agencies.
More restrictions on what products banks can offer and what banks can invest in.
(Mostly) non-binding rules about executive pay. However, if executive pay appeared to "promote risky business practices," the feds could block it.
The end of the TARP program passed in 2008 to buy up toxic mortgages. $11 billion from some of the remaining funds will be used to fund some of the new oversight programs in this bill. The rest of the funds needed will come from additional fees the government charges banks.
Opinion:
Where do I start? Another day, another huge bill to be passed that no one knows exactly what is in it. However, if what the AP summary says is accurate, there is plenty to be worried about. 10 people (and the Treasury Secretary) will now have the power to determine if a company (maybe the one YOU work for) is "too big to fail" and seize it whenver they wish. This is not something that will make people want to invest in large companies, regardless of their financial health. Not to mention that this would be taking private property without due process. But the Constitution is a living document that means whatever we want it to mean, right? What this bill means for the average person is that 1) their bank fees are going up, as banks now have fewer ways to make money and 2) you had better hope you don't work for a company that is "too big to fail".
Will we also now get an acknowledgement that TARP was an ill-advised bill that perhaps was never intended to buy up bad mortgages? Nah.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Your taxes will (probably) go up on January 1, 2011
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy
Executive Summary:
Most of the "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, will expire on the first day of 2011, since the current Congress is unlikely to extend them. Many people may think this will not affect them, but will only affect "the rich," but they are mistaken.
Every income taxation bracket will go to a higher percentage. The "marriage penalty" returns. Other exemptions (i.e. for state and local taxes, charitable donations) are likely to be eliminated.
Opinion:
Please, please, please look at how this will affect you before January 1st, (try) to plan accordingly, and vote accordingly in November. This should be a huge campaign issue, but that will depend on whether or not the mainstream media can drown it out with other less important things. We need less spending, not an increase in taxes, because an increase in taxes will just prompt people and businesses to hoard even more money than they are now. There can be no economic growth if that continues to happen.
Oh, and all you people that actually believed that Obama wouldn't raise taxes on anyone that makes less than $250,000? How would you like your crow?
Executive Summary:
Most of the "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, will expire on the first day of 2011, since the current Congress is unlikely to extend them. Many people may think this will not affect them, but will only affect "the rich," but they are mistaken.
Every income taxation bracket will go to a higher percentage. The "marriage penalty" returns. Other exemptions (i.e. for state and local taxes, charitable donations) are likely to be eliminated.
Opinion:
Please, please, please look at how this will affect you before January 1st, (try) to plan accordingly, and vote accordingly in November. This should be a huge campaign issue, but that will depend on whether or not the mainstream media can drown it out with other less important things. We need less spending, not an increase in taxes, because an increase in taxes will just prompt people and businesses to hoard even more money than they are now. There can be no economic growth if that continues to happen.
Oh, and all you people that actually believed that Obama wouldn't raise taxes on anyone that makes less than $250,000? How would you like your crow?
A government of laws
"A government of laws and not of men."
---John Adams
This is one of the ideals to which our government was designed to fulfill, that is, to be a nation that adheres to the law and not the whims of its leaders. This was a somewhat radical idea for the time---until then, kings and other unelected leaders usually had the final (and sometimes only) say about everything. However, we are now passing laws that no one has read (i.e. health care, financial reform), and even worse, the government is passing some laws (or parts of laws) seemingly to mollify certain critics without any intention of seriously following them. For example, the 1986 amnesty bill was supposed to end illegal border crossings by beefing up security, make it nearly impossible for companies to hire illegal immigrants, and eliminate the abuse of social welfare systems by non-citizens. None of these things happened. There are scores of other more recent examples. What does this mean for us? Are we still a nation of laws and not of men? To me, laws like these are proof that the federal government must limit itself to its core Constitutional roles and pass as few laws as are necessary for a civil society to function. However, whenever I brought up this idea during the 2008 election, my friends dismissed it as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," that we just needed to write better laws. I maintain that the last year and a half has been chock full of more proof that if we do not impose these limits, we will go back to being a nation of men and not of laws.
---John Adams
This is one of the ideals to which our government was designed to fulfill, that is, to be a nation that adheres to the law and not the whims of its leaders. This was a somewhat radical idea for the time---until then, kings and other unelected leaders usually had the final (and sometimes only) say about everything. However, we are now passing laws that no one has read (i.e. health care, financial reform), and even worse, the government is passing some laws (or parts of laws) seemingly to mollify certain critics without any intention of seriously following them. For example, the 1986 amnesty bill was supposed to end illegal border crossings by beefing up security, make it nearly impossible for companies to hire illegal immigrants, and eliminate the abuse of social welfare systems by non-citizens. None of these things happened. There are scores of other more recent examples. What does this mean for us? Are we still a nation of laws and not of men? To me, laws like these are proof that the federal government must limit itself to its core Constitutional roles and pass as few laws as are necessary for a civil society to function. However, whenever I brought up this idea during the 2008 election, my friends dismissed it as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," that we just needed to write better laws. I maintain that the last year and a half has been chock full of more proof that if we do not impose these limits, we will go back to being a nation of men and not of laws.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Happy 4th of July!
Have a great 4th of July and re-read the Declaration of Independence. Preferrably aloud. (Especially in earshot of that liberal relative of yours.)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
Coming soon to a state near you
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/02/2864614/governor-puts-200000-state-workers.html
Executive Summary:
Since California has not yet passed a new budget and the state's deficit is in the billions, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an order to limit hourly pay of state employees to minimum wage until a new budget is signed. Any additional wages will be paid in retrospect once that is accomplished. Six unions are exempt because they have already signed new contracts limiting pension benefits for new hires and increasing employee contributions to pensions.
The state Controller says he will not follow these instructions without a court order.
Opinion:
The sooner public employee unions realize that states are broke and can't honor the sweetheart deals they promised in the past, the better. There just isn't any more money to give them their insanely high yearly pension payouts or nearly free healthcare. They helped create this problem, now they should have to live with it. It looks like many of the union bosses are stubbornly refusing to agree to any reductions in benefits, hoping the economy will improve before they have to give in. Fat chance.
Is your state running a deficit? Check here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
Executive Summary:
Since California has not yet passed a new budget and the state's deficit is in the billions, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an order to limit hourly pay of state employees to minimum wage until a new budget is signed. Any additional wages will be paid in retrospect once that is accomplished. Six unions are exempt because they have already signed new contracts limiting pension benefits for new hires and increasing employee contributions to pensions.
The state Controller says he will not follow these instructions without a court order.
Opinion:
The sooner public employee unions realize that states are broke and can't honor the sweetheart deals they promised in the past, the better. There just isn't any more money to give them their insanely high yearly pension payouts or nearly free healthcare. They helped create this problem, now they should have to live with it. It looks like many of the union bosses are stubbornly refusing to agree to any reductions in benefits, hoping the economy will improve before they have to give in. Fat chance.
Is your state running a deficit? Check here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
