It is no coincidence that North Korea sunk a South Korean submarine and is now shelling a South Korean island, killing several people. In the past, the regime in North Korea was satisfied just talking a big game, and building their nuclear program secretly. Now, they realize that the worst thing that will happen to them is the Obama Administration running to the UN and passing yet another resolution condemning North Korea. In other words, there are no real consequences.
This, on top of the humiliating treatment of the US President at the Group of 20 meeting ten days ago . . .
This, on top of the failure of the Obama Administration to achieve any results with Iran, Syria, Lebanon . . . tossing our friends Poland and Czech Republic over for the Russian Mafia Regime.
In two short years, Obama has managed to gut our power on the World stage.
Well, he has been right about one thing . . . the US is certainly not seen the same way in the World any longer . . . at least he has that "success" to fall back upon . . .
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
The President Still Doesn't Get It
He said today that he takes responsibility for not getting his message through. He wants to really work hard at helping us to understand the subtleties of what he is trying to accomplish. Wrong again, Mr. President.
You don't need to re-package your message. You didn't go too fast. We weren't blinded by anger at the economy. We understand the implications of what you are trying to do. We get that you want more regulation, larger government, more spending (to "help" us) and higher taxes.
And, we decisively rejected your policies on Tuesday night.
I think Senator McConnell is right. The President needs a pink slip. If he continues to try to patronize the voters, instead of listening to them, he will get his pink slip in 2012 (as long as the GOP doesnt' nominate SP).
You don't need to re-package your message. You didn't go too fast. We weren't blinded by anger at the economy. We understand the implications of what you are trying to do. We get that you want more regulation, larger government, more spending (to "help" us) and higher taxes.
And, we decisively rejected your policies on Tuesday night.
I think Senator McConnell is right. The President needs a pink slip. If he continues to try to patronize the voters, instead of listening to them, he will get his pink slip in 2012 (as long as the GOP doesnt' nominate SP).
Monday, November 1, 2010
Step Carefully Over the Corpse . . . it Might Come Back!!
Tomorrow will usher in a new GOP majority in the House. That much appears to be certain. The only question is how big this victory will be for the GOP. Will it be 40 seats? Or as high as 75 seats, as some pundits are predicting. We will find out in very short order.
The danger begins Wednesday for the new GOP majority because it is pretty clear that the public is not so much giving the GOP a resounding victory as they are repudiating the short lived Big Government era of Barack Obama, Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, the GOP is seen as the solution to the Democrats. They better offer up some solutions, instead of just "saying no" as Nancy Reagan used to say.
When the Democrat leadership insisted on a really huge (a trillion counts are really huge) new entitlement program, when polling showed the majority of the American People were opposed to Obamacare, they should have known this would happen. When the stimulus did not reduce unemployment to 8%, as President Obama said it would . . . they should have known they would pay the price at the poll. When Democrat leadership continues, up to this very day, to insult the American People by trying to explain away the election losses they are about to suffer as having been bought and paid for by "special interests" when "special interests" are who put President Obama into power in the first place (I suppose the definition of "special interest" depends on whether or not they take a "special interest" in you), they are just asking to be defeated at the poll. This is all very predictable.
The real question comes on Wednesday. The GOP can come in with guns blazing, shut down the Government, repeal legislation, gridlock the machinery of Government . . . and then they, too, will suffer the consequences of their actions two years hence.
Or . . . they can swerve to the Center line and sit down and try to work out some of the pressing problems of today with the Democrat leaders. History suggests that it is possible to achieve great things when the Legislative branch is split, or at least in different hands than the Executive. Because the two parties are forced to work together. Neither will have a working majority. So, work together they must. Unless the GOP decides not to cooperate, in which case, they will be handed their pink slips in 2012, just as their Democrat predecessors are about to be.
Two years is a long time. Just ask President Obama. And that is exactly what President Obama is hoping. The GOP can easily prove themselves incompetent to lead in two years' time. GOP leadership is still non-existent. There is not yet a GOP leader who has shown the guts to stand up and clearly say that DADT must finally go. There is yet a GOP leader who has the nerve to stand up to the anti-choice wing and tell them they are wonderful people, but woefully out of touch with how the American People vote on this issue. There is yet to emerge a GOP leader willing to wrestle the reigns of power from the radio entertainers (and former Alaska Governors) who pretend to speak for the GOP, while raking in tens of millions of dollars a year entertaining people by saying outrageous things. Until such a leader emerges, the GOP will be rudderless and thrust this way and that way, depending on the news cycle.
Two years is plenty of time for John Boehner to mess things up in the House, turn himself into the most hated politician in the Land, as Nancy Pelosi did in very short order. He is capable of doing that, for sure. The real question the GOP must answer, after tomorrow is, "are there enough adults in the room" to bring about order in their chaotic house?
Let's hope so. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing back, they will be thrust from office once again, and we will have four more years of "Obama the Divider" and his class warfare rhetoric, which, quite frankly, has gotten very tiresome after two (short) years.
Woldy
The danger begins Wednesday for the new GOP majority because it is pretty clear that the public is not so much giving the GOP a resounding victory as they are repudiating the short lived Big Government era of Barack Obama, Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, the GOP is seen as the solution to the Democrats. They better offer up some solutions, instead of just "saying no" as Nancy Reagan used to say.
When the Democrat leadership insisted on a really huge (a trillion counts are really huge) new entitlement program, when polling showed the majority of the American People were opposed to Obamacare, they should have known this would happen. When the stimulus did not reduce unemployment to 8%, as President Obama said it would . . . they should have known they would pay the price at the poll. When Democrat leadership continues, up to this very day, to insult the American People by trying to explain away the election losses they are about to suffer as having been bought and paid for by "special interests" when "special interests" are who put President Obama into power in the first place (I suppose the definition of "special interest" depends on whether or not they take a "special interest" in you), they are just asking to be defeated at the poll. This is all very predictable.
The real question comes on Wednesday. The GOP can come in with guns blazing, shut down the Government, repeal legislation, gridlock the machinery of Government . . . and then they, too, will suffer the consequences of their actions two years hence.
Or . . . they can swerve to the Center line and sit down and try to work out some of the pressing problems of today with the Democrat leaders. History suggests that it is possible to achieve great things when the Legislative branch is split, or at least in different hands than the Executive. Because the two parties are forced to work together. Neither will have a working majority. So, work together they must. Unless the GOP decides not to cooperate, in which case, they will be handed their pink slips in 2012, just as their Democrat predecessors are about to be.
Two years is a long time. Just ask President Obama. And that is exactly what President Obama is hoping. The GOP can easily prove themselves incompetent to lead in two years' time. GOP leadership is still non-existent. There is not yet a GOP leader who has shown the guts to stand up and clearly say that DADT must finally go. There is yet a GOP leader who has the nerve to stand up to the anti-choice wing and tell them they are wonderful people, but woefully out of touch with how the American People vote on this issue. There is yet to emerge a GOP leader willing to wrestle the reigns of power from the radio entertainers (and former Alaska Governors) who pretend to speak for the GOP, while raking in tens of millions of dollars a year entertaining people by saying outrageous things. Until such a leader emerges, the GOP will be rudderless and thrust this way and that way, depending on the news cycle.
Two years is plenty of time for John Boehner to mess things up in the House, turn himself into the most hated politician in the Land, as Nancy Pelosi did in very short order. He is capable of doing that, for sure. The real question the GOP must answer, after tomorrow is, "are there enough adults in the room" to bring about order in their chaotic house?
Let's hope so. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing back, they will be thrust from office once again, and we will have four more years of "Obama the Divider" and his class warfare rhetoric, which, quite frankly, has gotten very tiresome after two (short) years.
Woldy
Saturday, October 23, 2010
We ARE becoming Western Europe . . .
Did you know that private companies in the Chicago area are having a hard time filling $12 to $14 per hour jobs? They are being told by job applicants that it is not worth it for them to get off unemployment to take those jobs. Because the incremental after tax income provided by taking those good paying jobs is not enough to incent them to get off the dole. Employers are being told this by job applicants. No shame. Just the facts. "I am better off staying on unemployment than taking your job" so, I choose to stay unemployed.
This is a bad sign, people.
We are becoming Western Europe. And, to remind you . . . that is not a good thing. It comes with all sorts of tradeoffs in the form of lower growth, less opportunity, more state control, less innovation, more smothering regulations . . . just ask anyone who has considered opening an office in Germany or France.
Our system of economic incentives is slipping into the wrong direction. We are providing people with incentives NOT to work by extending unemployment coverage to two years. And, people are making rational choices not to take jobs, which is not helping to reduce unemployment.
Of course, it is simplistic to suggest that this means that this fully explains our unemployment problem. But it is emblematic of the root problem and comes from the same cause. An over-active Government and national leadeship who believes that Government can, and should, solve all, or most, of our pressing problems. An expansive view of Government and its role in our economy and society. Distrust of private enterprise and the free markets. Too much faith in the power of regulation to solve problems. Too little faith in economic incentives.
We are sinking down the rabbit hole, faster and faster with every passing month.
Please . . . vote . . . GOP . . . this . . . cycle.
Our Country's future is at stake. We need to restore balance in Washington.
Woldy
This is a bad sign, people.
We are becoming Western Europe. And, to remind you . . . that is not a good thing. It comes with all sorts of tradeoffs in the form of lower growth, less opportunity, more state control, less innovation, more smothering regulations . . . just ask anyone who has considered opening an office in Germany or France.
Our system of economic incentives is slipping into the wrong direction. We are providing people with incentives NOT to work by extending unemployment coverage to two years. And, people are making rational choices not to take jobs, which is not helping to reduce unemployment.
Of course, it is simplistic to suggest that this means that this fully explains our unemployment problem. But it is emblematic of the root problem and comes from the same cause. An over-active Government and national leadeship who believes that Government can, and should, solve all, or most, of our pressing problems. An expansive view of Government and its role in our economy and society. Distrust of private enterprise and the free markets. Too much faith in the power of regulation to solve problems. Too little faith in economic incentives.
We are sinking down the rabbit hole, faster and faster with every passing month.
Please . . . vote . . . GOP . . . this . . . cycle.
Our Country's future is at stake. We need to restore balance in Washington.
Woldy
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
U.S. Policy is Behind ME Peace Failure
The policies of this US Government doomed the current round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to failure before they even began. Obama set this up (perhaps intentionally, the thinking goes, because the failure of the talks will get layed at Israel's feet, thereby increasing the pressure on Israel to make concessions they are not comfortable with) so that the Palestinians are rewarded for obstinence because they know the U.S. has no choice but to step in and pressure Israel to make further concessions. This is a no-lose proposition for the Palestinians. They win if the talks succeed. They win if the talks fail. Anyone with business experience knows that these are not the conditions that will lead to a negotiated settlement. But, unfortunately, this is the dynamic that has been created by this Administration's policies and its approach to the conflict.
The only way a peace deal gets made is by the Palestinians realizing they must stand on their own feet and make a deal for the good of their own people. Put a stake in this conflict and kill it. That won't happen with Obama in the WH because Obama can not figure this out. He puts the U.S. in the position of standing in between these two parties as arbiter of the dispute, rather than as facilitator of a discussion between the parties. There is a big difference in these two models. In one case, you sit in judgment and settle arguments. In the other, you help the parties settle their own arguments.
The current situation is fraught with danger for Israel. The Palestinians have made settlements the keystone to their negotiating stance, knowing full well that there is no deal envisioned that does not include significant territory on which settlements currently sit staying with Israel. This is foolish posturing and not a good sign for their underlying intentions. One has to ask if they really do want a peace deal if this is their approach.
But the Obama Administration has made all this possible by giving the Palestinians a "get out of jail free" card by making the U.S. responsible for "bringing Israel to the table" and keeping them there. Any time the Palestinians want to stop negotiating, they will turn to the U.S. and say "see, we told you the Israelis don't want a deal . . . prove they do by making them give in on this point . . ."
The Palestinians must be responsible for outcome. U.S. policy has made it possible for the Palestinians to skirt their responsibility. No lasting deal will come to fruition under Obama, unless he changes this dynamic.
Woldy
The only way a peace deal gets made is by the Palestinians realizing they must stand on their own feet and make a deal for the good of their own people. Put a stake in this conflict and kill it. That won't happen with Obama in the WH because Obama can not figure this out. He puts the U.S. in the position of standing in between these two parties as arbiter of the dispute, rather than as facilitator of a discussion between the parties. There is a big difference in these two models. In one case, you sit in judgment and settle arguments. In the other, you help the parties settle their own arguments.
The current situation is fraught with danger for Israel. The Palestinians have made settlements the keystone to their negotiating stance, knowing full well that there is no deal envisioned that does not include significant territory on which settlements currently sit staying with Israel. This is foolish posturing and not a good sign for their underlying intentions. One has to ask if they really do want a peace deal if this is their approach.
But the Obama Administration has made all this possible by giving the Palestinians a "get out of jail free" card by making the U.S. responsible for "bringing Israel to the table" and keeping them there. Any time the Palestinians want to stop negotiating, they will turn to the U.S. and say "see, we told you the Israelis don't want a deal . . . prove they do by making them give in on this point . . ."
The Palestinians must be responsible for outcome. U.S. policy has made it possible for the Palestinians to skirt their responsibility. No lasting deal will come to fruition under Obama, unless he changes this dynamic.
Woldy
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Uncertainty is a Wet Blanket on Job Creation
1. Uncertainty over the cost of the health care law (and the thousands of pages of regulations written to implement it).
For instance, six months ago, no one was writing about the huge administrative burden created by a section hidden away within the health care law that forces businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any company they buy more than $600 of goods or services from in a year. Just to give you some scale, for my small business, this will include more than 1,000 companies. We will need to collect over 1,000 tax identification numbers and prepare and mail over 1,000 tax forms we did not have to prepare before the health care legislation became law. And, our active 17,000 customer accounts that buy over $600 per year will be sending us 1099's that we will need to keep, I suppose, or attach to our corporate tax return.
And, to what end are we going through these new administative burdens? The tax scofflaws are not going to be sending out a blizzard of 1099 forms. Only the companies who follow the law already are going to be doing this. So, what the health care law has done is create administrative work for law abiding corporate citizens who already pay their taxes.
There are other pitfalls that have not been uncovered yet (the bill itself is over 2,000 pages long and the regulations written to enforce it are many times as long already, and growing).
This is not insignificant. And, it is going on in lots of different places in our economy. Just ask any business person.
2. Uncertainty over the regulatory environment. Michael Aronstein used the phrase "regulatory totalitarianism" when talking about what is coming out of Washington these days and it really is very accurate. The rule of law is eroding and being replaced by the rule of bureaucrats.
3. Uncertainty over tax rates. When was the last time it was November and we still did not know what the tax rates were for the following year? That is what this Congress and this President have promised the American people. How easy is it to plan business investment and hiring when you don't know what a major component of your costs will be (36% federal rate on any income you can muster up in this economy). Tax rates matter, Mr. President. The longer they are uncertain, the lower the amount of business investment.
This is one area the current Administration just does not understand. Uncertainty is preventing business investment and job creation. This is what is happening in the real world, Mr. President.
Woldy
For instance, six months ago, no one was writing about the huge administrative burden created by a section hidden away within the health care law that forces businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any company they buy more than $600 of goods or services from in a year. Just to give you some scale, for my small business, this will include more than 1,000 companies. We will need to collect over 1,000 tax identification numbers and prepare and mail over 1,000 tax forms we did not have to prepare before the health care legislation became law. And, our active 17,000 customer accounts that buy over $600 per year will be sending us 1099's that we will need to keep, I suppose, or attach to our corporate tax return.
And, to what end are we going through these new administative burdens? The tax scofflaws are not going to be sending out a blizzard of 1099 forms. Only the companies who follow the law already are going to be doing this. So, what the health care law has done is create administrative work for law abiding corporate citizens who already pay their taxes.
There are other pitfalls that have not been uncovered yet (the bill itself is over 2,000 pages long and the regulations written to enforce it are many times as long already, and growing).
This is not insignificant. And, it is going on in lots of different places in our economy. Just ask any business person.
2. Uncertainty over the regulatory environment. Michael Aronstein used the phrase "regulatory totalitarianism" when talking about what is coming out of Washington these days and it really is very accurate. The rule of law is eroding and being replaced by the rule of bureaucrats.
3. Uncertainty over tax rates. When was the last time it was November and we still did not know what the tax rates were for the following year? That is what this Congress and this President have promised the American people. How easy is it to plan business investment and hiring when you don't know what a major component of your costs will be (36% federal rate on any income you can muster up in this economy). Tax rates matter, Mr. President. The longer they are uncertain, the lower the amount of business investment.
This is one area the current Administration just does not understand. Uncertainty is preventing business investment and job creation. This is what is happening in the real world, Mr. President.
Woldy
Monday, September 27, 2010
Abandon Ship, Gilligan!
Axelrod, Rahm, Larry, Peter . . . the list of Obama aides who have abandoned ship, or have announced plans to abandon ship is growing daily. They must sense that the second two years of Obama's term are not nearly going to be as much fun as the first two years . . . and they want to get while the getting is good.
Hard to read this any other way, in advance of the November Smackdown . . . I mean . . . Elections.
The Dems will see it as a victory if they hold onto the House, even if by a slim majority, but in reality, if they do manage to hold onto the House (not out of the question, anything can happen), it will be by a slim majority and that margin won't be enough to get anything done. Oh, and say goodnight to Nancy, because she is toast either way.
Hard to read this any other way, in advance of the November Smackdown . . . I mean . . . Elections.
The Dems will see it as a victory if they hold onto the House, even if by a slim majority, but in reality, if they do manage to hold onto the House (not out of the question, anything can happen), it will be by a slim majority and that margin won't be enough to get anything done. Oh, and say goodnight to Nancy, because she is toast either way.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Recovery.gov
Someone asked the source of the data on job creation and the stimulus spending. Check out the above web site, then go to Illinois and put in your zip code. I just put in 60061, where my business is located. February '09 to June '10, there have been $15.6 Million in contracts let and grants given to recipients in this zip code.
Zero point one jobs created . . . personally, I find that hard to believe. What did they do with all that money? I have not noticed any helicopters overhead dropping it from the sky.
We are such suckers . . . PT Barnum was right.
Zero point one jobs created . . . personally, I find that hard to believe. What did they do with all that money? I have not noticed any helicopters overhead dropping it from the sky.
We are such suckers . . . PT Barnum was right.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Fast Stimulus Fact
Did you know that $169,000,000 in federal stimulus funding was spent in the 10th Congressional District (where I live) this year? Wow, that's a lot of taxpayer money.
Guess how many full time jobs were created by this incredible sum of money . . .
158
More than $1,000,000 per job. But, its even worse than that. So much of the stimulus was spent resurfacing roads in the 10th District that once the roads are resurfaced and the Government money runs out, those jobs are gone. So, we spent $1,000,000 per job, for a temporary full time job. Stunningly ineffective . . . But the roads are so smooth now . . . at least we've got that going for us.
If you care about fiscal sanity, vote GOP this Fall. Bob Dold in the 10th, Joel Pollak in the 9th.
Woldy
Guess how many full time jobs were created by this incredible sum of money . . .
158
More than $1,000,000 per job. But, its even worse than that. So much of the stimulus was spent resurfacing roads in the 10th District that once the roads are resurfaced and the Government money runs out, those jobs are gone. So, we spent $1,000,000 per job, for a temporary full time job. Stunningly ineffective . . . But the roads are so smooth now . . . at least we've got that going for us.
If you care about fiscal sanity, vote GOP this Fall. Bob Dold in the 10th, Joel Pollak in the 9th.
Woldy
Friday, July 16, 2010
Calling GOP . . . Is Anyone Listening?
Dear GOP Strategy Committee: If you nominate Sarah Palin as your GOP nominee for 2012, millions of Independents (such as myself) will simply not vote. Haven't you figured out why you lost in 2008?
People simply could not stomach the idea of Sarah Palin becoming President. Even the remote chance that McCain might meet an untimely end, pushing Palin into the Presidency, was enough to motivate millions of us to vote for Obama.
Do you really need to learn the same lesson . . . again?
Give 'ole Sarah a nice, cushy job someplace and ask her politely to step aside (or shove her aside, whatever you have to do).
WE (Independents) WON'T VOTE FOR PALIN . . . is that clear enough? And, if you can't get us, you can't win. So . . . pick someone else.
People simply could not stomach the idea of Sarah Palin becoming President. Even the remote chance that McCain might meet an untimely end, pushing Palin into the Presidency, was enough to motivate millions of us to vote for Obama.
Do you really need to learn the same lesson . . . again?
Give 'ole Sarah a nice, cushy job someplace and ask her politely to step aside (or shove her aside, whatever you have to do).
WE (Independents) WON'T VOTE FOR PALIN . . . is that clear enough? And, if you can't get us, you can't win. So . . . pick someone else.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Joe Biden is a jerk . . .
Today, Joe Biden was confronted by a citizen at Kopp's Custard Shop in Milwaukee who dared . . . express an opinion on the fiscal state of the country by asking the Veep to lower our taxes. Biden's reply was a testy "Say something nice for a change instead of being such as smartass . . ."
What a jerk. Seems like any time a citizen says anything real, they get marginalized or discounted by our elected officials. When citizens express an opinion that is other than adulation for our elected officials, they are turned into ogres. This happened with last Summer's Town Hall meetings, when our Congressmen stopped having Town Hall meetings because they did not want to hear from us. And, it is happening to the Tea Party activists. They are labeled as racists or zenophobes by our leaders instead of taken seriously, and listened to, as any citizen should be. Our politicians simply do not want any lip from us.
This is the height of arrogance. And, again, it exhibits the tin ears that this Administration has for feedback from the populace. Whenever there is something said that they don't want to hear, they ignore it, they discount it and they seek a way to try to de-legitimize it. Same pattern, over and over again. (This is especially true with our President, but that's another blog post altogether.)
Once again . . . please vote for the challenger, whatever the party. In practice, this will mean voting GOP a lot of the time, but so be it. We need to remove from office as many incumbents as possible. And, send a very strong message that these people cocooned in Washington work for us . . . not the other way around.
Woldy
What a jerk. Seems like any time a citizen says anything real, they get marginalized or discounted by our elected officials. When citizens express an opinion that is other than adulation for our elected officials, they are turned into ogres. This happened with last Summer's Town Hall meetings, when our Congressmen stopped having Town Hall meetings because they did not want to hear from us. And, it is happening to the Tea Party activists. They are labeled as racists or zenophobes by our leaders instead of taken seriously, and listened to, as any citizen should be. Our politicians simply do not want any lip from us.
This is the height of arrogance. And, again, it exhibits the tin ears that this Administration has for feedback from the populace. Whenever there is something said that they don't want to hear, they ignore it, they discount it and they seek a way to try to de-legitimize it. Same pattern, over and over again. (This is especially true with our President, but that's another blog post altogether.)
Once again . . . please vote for the challenger, whatever the party. In practice, this will mean voting GOP a lot of the time, but so be it. We need to remove from office as many incumbents as possible. And, send a very strong message that these people cocooned in Washington work for us . . . not the other way around.
Woldy
Monday, June 14, 2010
Thank you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd
The two legislators who are most culpable for NOT regulating Fannie and Freddie more closely are Barney and Chris. Thankfully, Chris is retiring. Please, citizens of Massachusetts, its time for Barney to retire, too.
June 14 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.
For more on this depressing story, click and paste the whole story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=an_hcY9YaJas&pos=10
June 14 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.
For more on this depressing story, click and paste the whole story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=an_hcY9YaJas&pos=10
Friday, June 11, 2010
Quote on Obama Oil Spill Response
From an article on politico.com . . .
"Every other business doing business in the U.S. has to say: What happens when the government decides to come after me? They expect with Chavez in Venezuela, they have to account for that risk, but if the U.S. does it, that just reduces the incentive to invest in the United States,” Frank said. “The damage the administration is doing to the U.S. economy by playing these kinds of games is just appalling.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38406_Page2.html#ixzz0qa9FS9Io
"Every other business doing business in the U.S. has to say: What happens when the government decides to come after me? They expect with Chavez in Venezuela, they have to account for that risk, but if the U.S. does it, that just reduces the incentive to invest in the United States,” Frank said. “The damage the administration is doing to the U.S. economy by playing these kinds of games is just appalling.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38406_Page2.html#ixzz0qa9FS9Io
We Live in Pelosi-Land
If you are still on the fence about whether or not to vote against the incumbent dimwits running our national government, here are a couple quotes from this week's news:
1. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today she decided that the U.S. court system is not capable of handling matters related to the inevitable onslaught of lawsuits coming BP's way. It is Speaker Pelosi's studied opinion that BP must . . . MUST . . . stop paying dividends to its shareholders immediately. Until such time that . . . well, until Speaker Pelosi thinks it is okay. When she gives the thumbs-up (and Hell actually does freeze over, due to the inevitable global cooling wave that is coming our way - - just wait, you’ll see), then BP can pay dividends. Or was it, until those individuals hurt by the oil spill in the Gulf start getting some dollars from BP . . . either way, Speaker Pelosi will let us know and then BP can start paying dividends. Because our court system is obviously not up to the task of sorting out legal rights and issues.
2. President Obama (only reason I didn't put this one first is out of respect for the President) stating that he is looking for some "ass to kick" about this whole oil spill thing going on down there in the Gulf. Man, is he pissed off. And, he is going to kick some "ass". I think it is really cool for the President to be talking about kicking some ass. When was the last time we had a President who would say such things? I mean, it is clear that somebody has to pay and Obama is the Chief Asskicker, or the Asskicker in Chief (whichever) so he is going to administer the kicking.
My only question is . . . how is he going to reach his butt with his own foot? Because clearly he should start with his own ass. For his instinctive desire to point fingers, assign blame and acting (as in performing for an audience), rather than actually doing the job we elected him for. Today’s show includes a berating of the Chairman of BP . . . as if that is going to solve anything. But, it looks oh so good to his audience to be chewing out some greedy corporate type. Obama really did learn a lot from fellow Chicagoan Oprah. He puts on a heck of a show.
1. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today she decided that the U.S. court system is not capable of handling matters related to the inevitable onslaught of lawsuits coming BP's way. It is Speaker Pelosi's studied opinion that BP must . . . MUST . . . stop paying dividends to its shareholders immediately. Until such time that . . . well, until Speaker Pelosi thinks it is okay. When she gives the thumbs-up (and Hell actually does freeze over, due to the inevitable global cooling wave that is coming our way - - just wait, you’ll see), then BP can pay dividends. Or was it, until those individuals hurt by the oil spill in the Gulf start getting some dollars from BP . . . either way, Speaker Pelosi will let us know and then BP can start paying dividends. Because our court system is obviously not up to the task of sorting out legal rights and issues.
2. President Obama (only reason I didn't put this one first is out of respect for the President) stating that he is looking for some "ass to kick" about this whole oil spill thing going on down there in the Gulf. Man, is he pissed off. And, he is going to kick some "ass". I think it is really cool for the President to be talking about kicking some ass. When was the last time we had a President who would say such things? I mean, it is clear that somebody has to pay and Obama is the Chief Asskicker, or the Asskicker in Chief (whichever) so he is going to administer the kicking.
My only question is . . . how is he going to reach his butt with his own foot? Because clearly he should start with his own ass. For his instinctive desire to point fingers, assign blame and acting (as in performing for an audience), rather than actually doing the job we elected him for. Today’s show includes a berating of the Chairman of BP . . . as if that is going to solve anything. But, it looks oh so good to his audience to be chewing out some greedy corporate type. Obama really did learn a lot from fellow Chicagoan Oprah. He puts on a heck of a show.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Let's have an honest conversation
Take the emotion out for a minute and consider the public policy.
Medicare was created in 1966 at a cost of $3 Billion per year. The House Ways & Means Committee estimated in 1966 that the 1990 cost would be $12 Billion. Instead, it was $107 Billion in 1990 and today it costs more than $408 Billion per year.
These are facts.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the health care law that was just signed into law a few months ago will cost $940 Billion over the next 10 years. Actually, just today, the CBO came out with a new estimate that is $100 Billion higher. But, if history is a guide, this is low. Way, way low. And, like it or not, the dollars must come from someplace. Sadly, we can't even pay for what we are spending now (to the tune of $1.5 TRILLION a year), let alone add more spending on top. Which is exactly what this Congress and this President just did.
Another fact . . .
If the US Government cut out 100% of its spending, including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . the US would still have a deficit.
More (unpleasant) facts . . .
Tim Cahill, Massachusetts State Treasurer said, of MassCare . . . "If not for . . . commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government."
This is the model for the US health care law that we now live under. There is not enough income in this country to tax to pay for all this spending. The top 10% of earners in this country ALREADY pay 73% of the income taxes collected by the IRS. So what is the right number? 85%? 95%? 100%? At what point do people stop creating new businesses and working longer hours to earn more money for the federal government to confiscate?
This issue is real. We are spending our way into oblivion in this country. Even after the massive tax increases which we will shortly experience, our federal government will still have huge current deficits on top of massive unfunded future liabilities. We simply don’t have enough money to pay for all the wonderful things our elected officials think up.
And, they are wonderful and worthy ideas. In a perfect world (which we sadly do not inhabit), we would have enough to pay for it all. But, unfortunately, we live in the real world, and not the imaginary one, and we need to find ways to pay for the programs we pass.
My advice, if you care about this issue, is to vote GOP this Fall. If you can’t bring yourself to do that (because you are too partisan), then vote against the incumbent. We need to send new people to Washington. Those people who have been there for 25, 30 and 40 years need to clear out. Let’s get some fresh blood in there and see if they can do a better job.
Woldy
Medicare was created in 1966 at a cost of $3 Billion per year. The House Ways & Means Committee estimated in 1966 that the 1990 cost would be $12 Billion. Instead, it was $107 Billion in 1990 and today it costs more than $408 Billion per year.
These are facts.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the health care law that was just signed into law a few months ago will cost $940 Billion over the next 10 years. Actually, just today, the CBO came out with a new estimate that is $100 Billion higher. But, if history is a guide, this is low. Way, way low. And, like it or not, the dollars must come from someplace. Sadly, we can't even pay for what we are spending now (to the tune of $1.5 TRILLION a year), let alone add more spending on top. Which is exactly what this Congress and this President just did.
Another fact . . .
If the US Government cut out 100% of its spending, including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . the US would still have a deficit.
More (unpleasant) facts . . .
Tim Cahill, Massachusetts State Treasurer said, of MassCare . . . "If not for . . . commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government."
This is the model for the US health care law that we now live under. There is not enough income in this country to tax to pay for all this spending. The top 10% of earners in this country ALREADY pay 73% of the income taxes collected by the IRS. So what is the right number? 85%? 95%? 100%? At what point do people stop creating new businesses and working longer hours to earn more money for the federal government to confiscate?
This issue is real. We are spending our way into oblivion in this country. Even after the massive tax increases which we will shortly experience, our federal government will still have huge current deficits on top of massive unfunded future liabilities. We simply don’t have enough money to pay for all the wonderful things our elected officials think up.
And, they are wonderful and worthy ideas. In a perfect world (which we sadly do not inhabit), we would have enough to pay for it all. But, unfortunately, we live in the real world, and not the imaginary one, and we need to find ways to pay for the programs we pass.
My advice, if you care about this issue, is to vote GOP this Fall. If you can’t bring yourself to do that (because you are too partisan), then vote against the incumbent. We need to send new people to Washington. Those people who have been there for 25, 30 and 40 years need to clear out. Let’s get some fresh blood in there and see if they can do a better job.
Woldy
Sunday, April 25, 2010
King Barack Weighs in (Yet) Again
Is there nothing that Barack Obama will not opine about?
From the behavior of Cambridge cops to the pay packages of investment bankers to West Virginia mine safety and now to a piece of state legislation in Arizona (on immigration). Barack thinks he gets a say in EVERYTHING that happens in this country.
By the way, it is quite unusual for a sitting President to take a Governor and state legislature to task for passing a law he disagrees with. It is kind of Un-Presidential, in fact, to do that. Not the least of reasons is that he is supposed to be leading a country of States (maybe Cass Sunstein can remind him of some of the finer points over lunch one day). And, then there's this whole subject of seeming to be rather reactive, but that may have to wait for another blog posting.
The reason the Arizona state legislature acted is because the U.S. Congress hasn't acted. No, that is not really correct. Congress won't act because they are scared to (scared to piss more people off). But the problem is not going away. And as a front-line state, immigration matters to Arizonians. Right or wrong, their elected state officials felt the need to act, and did act. Now, having acted, The President decides that they did the wrong thing. The President. And, he bashes the Governor and the state legislature for taking the action they did.
Barack should be directing his ire at the Congress. Oh, and by the way, himself, for insisting the Congress take up health insurance legislation rather than other pressing matters of state. But, it is much more politically expedient for him to bash some Republican Governor. Hits the "right" note with his supporters.
Now I am not suggesting that The President should not exercise the bully pulpit to affect public policy. That is his right. He can say whatever he wants. He is The President. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us), he has exercised this right rather too aggressively in his short time in office. He basically can't help himself from speaking out.
Here is a serious question, not a joke: Does Barack think he is a Monarch or the leader of a Democracy?
From the behavior of Cambridge cops to the pay packages of investment bankers to West Virginia mine safety and now to a piece of state legislation in Arizona (on immigration). Barack thinks he gets a say in EVERYTHING that happens in this country.
By the way, it is quite unusual for a sitting President to take a Governor and state legislature to task for passing a law he disagrees with. It is kind of Un-Presidential, in fact, to do that. Not the least of reasons is that he is supposed to be leading a country of States (maybe Cass Sunstein can remind him of some of the finer points over lunch one day). And, then there's this whole subject of seeming to be rather reactive, but that may have to wait for another blog posting.
The reason the Arizona state legislature acted is because the U.S. Congress hasn't acted. No, that is not really correct. Congress won't act because they are scared to (scared to piss more people off). But the problem is not going away. And as a front-line state, immigration matters to Arizonians. Right or wrong, their elected state officials felt the need to act, and did act. Now, having acted, The President decides that they did the wrong thing. The President. And, he bashes the Governor and the state legislature for taking the action they did.
Barack should be directing his ire at the Congress. Oh, and by the way, himself, for insisting the Congress take up health insurance legislation rather than other pressing matters of state. But, it is much more politically expedient for him to bash some Republican Governor. Hits the "right" note with his supporters.
Now I am not suggesting that The President should not exercise the bully pulpit to affect public policy. That is his right. He can say whatever he wants. He is The President. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us), he has exercised this right rather too aggressively in his short time in office. He basically can't help himself from speaking out.
Here is a serious question, not a joke: Does Barack think he is a Monarch or the leader of a Democracy?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
SEC's Goldman Suit Smacks of Politics
I have been as vocal a critic as any about some of the ways that Goldman Sachs has benefited from Government bailouts over the last 18 months, but this SEC action, in the midst of the White House's legislative push to pass a financial regulations bill, just seems to me to be all about politics.
Plausibly deniable, we may never know (or at least we may not know until someone writes a book about it a year from now) if the prosecutors were influenced by the politicians to wage a public war against the most prominent survivor on Wall Street. It just seems to be too coincidental and I, for one, just don't believe in coincidence.
And, if it turns out to be true then, shame on the White House, the Democratic Congressional leadership and shame on the SEC Commissioner. Because they are messing with the reputation of one of our country's leading financial firms. And, the reputations of individuals. Once tainted, reputations are hard to restore.
I have no idea what actually happened, but this sort of fits a pattern with this President. He wants things the way he wants things and he wants them that way NOW. He is a bit of a bully and he doesn't like taking "no" for an answer. Sometimes these are good traits in a leader. But, not when the legal proceedings of our country's law enforcement agencies are applied inappropriately.
Time will tell if this was a political prosecution, or not.
Plausibly deniable, we may never know (or at least we may not know until someone writes a book about it a year from now) if the prosecutors were influenced by the politicians to wage a public war against the most prominent survivor on Wall Street. It just seems to be too coincidental and I, for one, just don't believe in coincidence.
And, if it turns out to be true then, shame on the White House, the Democratic Congressional leadership and shame on the SEC Commissioner. Because they are messing with the reputation of one of our country's leading financial firms. And, the reputations of individuals. Once tainted, reputations are hard to restore.
I have no idea what actually happened, but this sort of fits a pattern with this President. He wants things the way he wants things and he wants them that way NOW. He is a bit of a bully and he doesn't like taking "no" for an answer. Sometimes these are good traits in a leader. But, not when the legal proceedings of our country's law enforcement agencies are applied inappropriately.
Time will tell if this was a political prosecution, or not.
Friday, April 2, 2010
John Kerry Believes in Fairytales
John Kerry spent an hour or two with President Assad in Syria and declared afterwards that "Syria is committed to peace." Good thing we have John Kerry. He would have made a great Secretary of State. My question for John Kerry is, "with whom is Syria committed to peace?"
Is Syria committed to peace with Hezbullah, the militant Islamic militia that continues to hold the people of Lebanon hostage to their fanatical military ideas? The same Hezbullah who launched the cross-border attack and kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, igniting a ruinous war in 2006? The same Hezbullah that fired rockets indiscriminantly into civilian population areas (i.e. cities) in Israel? The same Hezbullah that is now armed with 40,000 rockets, some capable of hitting major metropolitan areas inside Israel? How did those rockets get into Lebanon, you might ask . . . through peace-loving Syria.
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Lebanon, a country they continue to dominate, assassinating Lebanese journalists, politicians, business leaders who dare to disagree publicly with Syria?
Or, is Syria committed to peace with the Palestinians, while they continue to host the rejectionist and most violent elements of the Hamas leadership?
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Iraq, now that the dust has settled and it is clear that Iraq will not be torn apart.
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Jordan? Turkey? Iran?
Who is John Kerry saying Syria is committed to peace with?
Israel? Give me a break. Neighbors who are committed to peace with other neighbors do not help the enemies of those neighbors arm themselves with threatening weaponry. Neighbors committed to peace with neighbors do not align themselves with fascist states (i.e. Iran), who publicly call for the destruction of their beloved neighbors. Neighbors committed to peace exert their influence in the neighborhood to keep the peace, not to stir up trouble.
A senior American statesman (?!?!?) going to Damascus and declaring that Syria is committed to peace is a joke. But, unfortunately, it is not really a joke for Israel. It is more of the same public posturing that the Obama Administration has used to turn Israel into the "obstruction to peace".
This is Alice in Wonderland where up is down and right is left. Now, Syria is the peace loving country and Israel the obstructionist state. Thank goodness for John Kerry.
Is Syria committed to peace with Hezbullah, the militant Islamic militia that continues to hold the people of Lebanon hostage to their fanatical military ideas? The same Hezbullah who launched the cross-border attack and kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, igniting a ruinous war in 2006? The same Hezbullah that fired rockets indiscriminantly into civilian population areas (i.e. cities) in Israel? The same Hezbullah that is now armed with 40,000 rockets, some capable of hitting major metropolitan areas inside Israel? How did those rockets get into Lebanon, you might ask . . . through peace-loving Syria.
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Lebanon, a country they continue to dominate, assassinating Lebanese journalists, politicians, business leaders who dare to disagree publicly with Syria?
Or, is Syria committed to peace with the Palestinians, while they continue to host the rejectionist and most violent elements of the Hamas leadership?
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Iraq, now that the dust has settled and it is clear that Iraq will not be torn apart.
Or, is Syria committed to peace with Jordan? Turkey? Iran?
Who is John Kerry saying Syria is committed to peace with?
Israel? Give me a break. Neighbors who are committed to peace with other neighbors do not help the enemies of those neighbors arm themselves with threatening weaponry. Neighbors committed to peace with neighbors do not align themselves with fascist states (i.e. Iran), who publicly call for the destruction of their beloved neighbors. Neighbors committed to peace exert their influence in the neighborhood to keep the peace, not to stir up trouble.
A senior American statesman (?!?!?) going to Damascus and declaring that Syria is committed to peace is a joke. But, unfortunately, it is not really a joke for Israel. It is more of the same public posturing that the Obama Administration has used to turn Israel into the "obstruction to peace".
This is Alice in Wonderland where up is down and right is left. Now, Syria is the peace loving country and Israel the obstructionist state. Thank goodness for John Kerry.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Really?
Politico.com reported today that over 2,000 House staffers make a salary of over $100,000. That means for every Representative, there are nearly 5 staffers making $100,000, or more.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israel is at Risk
The Obama Administration wants a Middle East deal badly. They really need a deal. Their credibility is at stake. And, they don’t like the intransigent and uncooperative Netanyahu Government standing in their way. Obama did his smack-down this week (over a municipal zoning decision that has already been approved three times) because he wants to put Netanyahu in his place . . . which is to say, at the feet of Obama.
Why do I say this? Because Obama has maneuvered U.S. foreign policy into a corner from which the only way out is to squeeze Israel. He needs to deliver a peace deal in order to shore up support for his efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Certainly containing Iran is an important political and security goal for the U.S. I am not sure I completely understand how alienating, and publicly castigating, our closest ally in the region squares with this goal, however.
More central to my overall point, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions that are permanent in order to allow Obama to pursue a fleeting, ephemeral political win. Convincing one country, or another, to go along with economic sanctions on Iran at this moment in time may, or may not, achieve the goal of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program. Countries can change their polices (i.e. Bush to Obama on Israel, Poland, Czech, Georgia, etc…) So, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians that help convince Russia, or China, to support sanctions one day, and then change their mind the next day when the U.S. does something that they don’t like (such as sell arms to Taiwan) completely negates the political value of the Israeli concessions.
And, once made, Israeli concessions are not easy to take back. Removing settlements and splitting Jerusalem is not something that can be undone. What we are doing is asking Israeli citizens to put themselves at risk (ask the people living near Gaza how much they have enjoyed the last five years of rocket fire since Israel pulled out of Gaza) so Obama can score political points that may mean nothing six months later. Not sure this is a great deal for Israeli citizens.
Especially with the backdrop of not having a viable, stable partner in negotiations who has the will and the power, to deliver on their promises. Just this week, a senior Minister in the PA government called for riots on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would you trust such a government with your life? Your childrens’ lives? That is what we are asking them to do. It is their lives we are messing with. I am not sure most people understand this point.
And, the shame of it all is, as I have pointed out numerous times, including on the Chicago Tribune editorial page, Israel has consistently shown a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifices for peace when they have felt the support of their strongest ally, the U.S. and when there appeared to be a partner for peace. Today, the Obama Administration has removed the feeling of support (see Joe Biden’s telling remarks last week about the need to have no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, as a precondition to peace). And, the PA has shown no commitment to negotiations. So, what does Obama expect Israel to do? They are being told, loudly and clearly, that the U.S. special relationship with Israel is changing and that they (meaning the Obama Administration) want to be an “honest broker” and not favor one side over the other. This is what our foreign policy is morphing into.
That is why I titled this blog post the way I did.
Why do I say this? Because Obama has maneuvered U.S. foreign policy into a corner from which the only way out is to squeeze Israel. He needs to deliver a peace deal in order to shore up support for his efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Certainly containing Iran is an important political and security goal for the U.S. I am not sure I completely understand how alienating, and publicly castigating, our closest ally in the region squares with this goal, however.
More central to my overall point, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions that are permanent in order to allow Obama to pursue a fleeting, ephemeral political win. Convincing one country, or another, to go along with economic sanctions on Iran at this moment in time may, or may not, achieve the goal of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program. Countries can change their polices (i.e. Bush to Obama on Israel, Poland, Czech, Georgia, etc…) So, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians that help convince Russia, or China, to support sanctions one day, and then change their mind the next day when the U.S. does something that they don’t like (such as sell arms to Taiwan) completely negates the political value of the Israeli concessions.
And, once made, Israeli concessions are not easy to take back. Removing settlements and splitting Jerusalem is not something that can be undone. What we are doing is asking Israeli citizens to put themselves at risk (ask the people living near Gaza how much they have enjoyed the last five years of rocket fire since Israel pulled out of Gaza) so Obama can score political points that may mean nothing six months later. Not sure this is a great deal for Israeli citizens.
Especially with the backdrop of not having a viable, stable partner in negotiations who has the will and the power, to deliver on their promises. Just this week, a senior Minister in the PA government called for riots on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would you trust such a government with your life? Your childrens’ lives? That is what we are asking them to do. It is their lives we are messing with. I am not sure most people understand this point.
And, the shame of it all is, as I have pointed out numerous times, including on the Chicago Tribune editorial page, Israel has consistently shown a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifices for peace when they have felt the support of their strongest ally, the U.S. and when there appeared to be a partner for peace. Today, the Obama Administration has removed the feeling of support (see Joe Biden’s telling remarks last week about the need to have no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, as a precondition to peace). And, the PA has shown no commitment to negotiations. So, what does Obama expect Israel to do? They are being told, loudly and clearly, that the U.S. special relationship with Israel is changing and that they (meaning the Obama Administration) want to be an “honest broker” and not favor one side over the other. This is what our foreign policy is morphing into.
That is why I titled this blog post the way I did.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
One Fish, Two Fish, Three Fish, One Fish
The bad luck Mall in Dubai . . .
First, the World's Tallest Burj Tower gets closed down because the elevator to the 124th floor malfunctions and starts to drop like a stone with terrified passengers locked inside. Luckily the emergency brakes worked and no one was injured.
Then, the World's Largest Aquarium springs a leak and thousands of gallons of water spray onto the floor of the World's Largest Mall, forcing evacuation of the Dubai Mall.
Lastly, I heard from a friend who lives in Dubai that when the Aquarium first opened, it was stocked with the wrong species of shark. Which they discovered when shocked tourists reported that they thought they saw the sharks eat some of the other fish . . .
What else could go wrong?
First, the World's Tallest Burj Tower gets closed down because the elevator to the 124th floor malfunctions and starts to drop like a stone with terrified passengers locked inside. Luckily the emergency brakes worked and no one was injured.
Then, the World's Largest Aquarium springs a leak and thousands of gallons of water spray onto the floor of the World's Largest Mall, forcing evacuation of the Dubai Mall.
Lastly, I heard from a friend who lives in Dubai that when the Aquarium first opened, it was stocked with the wrong species of shark. Which they discovered when shocked tourists reported that they thought they saw the sharks eat some of the other fish . . .
What else could go wrong?
Something is up in Pakistan
All of a sudden, we are catching or killing high value Taliban targets in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . too much activity all at once to be a coincidence. Something has changed in Pakistan. The surge is going on in Afghanistan, which is undoubtedly helping, but it seems that the Pakistan Government has decided to take this fight for real.
Here's hoping it continues so we can get the heck out of there and bring our boys home.
Here's hoping it continues so we can get the heck out of there and bring our boys home.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Babi Yar
How do you make sense of a place like Babi Yar?
We stood on the edge of a perfectly normal looking ravine, filled with trees and covered in snow. It is cold. The wind is blowing. It would be cold in this place, even in Summer. But now it is bitter, and we shiver.
To get there, we walked down a long ice-covered driveway. Turned off a busy street in town to get to the driveway. Walked past buildings. In plain site. Questions arise. How do you not notice 33,711 people tromping along this path over the course of two days? Carrying suitcases. Families.
How do you not hear the 33,711 gunshots ring out in this ravine, situated inside the city, not in some far off forest where the winds do not carry the sound. People lived a few hundred meters from this ravine.
They heard the sounds. They saw the people. They knew.
In two days, they died. 33,711 of layed down, stripped naked, one on top of the other, face down. Shot in the back of the head. It is horrible to write these words. But it happened and we need to remember Reveka Bachrach, and the others who died in this place.
So, we stood there in the cold and we read. We read names of Reveka’s neighbors. We read Reveka’s name. And, we shed a tear.
There are many ravines just like this one in my hometown. As children, we played in the ravines, running up and down the slopes, branches snapping against us as we ran. Getting thoroughly, and joyfully, muddy in the process. Ravines were a place to play. And, here I stood on the edge of a different kind of ravine in the heart of big city Kiev. Very different kind of ravine.
When I arrived in Jerusalem, I placed a small prayer for Reveka Bachrach in the Wall. She is not forgotten.
We stood on the edge of a perfectly normal looking ravine, filled with trees and covered in snow. It is cold. The wind is blowing. It would be cold in this place, even in Summer. But now it is bitter, and we shiver.
To get there, we walked down a long ice-covered driveway. Turned off a busy street in town to get to the driveway. Walked past buildings. In plain site. Questions arise. How do you not notice 33,711 people tromping along this path over the course of two days? Carrying suitcases. Families.
How do you not hear the 33,711 gunshots ring out in this ravine, situated inside the city, not in some far off forest where the winds do not carry the sound. People lived a few hundred meters from this ravine.
They heard the sounds. They saw the people. They knew.
In two days, they died. 33,711 of layed down, stripped naked, one on top of the other, face down. Shot in the back of the head. It is horrible to write these words. But it happened and we need to remember Reveka Bachrach, and the others who died in this place.
So, we stood there in the cold and we read. We read names of Reveka’s neighbors. We read Reveka’s name. And, we shed a tear.
There are many ravines just like this one in my hometown. As children, we played in the ravines, running up and down the slopes, branches snapping against us as we ran. Getting thoroughly, and joyfully, muddy in the process. Ravines were a place to play. And, here I stood on the edge of a different kind of ravine in the heart of big city Kiev. Very different kind of ravine.
When I arrived in Jerusalem, I placed a small prayer for Reveka Bachrach in the Wall. She is not forgotten.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Health Care, Cadillac Plans and Unions
The landscape has changed for health care legislation since Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, but an associate of mine said something interesting to me yesteday that I thought I would pass on.
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Health-Care-Slamma-Jamma
Now that the polls are uncertain as to whether the Dems will hold onto the Senate seat in Massachusetts in the special election tomorrow, Senate Dem leadership is shifting into high gear to try to convince House Dem leadership to pass the Senate bill as is, with no changes. If the House does that, then the bill will not need to go back to the Senate for another vote. Which means, the Congress can pass the Health Care legislation without having to worry about whether the Massachusetts Senate seat is Democratic or Republican.
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
Friday, January 15, 2010
Back from Dubai
Dubai Observations . . .
1. Dubai is in big trouble financially. There is so much over building that it may take 10 years to absorb the excess real estate there. Residential values declined 52% in 2009 alone. In some areas, every other building has a crane on top of it. Reminded me of the cities in China that I visited.
2. The Burj Khalifa is pretty darn cool. Went up to the observatory on the 124th floor, walked outside (yes, outside) and looked up and saw another 40 story building above us.
3. Business is business. There are a lot of universities, hospitals, biotech research centers, etc... being built in the region. This region is trying to develop in a hurry (maybe before the oil runs out).
4. Did you know that only 15% of the population of Dubai is actually from Dubai. The remaining 85% is from someplace else and has limited rights (i.e. can't buy real estate, for instance) or are on time limited sponsorship deals to come there and work for a few years. One Pakistani taxi driver told me he was there on a three year contract, gets paid $500 a month to drive his taxi 12 hours a day, seven days a week. And, he lives in company dormitory with 7 other taxi drivers in the same room. Not such a wonderful life.
Political Observations . . .
1. I like Jon Stewart and find him very amusing and entertaining. However, his recent interview with John Yoo (of Justice Dept torture memo fame) highlighted one significant problem with those that get their "news" analysis from watching Jon Stewart; he is hopelessly tethered to his political beliefs. Even after basically admitting he did not know enough on the subject to hold a serious conversation with John Yoo, he clung to his preconceived notions on the subject. It is very interesting indeed to watch the interview (which you can find in three parts on hulu.com). I highly recommend it for those that are Jon Stewart fans. Pay particular attention to his mea culpa after the third episode, but make sure you watch all three all the way through.
Personally, I found John Yoo to be extremely intelligent, calm, cool and collected (but I'm not buying his book). He basically toasted Jon Stewart. Say what you will about the politics of the topic they discussed, the legal argument in that interview was not challenged by Stewart.
2. Obama's Bank Tax. Is going to be paid by you and me. So, basically, the Government takes our tax money and bails out these financial institutions. Then the President says we need to get "our" money back and he imposes a tax on the financial institutions . . . which the banks will turn around and pass on to us so they can pay us back our money . . . does this make sense to anyone?
3. Bonus Schmonus. While I certainly understand the frustration of people who feel that it is "unfair" for financial institutions to give out bonuses to their high performers during a recession, and immediately after the Government bailed these firms out (which made it possible for them to earn those bonuses), to me this is just more political posturing and posing.
We can't have it both ways. Either these are private companies, or they are not. If they are private, then they get to decide how much to pay their people. If they are public, then let's get this over with and nationalize them.
4. According to the Office of Personnel Management;
- 19% of Federal workers earn over $100,000 a year (before overtime and bonus).
- Average pay of Federal workers is over $71,000, compared to $40,000 in private industry.
- Over 10,000 people at the Department of Defense make over $150,000 a year.
- In the last 18 months, the number of Department of Transportation employees making over $170,000 a year has ballooned from 1 to 1,690.
These are interesting figures.
All for now.
1. Dubai is in big trouble financially. There is so much over building that it may take 10 years to absorb the excess real estate there. Residential values declined 52% in 2009 alone. In some areas, every other building has a crane on top of it. Reminded me of the cities in China that I visited.
2. The Burj Khalifa is pretty darn cool. Went up to the observatory on the 124th floor, walked outside (yes, outside) and looked up and saw another 40 story building above us.
3. Business is business. There are a lot of universities, hospitals, biotech research centers, etc... being built in the region. This region is trying to develop in a hurry (maybe before the oil runs out).
4. Did you know that only 15% of the population of Dubai is actually from Dubai. The remaining 85% is from someplace else and has limited rights (i.e. can't buy real estate, for instance) or are on time limited sponsorship deals to come there and work for a few years. One Pakistani taxi driver told me he was there on a three year contract, gets paid $500 a month to drive his taxi 12 hours a day, seven days a week. And, he lives in company dormitory with 7 other taxi drivers in the same room. Not such a wonderful life.
Political Observations . . .
1. I like Jon Stewart and find him very amusing and entertaining. However, his recent interview with John Yoo (of Justice Dept torture memo fame) highlighted one significant problem with those that get their "news" analysis from watching Jon Stewart; he is hopelessly tethered to his political beliefs. Even after basically admitting he did not know enough on the subject to hold a serious conversation with John Yoo, he clung to his preconceived notions on the subject. It is very interesting indeed to watch the interview (which you can find in three parts on hulu.com). I highly recommend it for those that are Jon Stewart fans. Pay particular attention to his mea culpa after the third episode, but make sure you watch all three all the way through.
Personally, I found John Yoo to be extremely intelligent, calm, cool and collected (but I'm not buying his book). He basically toasted Jon Stewart. Say what you will about the politics of the topic they discussed, the legal argument in that interview was not challenged by Stewart.
2. Obama's Bank Tax. Is going to be paid by you and me. So, basically, the Government takes our tax money and bails out these financial institutions. Then the President says we need to get "our" money back and he imposes a tax on the financial institutions . . . which the banks will turn around and pass on to us so they can pay us back our money . . . does this make sense to anyone?
3. Bonus Schmonus. While I certainly understand the frustration of people who feel that it is "unfair" for financial institutions to give out bonuses to their high performers during a recession, and immediately after the Government bailed these firms out (which made it possible for them to earn those bonuses), to me this is just more political posturing and posing.
We can't have it both ways. Either these are private companies, or they are not. If they are private, then they get to decide how much to pay their people. If they are public, then let's get this over with and nationalize them.
4. According to the Office of Personnel Management;
- 19% of Federal workers earn over $100,000 a year (before overtime and bonus).
- Average pay of Federal workers is over $71,000, compared to $40,000 in private industry.
- Over 10,000 people at the Department of Defense make over $150,000 a year.
- In the last 18 months, the number of Department of Transportation employees making over $170,000 a year has ballooned from 1 to 1,690.
These are interesting figures.
All for now.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Amateur Hour at the White House
1. Three days after the "Tidey Whitey Bomber" (D.Pryor) failed to detonate, the President declared that our intelligence agencies had let us down and that he was going to investigate this "breach". Clenched jaw, frown on his face, he seemed genuinely angry. To me, this display seemed "made-for-TV". It is hard to tell with Obama, because he shows so little emotion publicly. But, this is besides the point.
The point I am making here is that throwing the "intelligence" community under the bus for this situation was probably not the master stroke his advisors thought it would be. If it is true that we had an intelligence breakdown of sorts (seems pretty obvious that there was some kind of breakdown), why would the President of the United States say so on national TV? Why would he call out those parties so publicly? To score political points is the answer. He needs better poll numbers and this was an easy target (public wanted a scapegoat and he gave us one). The problem with this strategy is that he needs us (the public) to have confidence in our intelligence capabilities. He needs us to think that the billions of dollars we are spending each year on the Federal Government are being spent well and that we are being protected by the "best of the best". And, that it is safe to fly.
Was it worth the poll numbers to undercut public confidence in American intelligence agency effectiveness?
2. The other thing the President said at that press conference was that he was going to "get those guys" who were behind the numbskull who tried to blow his own balls off on that Northwest flight. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist. He sounded positively Bush-like. And, not very Obama-like. Again, a calculated statement, designed for maximum political effect. His handlers have recognized that we (the public) don't think he's tough enough and that we like toughness in our leaders. So, he has to do something to make himself seem tougher. And, making statements about getting the bad guys worked for Bush, so why not try it?
I suppose this is also a tacit concession that the whole "build it and they will come" idea of building bridges to talk . . . just won't work with some people (lots of people). Sadly, our country had paid a heavy price so the President could learn this lesson.
3. When in doubt . . . investigate. It always seems very proactive to declare that the President is investigating the problem and undertaking a major reassessment of capabilities, blah, blah, blah . . . So, now appear stories about President Obama spending the weekend (oh, the horror!) reading a "flood of new information" (WSJ, pA2) explaining how the security system failed. Hundreds of pages, blah, blah, blah. To top it off, the article goes on to reveal that the President is going to have a big meeting with lots of important people to discuss this matter, next Tuesday and that the President is going to lead the investigation. But, not to expect anything major for a number of weeks. Because these things take time, people. Enjoy your flight . . .
Does it seem rational for the President to lead an investigation into how the Dork Bomber (R.Woldenberg) got on that plane with explosives? Is he the best person to do that? What does it say about the leaders of our intelligence apparatus if he is leading this investigation? That he doesn't trust them, or that they are not competent enough to lead this? Do we want our President being the Investigator-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief?
Again, this seems manufactured for an audience. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. President Obama needs better poll numbers. Next thing we'll see are stories about the President approving specific Predator strikes on the bad guys.
All for now . . .
The point I am making here is that throwing the "intelligence" community under the bus for this situation was probably not the master stroke his advisors thought it would be. If it is true that we had an intelligence breakdown of sorts (seems pretty obvious that there was some kind of breakdown), why would the President of the United States say so on national TV? Why would he call out those parties so publicly? To score political points is the answer. He needs better poll numbers and this was an easy target (public wanted a scapegoat and he gave us one). The problem with this strategy is that he needs us (the public) to have confidence in our intelligence capabilities. He needs us to think that the billions of dollars we are spending each year on the Federal Government are being spent well and that we are being protected by the "best of the best". And, that it is safe to fly.
Was it worth the poll numbers to undercut public confidence in American intelligence agency effectiveness?
2. The other thing the President said at that press conference was that he was going to "get those guys" who were behind the numbskull who tried to blow his own balls off on that Northwest flight. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist. He sounded positively Bush-like. And, not very Obama-like. Again, a calculated statement, designed for maximum political effect. His handlers have recognized that we (the public) don't think he's tough enough and that we like toughness in our leaders. So, he has to do something to make himself seem tougher. And, making statements about getting the bad guys worked for Bush, so why not try it?
I suppose this is also a tacit concession that the whole "build it and they will come" idea of building bridges to talk . . . just won't work with some people (lots of people). Sadly, our country had paid a heavy price so the President could learn this lesson.
3. When in doubt . . . investigate. It always seems very proactive to declare that the President is investigating the problem and undertaking a major reassessment of capabilities, blah, blah, blah . . . So, now appear stories about President Obama spending the weekend (oh, the horror!) reading a "flood of new information" (WSJ, pA2) explaining how the security system failed. Hundreds of pages, blah, blah, blah. To top it off, the article goes on to reveal that the President is going to have a big meeting with lots of important people to discuss this matter, next Tuesday and that the President is going to lead the investigation. But, not to expect anything major for a number of weeks. Because these things take time, people. Enjoy your flight . . .
Does it seem rational for the President to lead an investigation into how the Dork Bomber (R.Woldenberg) got on that plane with explosives? Is he the best person to do that? What does it say about the leaders of our intelligence apparatus if he is leading this investigation? That he doesn't trust them, or that they are not competent enough to lead this? Do we want our President being the Investigator-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief?
Again, this seems manufactured for an audience. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. President Obama needs better poll numbers. Next thing we'll see are stories about the President approving specific Predator strikes on the bad guys.
All for now . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)