Cain (Didn’t) Expose his Cane
Explosive new allegations are being made this evening by a woman who has come forward in Madison, Wisconsin. The woman, who worked at the National Restaurant Association at the same time as Herman Cain, is keeping her identity private for the time being. She prefers to be known as “Number 5”. Apparently, Number 5 is a petite, athletic , young woman who worked closely with Mr. Cain during his tenure as President of the NRA.
The woman is quoted as saying that despite her telling Mr. Cain that she has several boyfriends, and likes to meet new people, he never layed a hand on her. Not only does Number 5 allege that Mr. Cain did not once make a pass at her, she claims that once, when they were alone at the copy machine, and she bent down to pick up a copy she had “accidentally” dropped to the floor, she looked up to see him . .. checking his Blackberry.
These new allegations threaten to de-rail the carefully crafted image of Mr. Cain that has emerged over the course of the last week and has resulted in a tremendous increase in fundraising. If true, this could be the nail in the coffin of the Cain Campaign. The onus is on Mr. Cain to disprove the allegations . . .and he doesn’t have much time! Look for a Number 6 to emerge in the next 24 hours.
Greece Demands Royalties for ‘Grease’
The Government of Greece has filed a lawsuit against Columbia Pictures, and John Travolta, to reclaim 27 years of royalties from the movie ‘Grease’. Apparently, the lawsuit is part of the Mediterranean Nation’s new strategy to raise the money it needs to pay back investors in Greek debt by litigating against trademark infringers all over the World. Greece’s over-zealous attorneys are suing as many deep-pocketed defendants as they can identify, sometimes using the thinnest of legal theories. The Greek Attorney General, Grappa Papadopolous, is quoted as saying “Look, we’re doing the best we can here. All they have to do is pay us a little money and we’ll sue someone else.” Seems par for the course, wouldn’t you say?
Obama Occupies Stuckey's
In a stark metaphor, the bus carrying President Obama from one speaking engagement to the next. The President is on a speaking tour, drumming up grassroots support for his jobs bill, or something he can sign. Apparently, Mr. Obama and his staff took refuge inside a Stuckey’s restaurant. As diners looked on, the Secret Service cleared out the restaurant by paying for everyone’s dining bill and asking them to leave. One woman diner was quoted as saying, “Obama is awesome! I just got a free omelette!”
Monday, November 7, 2011
Clips from AP Newswire
Cain (Didn’t) Expose his Cane
Explosive new allegations are being made this evening by a woman who has come forward in Madison, Wisconsin. The woman, who worked at the National Restaurant Association at the same time as Herman Cain, is keeping her identity private for the time being. She prefers to be known as “Number 5”. Apparently, Number 5 is a petite, athletic , young woman who worked closely with Mr. Cain during his tenure as President of the NRA.
The woman is quoted as saying that despite her telling Mr. Cain that she has several boyfriends, and likes to meet new people, he never layed a hand on her. Not only does Number 5 allege that Mr. Cain did not once make a pass at her, she claims that once, when they were alone at the copy machine, and she bent down to pick up a copy she had “accidentally” dropped to the floor, she looked up to see him . .. checking his Blackberry.
These new allegations threaten to de-rail the carefully crafted image of Mr. Cain that has emerged over the course of the last week and has resulted in a tremendous increase in fundraising. If true, this could be the nail in the coffin of the Cain Campaign. The onus is on Mr. Cain to disprove the allegations . . .and he doesn’t have much time! Look for a Number 6 to emerge in the next 24 hours.
Greece Demands Royalties for ‘Grease’
The Government of Greece has filed a lawsuit against Columbia Pictures, and John Travolta, to reclaim 27 years of royalties from the movie ‘Grease’. Apparently, the lawsuit is part of the Mediterranean Nation’s new strategy to raise the money it needs to pay back investors in Greek debt by litigating against trademark infringers all over the World. Greece’s over-zealous attorneys are suing as many deep-pocketed defendants as they can identify, sometimes using the thinnest of legal theories. The Greek Attorney General, Grappa Papadopolous, is quoted as saying “Look, we’re doing the best we can here. All they have to do is pay us a little money and we’ll sue someone else.” Seems par for the course, wouldn’t you say?
Obama Occupies Stuckey's
In a stark metaphor, the bus carrying President Obama from one speaking engagement to the next broke down last night. The President is on a speaking tour, drumming up grassroots support for his jobs bill, or something he can sign. Apparently, Mr. Obama and his staff took refuge inside a Stuckey’s restaurant. As diners looked on, the Secret Service cleared out the restaurant by paying for everyone’s dining bill and asking them to leave. One woman diner was quoted as saying, “Obama is awesome! I just got a free omelette!”
Explosive new allegations are being made this evening by a woman who has come forward in Madison, Wisconsin. The woman, who worked at the National Restaurant Association at the same time as Herman Cain, is keeping her identity private for the time being. She prefers to be known as “Number 5”. Apparently, Number 5 is a petite, athletic , young woman who worked closely with Mr. Cain during his tenure as President of the NRA.
The woman is quoted as saying that despite her telling Mr. Cain that she has several boyfriends, and likes to meet new people, he never layed a hand on her. Not only does Number 5 allege that Mr. Cain did not once make a pass at her, she claims that once, when they were alone at the copy machine, and she bent down to pick up a copy she had “accidentally” dropped to the floor, she looked up to see him . .. checking his Blackberry.
These new allegations threaten to de-rail the carefully crafted image of Mr. Cain that has emerged over the course of the last week and has resulted in a tremendous increase in fundraising. If true, this could be the nail in the coffin of the Cain Campaign. The onus is on Mr. Cain to disprove the allegations . . .and he doesn’t have much time! Look for a Number 6 to emerge in the next 24 hours.
Greece Demands Royalties for ‘Grease’
The Government of Greece has filed a lawsuit against Columbia Pictures, and John Travolta, to reclaim 27 years of royalties from the movie ‘Grease’. Apparently, the lawsuit is part of the Mediterranean Nation’s new strategy to raise the money it needs to pay back investors in Greek debt by litigating against trademark infringers all over the World. Greece’s over-zealous attorneys are suing as many deep-pocketed defendants as they can identify, sometimes using the thinnest of legal theories. The Greek Attorney General, Grappa Papadopolous, is quoted as saying “Look, we’re doing the best we can here. All they have to do is pay us a little money and we’ll sue someone else.” Seems par for the course, wouldn’t you say?
Obama Occupies Stuckey's
In a stark metaphor, the bus carrying President Obama from one speaking engagement to the next broke down last night. The President is on a speaking tour, drumming up grassroots support for his jobs bill, or something he can sign. Apparently, Mr. Obama and his staff took refuge inside a Stuckey’s restaurant. As diners looked on, the Secret Service cleared out the restaurant by paying for everyone’s dining bill and asking them to leave. One woman diner was quoted as saying, “Obama is awesome! I just got a free omelette!”
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Warren Plays Inside Poker
Here are the facts . . . draw your own conclusions.
1. It is common knowledge that President Obama and Warren Buffett have a close relationship (which will, no doubt, result in Obama being on Berkshire's Board of Directors within 12-18 months of getting out of office). Obama calls Buffett and talks about all sorts of things. Buffett writes Op-Ed pieces in the Journal that basically support Obama's calls for higher taxes. Buffett is the Poster Child for Obama's insistence that the wealthy can, and should, pay more taxes. After all, they say, even Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary!
2. Warren Buffett sits down with President Obama on Monday of this week to discuss the President’s pending "major jobs address" after Labor Day. Obama discusses his new jobs creation plan with Buffett, who gives him his opinions and the benefit of talking to someone who knows a lot about how the economy works (unlike . . .oh, forget it, that is just distracting from my point). Berkshire companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers and are involved in all sorts of businesses from carpet making to ice cream selling.
3. Two days later (on Wednesday of the same week), according to Buffett, he takes a bath (interesting . . . most men take showers, but that's neither here nor there). While contemplating his navel in the tub, Buffett gets an epiphany . . . "EUREKA!", he shouts, and leaps from the tub, dries off and calls Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
4. The following day, Buffett pulls the trigger on a $5 Billion investment in Bank of America Preferred Stock and Warrants, thereby buying a major stake in another one of the largest financial institutions in the USA (he also owns a major stake in Wells-Fargo).
5. Bank of America is one of the few remaining "too big to fail" financials. In other words, BAC has an implicit guarantee or backstop from the Federal Government and will not be allowed to fail.
6. Buffett announces, today, the same day he announced his $5 Billion investment in Bank of America, that he is hosting one of those multi-million dollar fundraisers for Obama’s 2012 Campaign, in New York City later this year. Coincidence. Pure and simple. It was in the works for a long time.
I am SURE that talking to the President on Monday about his as-yet-unannounced job creation plans (and whatever else they talked about) had NOTHING whatsoever to do with his Tub Epiphany, two days later, to buy a $5 Billion stake in the (toxic) Bank of America. Warren just figured that one out in the tub, while thinking big thoughts.
I am SURE that the fact that Buffett and the President have a close relationship will not affect decisions Treasury makes about the future of Bank of American ONE BIT. No way.
I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is just no connection between these dots. They are just the random walk of life’s silly little events. Ain’t it funny how they make that pretty pattern, though?
1. It is common knowledge that President Obama and Warren Buffett have a close relationship (which will, no doubt, result in Obama being on Berkshire's Board of Directors within 12-18 months of getting out of office). Obama calls Buffett and talks about all sorts of things. Buffett writes Op-Ed pieces in the Journal that basically support Obama's calls for higher taxes. Buffett is the Poster Child for Obama's insistence that the wealthy can, and should, pay more taxes. After all, they say, even Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary!
2. Warren Buffett sits down with President Obama on Monday of this week to discuss the President’s pending "major jobs address" after Labor Day. Obama discusses his new jobs creation plan with Buffett, who gives him his opinions and the benefit of talking to someone who knows a lot about how the economy works (unlike . . .oh, forget it, that is just distracting from my point). Berkshire companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers and are involved in all sorts of businesses from carpet making to ice cream selling.
3. Two days later (on Wednesday of the same week), according to Buffett, he takes a bath (interesting . . . most men take showers, but that's neither here nor there). While contemplating his navel in the tub, Buffett gets an epiphany . . . "EUREKA!", he shouts, and leaps from the tub, dries off and calls Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
4. The following day, Buffett pulls the trigger on a $5 Billion investment in Bank of America Preferred Stock and Warrants, thereby buying a major stake in another one of the largest financial institutions in the USA (he also owns a major stake in Wells-Fargo).
5. Bank of America is one of the few remaining "too big to fail" financials. In other words, BAC has an implicit guarantee or backstop from the Federal Government and will not be allowed to fail.
6. Buffett announces, today, the same day he announced his $5 Billion investment in Bank of America, that he is hosting one of those multi-million dollar fundraisers for Obama’s 2012 Campaign, in New York City later this year. Coincidence. Pure and simple. It was in the works for a long time.
I am SURE that talking to the President on Monday about his as-yet-unannounced job creation plans (and whatever else they talked about) had NOTHING whatsoever to do with his Tub Epiphany, two days later, to buy a $5 Billion stake in the (toxic) Bank of America. Warren just figured that one out in the tub, while thinking big thoughts.
I am SURE that the fact that Buffett and the President have a close relationship will not affect decisions Treasury makes about the future of Bank of American ONE BIT. No way.
I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is just no connection between these dots. They are just the random walk of life’s silly little events. Ain’t it funny how they make that pretty pattern, though?
Warren Plays Inside Poker
Here are the facts . . . draw your own conclusions:
1. It is common knowledge that President Obama and Warren Buffett have a close relationship (which will, no doubt, result in Obama being on Berkshire's Board of Directors within 12-18 months of getting out of office). Obama calls Buffett and talks about all sorts of things. Buffett writes Op-Ed pieces in the Journal that basically support Obama's calls for higher taxes. Buffett is the Poster Child for Obama's insistence that the wealthy can, and should, pay more taxes. After all, they say, even Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary!
2. Warren Buffett sits down with President Obama on Monday of this week to discuss his pending "major jobs address" after Labor Day. Obama discusses his new jobs creation plan with Buffett, who gives him his opinions and the benefit of talking to someone who knows a lot about how the economy works (unlike . . .oh, forget it, that is just distracting from my point). Berkshire companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers and are involved in all sorts of businesses from carpet making to ice cream selling.
3. Two days later (on Wednesday of the same week), according to Buffett, he takes a bath (interesting . . . most men take showers, but that's neither here nor there). While contemplating his navel in the tub, Buffett gets an epiphany . . . "EUREKA!", he shouts, and leaps from the tub, dries off and calls Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
4. The following day, Buffett pulls the trigger on a $5 Billion investment in Bank of America Preferred Stock and Warrants, thereby buying a major stake in another one of the largest financial institutions in the USA (he also owns a major stake in Wells-Fargo).
5. Bank of America is one of the few remaining "too big to fail" financials. In other words, BAC has an implicit guarantee or backstop from the Federal Government and will not be allowed to fail.
I am SURE that talking to the President on Monday about his as-yet-unannounced job creation plans (and whatever else they talked about) had NOTHING whatsoever to do with his Tub Epiphany to buy a $5 Billion stake in the (toxic, and Government backed) Bank of America. Warren just figured that one out in the tub, while thinking big thoughts.
I am SURE that the fact that Buffett and the President have a close relationship will not affect decisions Treasury makes about the future of Bank of America ONE BIT. No way.
I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that
1. It is common knowledge that President Obama and Warren Buffett have a close relationship (which will, no doubt, result in Obama being on Berkshire's Board of Directors within 12-18 months of getting out of office). Obama calls Buffett and talks about all sorts of things. Buffett writes Op-Ed pieces in the Journal that basically support Obama's calls for higher taxes. Buffett is the Poster Child for Obama's insistence that the wealthy can, and should, pay more taxes. After all, they say, even Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary!
2. Warren Buffett sits down with President Obama on Monday of this week to discuss his pending "major jobs address" after Labor Day. Obama discusses his new jobs creation plan with Buffett, who gives him his opinions and the benefit of talking to someone who knows a lot about how the economy works (unlike . . .oh, forget it, that is just distracting from my point). Berkshire companies employ hundreds of thousands of workers and are involved in all sorts of businesses from carpet making to ice cream selling.
3. Two days later (on Wednesday of the same week), according to Buffett, he takes a bath (interesting . . . most men take showers, but that's neither here nor there). While contemplating his navel in the tub, Buffett gets an epiphany . . . "EUREKA!", he shouts, and leaps from the tub, dries off and calls Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
4. The following day, Buffett pulls the trigger on a $5 Billion investment in Bank of America Preferred Stock and Warrants, thereby buying a major stake in another one of the largest financial institutions in the USA (he also owns a major stake in Wells-Fargo).
5. Bank of America is one of the few remaining "too big to fail" financials. In other words, BAC has an implicit guarantee or backstop from the Federal Government and will not be allowed to fail.
I am SURE that talking to the President on Monday about his as-yet-unannounced job creation plans (and whatever else they talked about) had NOTHING whatsoever to do with his Tub Epiphany to buy a $5 Billion stake in the (toxic, and Government backed) Bank of America. Warren just figured that one out in the tub, while thinking big thoughts.
I am SURE that the fact that Buffett and the President have a close relationship will not affect decisions Treasury makes about the future of Bank of America ONE BIT. No way.
I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that
Monday, August 8, 2011
Will Someone Please Tell the President to Stop Talking?
I wish the President would stop talking about things he is either unwilling, or unable, to do anything about.
He had his chance to (to quote him) “put what’s best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology”. Instead, he put self-interest (namely his own re-election chances), party and ideology ahead of what is best for the country by refusing to address our Nation’s biggest fiscal crisis. He had an historic opportunity over the last few weeks to mold a consensus on the Democrat side and take the road mapped out by Simpson/Bowles Commission, which he created (and who’s findings he has ignored). Instead, what he presided over was a sham of a negotiation which resulted in a non-solution. And no one was fooled by the charade, especially, it seems, Standard & Poors.
I think what he means when he says things like this is that the OTHER SIDE is the one that is pursuing its self-interest and ideology, but certainly not the President or Democrat leadership. The OTHER SIDE needs to set aside petty politics and get serious about addressing our Nation’s problems. The OTHER SIDE is selfish and obsessed with not raising taxes (which is the only way out . . . everyone agrees with this, right?) Obama is once again assigning blame, and strangely distancing himself from the issues at hand. The way Obama presents the political dynamic, he, the President, is powerless and an observer of other peoples’ actions. This is a constant pattern of this President who seems more interested in pointing his finger (or wagging it) at the daily “bad guy” group (“millionaires, billionaires, private plane owners, Goldman Sachs employees, bankers, hedge fund managers, S&P analysts, blah, blah, blah” . . . the list goes on and on . . . basically anyone who does not kow-tow to him).
THEY are all at fault and HE, had absolutely nothing to do with getting us into this mess. But, if you all behave a bit more like adults, then the President will be able to solve the problem. Today, Obama, once again, repeated the familiar canard that this mess was all created by his predecessor, and of course “the financial crisis”. At this point, nearly three years into his Presidency, this claim is such a tired old political hack line that not even his supporters are interested in hearing it. And, frankly, it is simply not true at this point. Obama has done, and said, many, many things to make matters worse. Much worse than he found them. But, there is no sense of responsibility for any of this on his part.
We pay this man to run our country.
He is not very good at it.
I think he would make a very good college professor. He likes to lecture people and he doesn’t like it when the “real World” misbehaves. He basically wants things to be a certain way and, not finding them that way, he lashes out at the World because it isn’t doing what he says it should. When you teach, you don’t have to worry about any of that. It goes back to being all theoretical, which is what someone like Obama likes better than reality anyway.
By the way, can anyone explain why he walked outside in a lightening storm holding aloft his 5-iron? In the midst of market meltdown, he turned the focus onto him, which can’t be good . . . for him.
Obama just does not know when to stop talking.
He had his chance to (to quote him) “put what’s best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology”. Instead, he put self-interest (namely his own re-election chances), party and ideology ahead of what is best for the country by refusing to address our Nation’s biggest fiscal crisis. He had an historic opportunity over the last few weeks to mold a consensus on the Democrat side and take the road mapped out by Simpson/Bowles Commission, which he created (and who’s findings he has ignored). Instead, what he presided over was a sham of a negotiation which resulted in a non-solution. And no one was fooled by the charade, especially, it seems, Standard & Poors.
I think what he means when he says things like this is that the OTHER SIDE is the one that is pursuing its self-interest and ideology, but certainly not the President or Democrat leadership. The OTHER SIDE needs to set aside petty politics and get serious about addressing our Nation’s problems. The OTHER SIDE is selfish and obsessed with not raising taxes (which is the only way out . . . everyone agrees with this, right?) Obama is once again assigning blame, and strangely distancing himself from the issues at hand. The way Obama presents the political dynamic, he, the President, is powerless and an observer of other peoples’ actions. This is a constant pattern of this President who seems more interested in pointing his finger (or wagging it) at the daily “bad guy” group (“millionaires, billionaires, private plane owners, Goldman Sachs employees, bankers, hedge fund managers, S&P analysts, blah, blah, blah” . . . the list goes on and on . . . basically anyone who does not kow-tow to him).
THEY are all at fault and HE, had absolutely nothing to do with getting us into this mess. But, if you all behave a bit more like adults, then the President will be able to solve the problem. Today, Obama, once again, repeated the familiar canard that this mess was all created by his predecessor, and of course “the financial crisis”. At this point, nearly three years into his Presidency, this claim is such a tired old political hack line that not even his supporters are interested in hearing it. And, frankly, it is simply not true at this point. Obama has done, and said, many, many things to make matters worse. Much worse than he found them. But, there is no sense of responsibility for any of this on his part.
We pay this man to run our country.
He is not very good at it.
I think he would make a very good college professor. He likes to lecture people and he doesn’t like it when the “real World” misbehaves. He basically wants things to be a certain way and, not finding them that way, he lashes out at the World because it isn’t doing what he says it should. When you teach, you don’t have to worry about any of that. It goes back to being all theoretical, which is what someone like Obama likes better than reality anyway.
By the way, can anyone explain why he walked outside in a lightening storm holding aloft his 5-iron? In the midst of market meltdown, he turned the focus onto him, which can’t be good . . . for him.
Obama just does not know when to stop talking.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Kick the Can
1. The President and our fearless leaders in the Congress have decided to kick the can down the road once again. The $917B in "cuts" they agreed to yesterday, over 10 years, amounts to basically 1% of spending over that period. Wow. What a brave step. The $1.5T of additional spending "cuts" they agreed to pursue . . . will never happen.
2. Why won't the additional $1.5T of spending reductions occur? Because no new "committee" is going to be able to solve this problem on its own. How many "commissions" or "gangs" or "posses" do we need to create to get this through our heads? Both the Bowles/Simpson Commission and the Gang of Six put forth decent plans to solve the problem. These plans went . . . nowhere, because as soon as the details got out, politicians started posturing and primping and preening for the cameras (hello Barney Frank). Out went the idea that their job is to solve our big problems. In came self-preservation.
The only way to solve these fiscal problems is for brave legislators to look into the camera and stop lying to the American People about the fact that there is actually a price that needs to be paid by all of us. We can not eat as much ice cream as we want and have someone else get the calories. Congress, with our support, made promises that we can not keep.
Commissions are created to deflect pressure. To get the public to shift its focus to some other problem while the "commission" works on the issue at hand and reports back its findings six months hence. By which time, the public completely forgot what the commission was set up to do. And, the problem rolls on.
This is the kind of "solution" that has gotten us into this mess.
3. A cut is a cut is (not) a cut. The other smoke and mirror technique Washington politicos are fond of is using big headlines to keep people from reading the fine print. They did not agree to cut spending. They agreed to cut the rate of increase of spending. Spending will keep going up and up and up. Just at a (very) slightly slower rate, if this plan goes forward. That's not a cut. A cut is actually spending less money than you spent last year.
4. Trust. The reason new taxes are not a solution today is because we do not trust Washington with more of our money. It is actually very simple. First, show us that you can be good stewards of our money by making hard choices and being truthful. Then, we will send you more money. Not the other way around. The Tea Party, for all its warts, stands for the proposition that we are no longer the patsies that our politicians have known us to be for so long. We are paying attention and we will not get distracted by the shiny object in their hands.
5. Missed Opportunity. We missed an opportunity to use the pressure of the current situation to solve the problem. We let the politicians off the hook. Eventually, we will need to have an adult conversation about spending. It looks like Washington is not ready for that.
6. Wet Blanket. The current situation is dampening spending and curtailing job creation. Lower growth equals less jobs created. The threat of default scared everyone, inside and outside of this country. Not good. Don't go out onto the ledge if you don't really intend to jump. We scared everyone and now it will take a while to get people to start spending again. We may have actually caused another recession. The enemic growth in the 2Q seems to indicate the economy is slowing. We never really know we are in a recession until well after it has started, but anectdotially, it feels like a recession has already begun. Firms are announcing layoffs. Business seems sluggish. I would say that it is very bad news for the President if we are going into another recession.
Out
2. Why won't the additional $1.5T of spending reductions occur? Because no new "committee" is going to be able to solve this problem on its own. How many "commissions" or "gangs" or "posses" do we need to create to get this through our heads? Both the Bowles/Simpson Commission and the Gang of Six put forth decent plans to solve the problem. These plans went . . . nowhere, because as soon as the details got out, politicians started posturing and primping and preening for the cameras (hello Barney Frank). Out went the idea that their job is to solve our big problems. In came self-preservation.
The only way to solve these fiscal problems is for brave legislators to look into the camera and stop lying to the American People about the fact that there is actually a price that needs to be paid by all of us. We can not eat as much ice cream as we want and have someone else get the calories. Congress, with our support, made promises that we can not keep.
Commissions are created to deflect pressure. To get the public to shift its focus to some other problem while the "commission" works on the issue at hand and reports back its findings six months hence. By which time, the public completely forgot what the commission was set up to do. And, the problem rolls on.
This is the kind of "solution" that has gotten us into this mess.
3. A cut is a cut is (not) a cut. The other smoke and mirror technique Washington politicos are fond of is using big headlines to keep people from reading the fine print. They did not agree to cut spending. They agreed to cut the rate of increase of spending. Spending will keep going up and up and up. Just at a (very) slightly slower rate, if this plan goes forward. That's not a cut. A cut is actually spending less money than you spent last year.
4. Trust. The reason new taxes are not a solution today is because we do not trust Washington with more of our money. It is actually very simple. First, show us that you can be good stewards of our money by making hard choices and being truthful. Then, we will send you more money. Not the other way around. The Tea Party, for all its warts, stands for the proposition that we are no longer the patsies that our politicians have known us to be for so long. We are paying attention and we will not get distracted by the shiny object in their hands.
5. Missed Opportunity. We missed an opportunity to use the pressure of the current situation to solve the problem. We let the politicians off the hook. Eventually, we will need to have an adult conversation about spending. It looks like Washington is not ready for that.
6. Wet Blanket. The current situation is dampening spending and curtailing job creation. Lower growth equals less jobs created. The threat of default scared everyone, inside and outside of this country. Not good. Don't go out onto the ledge if you don't really intend to jump. We scared everyone and now it will take a while to get people to start spending again. We may have actually caused another recession. The enemic growth in the 2Q seems to indicate the economy is slowing. We never really know we are in a recession until well after it has started, but anectdotially, it feels like a recession has already begun. Firms are announcing layoffs. Business seems sluggish. I would say that it is very bad news for the President if we are going into another recession.
Out
Sunday, July 24, 2011
No Leadership
I have to admit . . . I am angry. What is going on in Washington is a complete abdication of leadership in favor of posturing and political point making. The President actually walks out of negotiations (so does Rep Cantor, but Rep Cantor is not beholden to the entire Nation of 300 million people – he represents a single District) and then the President threatens the other side not to “call his bluff” . . . (one wonders whether the President has ever played poker before . . . hint, hint . . . if you are bluffing, it is best not to tell the other side . . .just for future reference B.O.) . . . then he goes in front of the cameras and lectures and patronizes legislators that he can not persuade. As if that is going to lead to anything constructive happening! I am too simple minded to understand how insulting the other side is going to lead to a breakthrough in negotiations. But then again, maybe that’s why I am not in politics.
The Democrats and Republican legislators are so wrapped up in the ‘me, me, me’ of what might happen if a budget deal is reached that actually addresses the long-recognized problems that Congress has long ignored (and hoped would go away). For decades, Congress has not done the heavy lifting that everyone has recognized for years is necessary to fix these problems. We must cut entitlement programs. The math does not work out any other way. Yes, we are also facing increased taxes, but no one trusts giving the government more of our money unless they prove to us that they are good stewards of it. And, Congress has proven the opposite for years and years. They are all scared to face the electorate after the cutting that is necessary to save our Nation’s finances. They are scared to face the electorate after the “revenue enhancements” that are necessary to firm up our Nation’s fiscal situation. The legislators are just plain scared.
Many of them will be voted out of office in 2012. That is a fact. And, another fact is that none of them want to lose their jobs. Let’s face it. Being a Senator or Congressman is not a bad gig. So they are doing what they must in order to save their own skins (and this includes the President, by the way, although he has an opportunity to do something historic that will help set our Nation on a path towards a sounder fiscal house) and we, the taxpayers, the homeowners, the voters . . . are basically along for the ride and condemned to whatever outcome these nincompoops come up with.
The all knowing stock market thinks there is a deal at hand. And, there better be. But, then if that is the case, and a deal is at hand . . . what was the point of putting us through all this? Showing the World that they can not count on us? Allowing our bond rating to deteriorate before our eyes? Posturing for special interest groups? Further degrading what most of us think of our elected officials?
Final Word: get your act together and do the hard work necessary to fix our Nation. We elected you to do that (including you, Mr. Obama) and you better do that . . .or face the wrath of the electorate in November, 2012.
The Democrats and Republican legislators are so wrapped up in the ‘me, me, me’ of what might happen if a budget deal is reached that actually addresses the long-recognized problems that Congress has long ignored (and hoped would go away). For decades, Congress has not done the heavy lifting that everyone has recognized for years is necessary to fix these problems. We must cut entitlement programs. The math does not work out any other way. Yes, we are also facing increased taxes, but no one trusts giving the government more of our money unless they prove to us that they are good stewards of it. And, Congress has proven the opposite for years and years. They are all scared to face the electorate after the cutting that is necessary to save our Nation’s finances. They are scared to face the electorate after the “revenue enhancements” that are necessary to firm up our Nation’s fiscal situation. The legislators are just plain scared.
Many of them will be voted out of office in 2012. That is a fact. And, another fact is that none of them want to lose their jobs. Let’s face it. Being a Senator or Congressman is not a bad gig. So they are doing what they must in order to save their own skins (and this includes the President, by the way, although he has an opportunity to do something historic that will help set our Nation on a path towards a sounder fiscal house) and we, the taxpayers, the homeowners, the voters . . . are basically along for the ride and condemned to whatever outcome these nincompoops come up with.
The all knowing stock market thinks there is a deal at hand. And, there better be. But, then if that is the case, and a deal is at hand . . . what was the point of putting us through all this? Showing the World that they can not count on us? Allowing our bond rating to deteriorate before our eyes? Posturing for special interest groups? Further degrading what most of us think of our elected officials?
Final Word: get your act together and do the hard work necessary to fix our Nation. We elected you to do that (including you, Mr. Obama) and you better do that . . .or face the wrath of the electorate in November, 2012.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Weiner Weiner Weiner
It is just fun to repeat his name . . . I don't know what needs to be said about this unfortunate tale of woe, but it does raise a few questions:
1. Are these lawmakers so bored by their jobs that they must resort to taking pictures of the front of their briefs and emailing them to college kids? Is it something about Washington, or the job of lawmaker that makes otherwise ordinary people do the kind of things that Congresspeople get caught doing? Or, is it possible that only really horny people get elected to Congress? Can someone shed some light on this?
2. Why did Rep. Weiner NOT resign yesterday during his press conference? Does he really think he is electable? As they say on SNL . . . REALLY? REALLY, Anthony? The Dem leadership is planning to skewer him royally (to the extent he has not skewered himself completely already) because they have no use for him now. And, he could cost the Dems big time if he sticks around through the 2012 elections. Imagine how much fun it will be to GOP pundits to tar and feather the entire Dem Party with images of Weiner's weiner.
3. Does he resign Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of this week? My money is on Friday because he probably figures it will get the least amount of press if he does that. Plus he gets another 3 days of using the House gym and all those free stamps.
For those of you who, in response to this posting, say "give the guy a break" or "come on, don't kick a guy when he's down", I say, the man should have done the honorable thing and resigned yesterday. He is belittling the electorate by insisting on running for re-election. Until he does the right thing, he has left himself open to this kind of criticism.
Woldy
1. Are these lawmakers so bored by their jobs that they must resort to taking pictures of the front of their briefs and emailing them to college kids? Is it something about Washington, or the job of lawmaker that makes otherwise ordinary people do the kind of things that Congresspeople get caught doing? Or, is it possible that only really horny people get elected to Congress? Can someone shed some light on this?
2. Why did Rep. Weiner NOT resign yesterday during his press conference? Does he really think he is electable? As they say on SNL . . . REALLY? REALLY, Anthony? The Dem leadership is planning to skewer him royally (to the extent he has not skewered himself completely already) because they have no use for him now. And, he could cost the Dems big time if he sticks around through the 2012 elections. Imagine how much fun it will be to GOP pundits to tar and feather the entire Dem Party with images of Weiner's weiner.
3. Does he resign Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of this week? My money is on Friday because he probably figures it will get the least amount of press if he does that. Plus he gets another 3 days of using the House gym and all those free stamps.
For those of you who, in response to this posting, say "give the guy a break" or "come on, don't kick a guy when he's down", I say, the man should have done the honorable thing and resigned yesterday. He is belittling the electorate by insisting on running for re-election. Until he does the right thing, he has left himself open to this kind of criticism.
Woldy
Saturday, May 28, 2011
We Live in Madaganistan
The Banana Republic known as "Illinois" has once again distinguished itself for its dishonesty, and its utter contempt for the voters of Illinois. Over and over again, The Machine spits in the face of the voters (Todd Stroger comes to mind, as do many other examples . . .)
Yesterday, the Democratic Machine in Springfield passed a re-districting plan that dis-enfranchises thousands of voters, no, tens of thousands of voters. This "plan", which is really a Coup when you think about it, has put Congressman Bob Dold's house inside Jan Schakowsky's District. Congressman Joe Walsh's house is now inside Randy Hultgren's District. The lines have been re-drawn to remove these elected officials from office.
Wait a minute . . . the voters just elected these people in November. Now, The Machine is telling us that our votes don't count and that THEY will decide how elections turn out in Illinois.
This actually makes my stomach turn. By the way, for those of you who live in Highland Park . . . Karen May voted along with the rest of the Democratic Machine in favor of this "plan". Welcome to Madaganistan.
Yesterday, the Democratic Machine in Springfield passed a re-districting plan that dis-enfranchises thousands of voters, no, tens of thousands of voters. This "plan", which is really a Coup when you think about it, has put Congressman Bob Dold's house inside Jan Schakowsky's District. Congressman Joe Walsh's house is now inside Randy Hultgren's District. The lines have been re-drawn to remove these elected officials from office.
Wait a minute . . . the voters just elected these people in November. Now, The Machine is telling us that our votes don't count and that THEY will decide how elections turn out in Illinois.
This actually makes my stomach turn. By the way, for those of you who live in Highland Park . . . Karen May voted along with the rest of the Democratic Machine in favor of this "plan". Welcome to Madaganistan.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Once Again Obama Shows His Antipathy Towards Israel
I have been asked by several people to comment on the Obama speech yesterday. I have been trying to get my arms around how to say what I truly feel about his stewardship of American Foreign Policy with respect to the Middle East . . . without sounding like a Neocon, which I am not. I'll do my best, but please forgive me if I go over the line a bit . . .
First of all, I believe the President knew exactly what he was doing when he made that speech and what he was doing, in my opinion, is publicly tacking the US away from Israel in an effort to show neutrality. This is why Obama did not consult our close ally, Israel, before making a speech about Israel's future. That and the personal animosity he has for the Prime Minister of Israel.
Obama so wants to "get something done" in the Middle East. In my humble opinion, it is the height of arrogance for him to say that he has been working at this for two whole years and there is nothing to show for it. And, the US and the World, are sick and tired of the lack of progress. Has our President not read any of the history of this conflict? Is Obama not aware that the Palestinians have walked away from the opportunity to have a state several times, most recently in 2000 when it was handed to them on a platter by Clinton and Rabin? Is Obama aware that other US Administrations have put considerable effort into trying to reach a peace deal between the parties? Does Obama think he posesses some special well of knowledge and wisdom that puts him above the people who came before him.
I will leave that question open for others to answer because honestly this is not about Obama. Maybe I will blog on Obama another time . . .
This is about making peace (which even Obama acknowledged is impossible under current circumstances with a Palestinian unity government forming that consists of rejectionists and will be controlled by people who prefer the gun to the pen). And, it is about securing the future of what our President keeps repeating is a key ally of ours that we will stand up for.
Let me ask you a simple question . . . if you were Israel, how much stock would you put into a promise from Obama that the US thinks it is really important that the Palestinian state is de-militarized? Where has the US been since 2005 with respect to Gaza? Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and has suffered a nearly constant rain of rockets and mortars into civilian population areas since then. If the US wants credibility on this issue, we have had six years to show the Israelis that we can deliver a de-militarized Palestinian state in Gaza . . . and we have failed to do anything other than criticize Israel for at least attempting to ensure that weapons don't freely flow into Gaza.
Let me ask you another question . . . for the moment taking aside the issue of defensibility of borders, which is a huge issue for a country as small as Israel . . . Obama says the US thinks that Israel needs to go back to the pre-1967 boundaries, with a few land swaps here and there . . . In what universe does the party that lost a war get a deal like that 45 years after they lost the war? They get all their land back, with a few adjustments, after 45 years of rejectionist politics? The Palestinians are certainly entitled to a state, but they lost the war. And, they have consistently rejected attempts by Israel to end the conflict by making major concessions. And, the US President wants to reward this by giving them back all the territory they had before the war?
The Palestinians will never get the message that their fate is in their own hands if Western politicians continually ride to their rescue like this. They need to take it on board that nobody is going to save them from themselves and that if they want to get on with their lives, they need to get serious about making peace . . . with Israel. If they think the US or European Union will go to bat for them against Israel, they will sit back and wait a bit longer, another decade or two . . . and continue to reject even the idea of face to face meetings.
It is beyond me that this President does not seem to grasp the dynamics of this negotiation.
Circling back to defensible borders and real facts on the ground . . . the time to make peace based on pre-67 borders is long past. Those borders are not defensible. Anyone who visits Israel instantly recognizes this fact. On top of that, through their actions over the last 12 years, the Palestinians have made it impossible for any Israeli Prime Minister to agree to take that risk. The President of the United States should know enough to acknowledge this fact. And, somebody (besides Israel) needs to tell the Palestinians. Also, the only time Israel has been willing to make major security concessions for peace is when they have felt secure in their relationship with the US. Obama, and his speechifying are not making the Israelis feel warm and fuzzy about their relationship with this country. So, bottom line is that Obama has basically stabbed the peace process through the heart with his speech this week . . . maybe purposely, maybe out of fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
We'll find out in the next few weeks.
Woldy
First of all, I believe the President knew exactly what he was doing when he made that speech and what he was doing, in my opinion, is publicly tacking the US away from Israel in an effort to show neutrality. This is why Obama did not consult our close ally, Israel, before making a speech about Israel's future. That and the personal animosity he has for the Prime Minister of Israel.
Obama so wants to "get something done" in the Middle East. In my humble opinion, it is the height of arrogance for him to say that he has been working at this for two whole years and there is nothing to show for it. And, the US and the World, are sick and tired of the lack of progress. Has our President not read any of the history of this conflict? Is Obama not aware that the Palestinians have walked away from the opportunity to have a state several times, most recently in 2000 when it was handed to them on a platter by Clinton and Rabin? Is Obama aware that other US Administrations have put considerable effort into trying to reach a peace deal between the parties? Does Obama think he posesses some special well of knowledge and wisdom that puts him above the people who came before him.
I will leave that question open for others to answer because honestly this is not about Obama. Maybe I will blog on Obama another time . . .
This is about making peace (which even Obama acknowledged is impossible under current circumstances with a Palestinian unity government forming that consists of rejectionists and will be controlled by people who prefer the gun to the pen). And, it is about securing the future of what our President keeps repeating is a key ally of ours that we will stand up for.
Let me ask you a simple question . . . if you were Israel, how much stock would you put into a promise from Obama that the US thinks it is really important that the Palestinian state is de-militarized? Where has the US been since 2005 with respect to Gaza? Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and has suffered a nearly constant rain of rockets and mortars into civilian population areas since then. If the US wants credibility on this issue, we have had six years to show the Israelis that we can deliver a de-militarized Palestinian state in Gaza . . . and we have failed to do anything other than criticize Israel for at least attempting to ensure that weapons don't freely flow into Gaza.
Let me ask you another question . . . for the moment taking aside the issue of defensibility of borders, which is a huge issue for a country as small as Israel . . . Obama says the US thinks that Israel needs to go back to the pre-1967 boundaries, with a few land swaps here and there . . . In what universe does the party that lost a war get a deal like that 45 years after they lost the war? They get all their land back, with a few adjustments, after 45 years of rejectionist politics? The Palestinians are certainly entitled to a state, but they lost the war. And, they have consistently rejected attempts by Israel to end the conflict by making major concessions. And, the US President wants to reward this by giving them back all the territory they had before the war?
The Palestinians will never get the message that their fate is in their own hands if Western politicians continually ride to their rescue like this. They need to take it on board that nobody is going to save them from themselves and that if they want to get on with their lives, they need to get serious about making peace . . . with Israel. If they think the US or European Union will go to bat for them against Israel, they will sit back and wait a bit longer, another decade or two . . . and continue to reject even the idea of face to face meetings.
It is beyond me that this President does not seem to grasp the dynamics of this negotiation.
Circling back to defensible borders and real facts on the ground . . . the time to make peace based on pre-67 borders is long past. Those borders are not defensible. Anyone who visits Israel instantly recognizes this fact. On top of that, through their actions over the last 12 years, the Palestinians have made it impossible for any Israeli Prime Minister to agree to take that risk. The President of the United States should know enough to acknowledge this fact. And, somebody (besides Israel) needs to tell the Palestinians. Also, the only time Israel has been willing to make major security concessions for peace is when they have felt secure in their relationship with the US. Obama, and his speechifying are not making the Israelis feel warm and fuzzy about their relationship with this country. So, bottom line is that Obama has basically stabbed the peace process through the heart with his speech this week . . . maybe purposely, maybe out of fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
We'll find out in the next few weeks.
Woldy
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Pakistan Loves Our Money, Not Our Country
We provide over $3.4 Billion in annual aid to Pakistan. They might now be the largest single recipient of foreign aid. And, the failed state that is Pakistan needs this money to keep their military armed and their elected officials Swiss bank accounts full. So, they don't want it to go away. They don't want us to go away.
If we are continually chasing a ghost named Osama bin Laden, we won't pull up stakes and leave.
Maybe this explains why they were not so forthcoming with information about his whereabouts, living in a rather large house located a mere 1,000 yards from the front gates of the Pakistani version of West Point.
Here is something else for them to think about tonight, as they lay their heads down to sleep . . . if we could find a needle in the stack of needles that is Pakistan and then swoop down and pluck him out with no casualties, except for a downed chopper . . . how hard would it be for us to pluck their nuclear arsenal out from under their pillow?
Good night, y'all.
If we are continually chasing a ghost named Osama bin Laden, we won't pull up stakes and leave.
Maybe this explains why they were not so forthcoming with information about his whereabouts, living in a rather large house located a mere 1,000 yards from the front gates of the Pakistani version of West Point.
Here is something else for them to think about tonight, as they lay their heads down to sleep . . . if we could find a needle in the stack of needles that is Pakistan and then swoop down and pluck him out with no casualties, except for a downed chopper . . . how hard would it be for us to pluck their nuclear arsenal out from under their pillow?
Good night, y'all.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Hail to the Chief
Yesterday was a great day for this country. We finally got the mastermind of the 9/11 crime and made him pay the ultimate price. But make no mistake about this victory . . . killing Osama bin Laden will not end terrorism. But it had to be done and we should celebrate the demise of this man who did our Nation, and indeed, the World, so much harm.
As far as who gets the credit for this accomplishment, which seems to be the main focus of the politicians and talking heads today, it is clear that the President ordered the strike, a decision that took a lot of guts and faith in our men and women in the Armed Services and Intelligence Community. We should praise our President for standing up and making the tough decision. We should also praise those who went on the mission, those who supported the mission, those who uncovered the intelligence information that led to this house, and those of our countrymen who have fallen in the last ten years in the fight against terrorism. There is a lot of credit to go around and it does not stop at the White House.
However, at the end of the day, President Obama took the final step and ordered the strike. A courageous act of leadership. Without him making that decision, we would not have achieved this victory.
I will leave you with a few questions . . .
1. The mansion OBL was living in was a mere 1,000 yards from a Pakistani military base. Are they that out to lunch or were they protecting him?
2. If we can figure out where OBL is from 7,000 miles away, why couldn't the infamous Pakistani intelligence apparatus?
3. How long will it be before the network goes operational on an attack, to make the point that they are still in business? Where will it be, and how many will die?
As far as who gets the credit for this accomplishment, which seems to be the main focus of the politicians and talking heads today, it is clear that the President ordered the strike, a decision that took a lot of guts and faith in our men and women in the Armed Services and Intelligence Community. We should praise our President for standing up and making the tough decision. We should also praise those who went on the mission, those who supported the mission, those who uncovered the intelligence information that led to this house, and those of our countrymen who have fallen in the last ten years in the fight against terrorism. There is a lot of credit to go around and it does not stop at the White House.
However, at the end of the day, President Obama took the final step and ordered the strike. A courageous act of leadership. Without him making that decision, we would not have achieved this victory.
I will leave you with a few questions . . .
1. The mansion OBL was living in was a mere 1,000 yards from a Pakistani military base. Are they that out to lunch or were they protecting him?
2. If we can figure out where OBL is from 7,000 miles away, why couldn't the infamous Pakistani intelligence apparatus?
3. How long will it be before the network goes operational on an attack, to make the point that they are still in business? Where will it be, and how many will die?
Monday, February 21, 2011
More Evidence of Waning American Influence
What follows is an excerpt from a blog posting written by Elliott Abrams on the Council on Foreign Relations web site. The posting concerns the recent US veto in the UN Security Council of a resoultion put forward by the Palestinian Authority to condemn Israel for settlement activity in the West Bank.
'On the last day before the vote, the President called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli press reported that “In a 50-minute phone call, he asked Abbas to drop the resolution and settle for a non-binding statement condemning settlement expansion, Palestinian officials said. Abbas on Friday received a follow-up call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the issue, the Palestinian news agency Wafa said.” But apparently the President did more than ask: “One senior Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the offer, made in an hour-long phone call from Obama, was accompanied by veiled threats of ‘repercussions’ if it were refused.
‘Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped,’ the official said. ‘There will be repercussions for Palestinian-American relations if you continue your attempts to go to the Security Council and ignore our requests in this matter, especially as we suggested other alternatives,’ the official quoted Obama as telling Abbas.” Abbas rejected the Clinton and Obama appeals and/or ignored their threats, in itself a sign of reduced American diplomatic influence.'
The President of the United States being ignored by a leader who's continued rule depends almost exclusively on American financial and military support. What does that say about this President's ability to influence events around the World?
We have become spectators on the World stage. I suppose we better get used to this. At least for another two years.
'On the last day before the vote, the President called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli press reported that “In a 50-minute phone call, he asked Abbas to drop the resolution and settle for a non-binding statement condemning settlement expansion, Palestinian officials said. Abbas on Friday received a follow-up call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the issue, the Palestinian news agency Wafa said.” But apparently the President did more than ask: “One senior Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the offer, made in an hour-long phone call from Obama, was accompanied by veiled threats of ‘repercussions’ if it were refused.
‘Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped,’ the official said. ‘There will be repercussions for Palestinian-American relations if you continue your attempts to go to the Security Council and ignore our requests in this matter, especially as we suggested other alternatives,’ the official quoted Obama as telling Abbas.” Abbas rejected the Clinton and Obama appeals and/or ignored their threats, in itself a sign of reduced American diplomatic influence.'
The President of the United States being ignored by a leader who's continued rule depends almost exclusively on American financial and military support. What does that say about this President's ability to influence events around the World?
We have become spectators on the World stage. I suppose we better get used to this. At least for another two years.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
American Hostages on Yacht and Other Thoughts
1. Any American dumb enough to sail their yacht into the Indian Ocean is too dumb to risk American lives to rescue. It is one thing to be taken hostage aboard an oil tanker or a commercial vessel. Those crews have no choice but to sail through dangerous waters. But recreational boaters (or yachters, if that is the appropriate term) have no business being in those waters and if they are, they should bear the risk and not the U.S. military, who is already, no doubt, on their way to rescue them. Just my opinion.
2. We have an entitlement program spending problem that threatens to bankrupt our country and our elected officials have not yet figured out that we want them to fix it. They are still playing politics with our financial future. Until such time that they understand that they need to take action now, we should continue to vote them out until we reach the right mix of courageous individuals who are not necessarily interested in a career in the House or Senate, but are interested in serving their Nation bravely. And, taking the action necessary to change the curve of future spending. Be they GOP or Dems, they need to go . . . until we get action to address our structural spending.
3. Wisconsin is no Side Show. What is going on in Madison is the real deal and only the begining of what will be the Fight of the Century. That is, the fight brewing between the taxpayers and the public employee unions. This war will go on for years and will consist of many battles like the one unfolding in Madison. In the end, the taxpayers of this country are going to take back our country from the unholy alliance of public employee unions and entrenched political powers. It will take time and it will be a bloody affair, but there is no choice. We can not continue to fund promises made by gutless political ghosts over the past few decades.
Most private corporations changed from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans a decade, or more, ago. Why? Because defined benefit plans are unaffordable and private companies did the math and realized they would be bankrupt if they continued to fund a defined benefit plan. Our gutless politicans have been unwilling to address this issue over the last several decades, because it will cost them votes and might cost them their office. Because politics has become a career for many of them, they have been unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to save us. So the battle is being taken "to the streets" of our state capitols and will also be fought in our city and county governments. Sooner or later, a brave political force will win one of these battles and then you better stand back or you will get rolled over by the force of change.
2. We have an entitlement program spending problem that threatens to bankrupt our country and our elected officials have not yet figured out that we want them to fix it. They are still playing politics with our financial future. Until such time that they understand that they need to take action now, we should continue to vote them out until we reach the right mix of courageous individuals who are not necessarily interested in a career in the House or Senate, but are interested in serving their Nation bravely. And, taking the action necessary to change the curve of future spending. Be they GOP or Dems, they need to go . . . until we get action to address our structural spending.
3. Wisconsin is no Side Show. What is going on in Madison is the real deal and only the begining of what will be the Fight of the Century. That is, the fight brewing between the taxpayers and the public employee unions. This war will go on for years and will consist of many battles like the one unfolding in Madison. In the end, the taxpayers of this country are going to take back our country from the unholy alliance of public employee unions and entrenched political powers. It will take time and it will be a bloody affair, but there is no choice. We can not continue to fund promises made by gutless political ghosts over the past few decades.
Most private corporations changed from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans a decade, or more, ago. Why? Because defined benefit plans are unaffordable and private companies did the math and realized they would be bankrupt if they continued to fund a defined benefit plan. Our gutless politicans have been unwilling to address this issue over the last several decades, because it will cost them votes and might cost them their office. Because politics has become a career for many of them, they have been unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to save us. So the battle is being taken "to the streets" of our state capitols and will also be fought in our city and county governments. Sooner or later, a brave political force will win one of these battles and then you better stand back or you will get rolled over by the force of change.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Obama Hastens The Waning of American Power
How could it be that this Administration, which came in with a stated desire to restore American influence and respect in the World, is actually contributing to the acceleration of our decline as a World Power.
It is happening before our very eyes. We move a notch down when our President commands so little respect that the King of Saudi Arabia calls him up and yells at him for 30 minutes, threatening to take our place in providing the financial support to Egypt that we hinted we would withhold if Mubarak did not stand down. Like or dislike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the problem for us is that it is no secret to the rest of the World that the 87 year old King dressed down our President for 30 minutes on the phone. You can just imagine how that call went . . . "yes sir, Your Highness . . . no sir, Your Highness . . . we're trying Your Highness . . . " Our foreign policy on Egypt during the last few weeks has been so scatter-shot, disorganized and without direction that it confused everyone. And, now, like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising, Obama supporters are claiming victory, as if the genius Obama Plan worked, afterall. Pahhhhleeze . . .
We move a notch down when our leader gets the cold shoulder at the G-20 meeting, when he suggested further financial stimulus was needed. We whine about the valuation of the Chinese Yuan and China's leaders lecture our President on profligate spending. We are the spendthrifts of the World, spending more than 1.5 Trillion dollars more than we have . . . this year alone. We will have trillion dollar deficits for years . . . this is depressing.
I know that my friends on the Left are going to say that this is all Bush's fault, but my question back to them is . . . when does that crutch stop working? At what point is President Obama responsible for outcome? And, if he is so ineffective that he can't change our course, then maybe he should step aside for the good of the country.
Perhaps we had our century and that what is happening is a natural passing of the baton to the next World Order . . . China, India, the BRIC countries . . . we will share power with them in the coming decades. But, do we need to pursue policies that actually help this process along?
2012 . . . 2012 . . . 2012
It is happening before our very eyes. We move a notch down when our President commands so little respect that the King of Saudi Arabia calls him up and yells at him for 30 minutes, threatening to take our place in providing the financial support to Egypt that we hinted we would withhold if Mubarak did not stand down. Like or dislike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the problem for us is that it is no secret to the rest of the World that the 87 year old King dressed down our President for 30 minutes on the phone. You can just imagine how that call went . . . "yes sir, Your Highness . . . no sir, Your Highness . . . we're trying Your Highness . . . " Our foreign policy on Egypt during the last few weeks has been so scatter-shot, disorganized and without direction that it confused everyone. And, now, like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising, Obama supporters are claiming victory, as if the genius Obama Plan worked, afterall. Pahhhhleeze . . .
We move a notch down when our leader gets the cold shoulder at the G-20 meeting, when he suggested further financial stimulus was needed. We whine about the valuation of the Chinese Yuan and China's leaders lecture our President on profligate spending. We are the spendthrifts of the World, spending more than 1.5 Trillion dollars more than we have . . . this year alone. We will have trillion dollar deficits for years . . . this is depressing.
I know that my friends on the Left are going to say that this is all Bush's fault, but my question back to them is . . . when does that crutch stop working? At what point is President Obama responsible for outcome? And, if he is so ineffective that he can't change our course, then maybe he should step aside for the good of the country.
Perhaps we had our century and that what is happening is a natural passing of the baton to the next World Order . . . China, India, the BRIC countries . . . we will share power with them in the coming decades. But, do we need to pursue policies that actually help this process along?
2012 . . . 2012 . . . 2012
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Egyptian Turmoil . . . American Incompentence
Less than two years ago, when the rogue, international outlaw, regime in Iran was dealing with street protests (much larger and more widespread than the current Egyptian protests) and Iran was at the tipping point of possibly falling to a strong and deep democratic (small "d") movement, the Obama Administration's posture was that that was an internal problem for the Iranian people to sort out and that the U.S. was not going to get involved. The U.S. Governemnt did nothing publicly to support the democratic movement in Iran, which was subsequently, mercilessly, crushed by the ruling mullahs.
Today, the repressive Iranian regime is more in control of the country than before the protests and we missed a possibly once-in-a-generation opportunity to nudge that country towards the democratic column.
Flash forward to today, when the Mubarak regime in Egypt, a close U.S. ally for 30 years, is dealing with street protests. Today, the Obama Administration is threatening to pull our $1.5 Billion of annual support if the Mubarak regime uses force to quell the rebellion. While it is certainly true that Mubarak is no democrat (small "d") and that individual freedoms do not reign in Egypt today, it seemed that the Obama Administration's policy with respect to such matters, at least in the case of Iran, was to back away and let the people of the country in question determine their fate.
Is there something upside down in all this? Backing away from Iran while strongly inserting ourselves on the side of street protests in Egypt, our ally?
The U.S. Government could be hastening the fall of the Egyptian Government, not having a clue what kind of regime will follow in its wake. It is entirely possible that Egypt could morph into an Islamic ruled state, similar to Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and has strong roots there, to this day, despite being repressed for the last several decades. Arab Nationalism is a strong under-current in Egypt, and has been for decades, back to Nasser, and before. We have no idea what is next for Egypt if Mubarak falls.
The stakes are quite high for the U.S. in all this. Peace in the Middle East is dependent on a stable Egypt. If Egypt falls, the next regime may take a different approach to the Camp David Accords and to Israel. Already there is pressure in Egypt to develop nuclear weapons to counter the emerging Iranian nuclear threat. Imagine if a openly hostile regime were to take power in Egypt and start a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were Israel in those circumstances? Where does the peace process go if Israel can not count on its Arab neighbors to honor their agreements? I have heard Israelis say that Camp David was one bullet away from being scrapped by the Egyptians. Is the U.S. actually loading the gun and providing the bullet for that?
One does not go gambling with uncertain outcomes when the consequences are so dire.
It just all seems so amateurish. So, wide-eyed and naive.
Threats to withhold aid should be made privately. Making them publicly only adds fuel to the fire and emboldens the street protesters. Do we want to do that when we don't know what is next in Egypt?
2012 can not come fast enough.
Today, the repressive Iranian regime is more in control of the country than before the protests and we missed a possibly once-in-a-generation opportunity to nudge that country towards the democratic column.
Flash forward to today, when the Mubarak regime in Egypt, a close U.S. ally for 30 years, is dealing with street protests. Today, the Obama Administration is threatening to pull our $1.5 Billion of annual support if the Mubarak regime uses force to quell the rebellion. While it is certainly true that Mubarak is no democrat (small "d") and that individual freedoms do not reign in Egypt today, it seemed that the Obama Administration's policy with respect to such matters, at least in the case of Iran, was to back away and let the people of the country in question determine their fate.
Is there something upside down in all this? Backing away from Iran while strongly inserting ourselves on the side of street protests in Egypt, our ally?
The U.S. Government could be hastening the fall of the Egyptian Government, not having a clue what kind of regime will follow in its wake. It is entirely possible that Egypt could morph into an Islamic ruled state, similar to Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and has strong roots there, to this day, despite being repressed for the last several decades. Arab Nationalism is a strong under-current in Egypt, and has been for decades, back to Nasser, and before. We have no idea what is next for Egypt if Mubarak falls.
The stakes are quite high for the U.S. in all this. Peace in the Middle East is dependent on a stable Egypt. If Egypt falls, the next regime may take a different approach to the Camp David Accords and to Israel. Already there is pressure in Egypt to develop nuclear weapons to counter the emerging Iranian nuclear threat. Imagine if a openly hostile regime were to take power in Egypt and start a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were Israel in those circumstances? Where does the peace process go if Israel can not count on its Arab neighbors to honor their agreements? I have heard Israelis say that Camp David was one bullet away from being scrapped by the Egyptians. Is the U.S. actually loading the gun and providing the bullet for that?
One does not go gambling with uncertain outcomes when the consequences are so dire.
It just all seems so amateurish. So, wide-eyed and naive.
Threats to withhold aid should be made privately. Making them publicly only adds fuel to the fire and emboldens the street protesters. Do we want to do that when we don't know what is next in Egypt?
2012 can not come fast enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)