One year later, I return

Another year away from the Politics blog.  Sorry about that. Wasted a lot of time over on Facebook during the 2012 election cycle.

To sum up the 2012 election results.  No president should have been re-elected with the economy in as bad a shape as ours has been.  As it was, President Obama is the first president to be re-elected to a second term with a smaller vote percentage than he had received during his first campaign.  Not that the media is doing anything other than have declared that he had a huge mandate, despite losing popular support from 2008 to 2012.

Payroll Tax Demagogue

Our president has totally lost me. I was willing to give him a chance in 2008 since he and I are the same age and I thought that this generational similarity might prove interesting. By February 2009, I was disillusioned.

Day after day this last month, Obama touts the importance of his "Payroll Tax Cut" and how deeply it will impact the working class and/or middle class. He is allowed to give speeches without media criticism of this plan. The "Payroll Tax" is the Social Security Tax, and a bipartisan commission in 1982 established a plan to fund Social Security into the future. President Reagan agreed to this tax hike which raised the OASDI rate to 6.2% for both the employer and the employee. The funds raised by this tax are to be used to fund Social Security. In the early years, a giant surplus fund was to be created which would alleviate the big hit that would be taken when the Baby Boom generation began to retire.

President Obama's plan cuts the dedicated funding source for Social Security with his scheme to cut the combined OASDI rate in half, from 12.4% to 6.2%. Why has the media not shouted with outrage that the Senior Citizens are in danger?

Perhaps the funding mechanism for Social Security should be discussed, but Obama doesn't dare bother to propose a reformation of the plan, he just throws out a supposedly temporary "payroll tax cut." Now the Social Security funds will have to be found amongst all of the other competing programs and departments in the federal budget.

Worst of all is that this is all the President has in terms of an economic plan for this country. No one seriously believes that a temporary one year payroll tax cut will lead to a vibrant and growing economy.

For further reading on this issue, check out the AP story written soon after the proposal was unveiled. The media did indeed cover the issue when it was proposed, but lately all I hear from hourly news updates are clips from an Obama speech demanding the immediate passage of this vitally "important tax cut for the middle class."

Libya

The Obama foreign policy is simply the Bill Clinton foreign policy, isn't it. Because Libya sure isn't the War on Terror now is it? No, this is Somalia 1993 and Bosnia 1995 redux. See injustice being perpetrated in certain countries and take some action under a UN or NATO umbrella. It sounds good, but how does this advance America's interests? Criticize the War on Iraq all you want, but Saddam Hussein had invaded a sovereign nation and had used poison gas on his citizens. In the context of 2002-2003, when we were demanding full compliance of any potential enemy, we needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his refusal to cooperate with world leaders.

Super Bowl Tim Tebow Ad

Okay, I just watched the Super Bowl (Saints 31 - Colts 17), and where was the Tim Tebow ad that drew so much controversy ahead of time? I watched the whole game, save for a few minutes when I was checking on the pizza and wings in the oven.

I have now learned that the ad did air, and viewed it on YouTube, but look how easy it was to miss the thing. And what a blunder for anti-life groups to protest it before it even aired. All they did was multiply and magnify what was, in the end, an incredibly mild commercial that was totally lost in all the clutter of the other dozens of ads.

As for the content of the ad itself, I felt it was way too timid and did not even address the real issue. It just seemed like Tim Tebow was a sickly child or something. But, because of the NOW types, the publicity has given this ad a context which it never would have had before. Was it effective? Maybe. How many hearts and minds can you really impact in 30 seconds. Would I have authorized the expenditure? No, not unless the ad was a lot more open about the Life issue.

The most offensive ad of the day, of course, was the 20 minute informercial that CBS gave Barack Obama at 4:30!

Obama on Super Bowl Pre-Game

Katie Couric has been interviewing President Obama on the Super Bowl Pre-Game show since 4:30 PM EST. Why is he being given this free airtime to promote his agenda and tear down his opponents?

What an absurdity to think back on the complaints about the Tim Tebow 30 second Tim Tebow Pro-Life ad that will be aired later tonight. The Obama-Couric chat has been going on for 20 minutes now and only now does it look like they are wrapping it up.

Were we about to go to war or something? No.

Didn't he just have a 75 minute-plus State of the Union speech eleven days ago?

I agree with those who want to keep politics and sports separate. But allowing someone to buy an ad and doing an interview with a politician are totally different things.

Republicans: Demand equal time!

Obama's Meeting with Republicans - pt. 2

It was this side of Obama that made him seem more appealing to me as a candidate in 2008 than the rest of the Democrats. He made an effort to come across as a new kind of politician that could be above party politics. Of course, although I was hopeful he might be that kind of president, I still had to support the candidate with whom I agreed on the issues, and that was John McCain. Obama's track record showed no history of working across the aisle, so I really did not believe it would happen.

He should have, though. Instead, he allowed the Democrats in the House and Senate to rule the roost while he agreeably acquiesced because he was fully sympathetic to their policies.

He was able to get some Republican support in 2009. Arlen Spector jumped to the Democratic Party and Olympia Snow did vote in committee in support of health care legislation. But Obama's main effort has been to push hard for legislation that can win the support of 218 House Democrats and 60 Democrats caucus Senators. He made little effort to integrate conservative policies into his legislation.

In the future, will Obama efforts to reach out be anything more than talk? That will be the big question.

The President Reaches Out To Republicans

Today, President Obama met with Republican members of Congress in a televised forum. On the plus side, it sounds like he took some tough questions from the Republicans. But on the downside, he already knows that he has no interest in conservative ideas. His response to a question about across the board tax cuts like JFK did in the 60's was to consider it but then essentially rule it out because it could more greatly benefit wealthy people like Warren Buffett. He wants bipartisanship that involves Republicans agreeing with him.

And he is still looking back at President Bush and blaming him for his troubles. I don't recall President Bush continually talking about the mistakes that Bill Clinton made while President. All I heard were highlights of the meeting, so I still need to read the transcript to get a better feel for the event.

One thing I have noted, even without seeing it, is how this open meeting contrasts with Sen. Harry Reid's closed door meetings that resulted in payoffs to Senators from Nebraska, Connecticut, and Lousiana.

State of the Union speech

While I chose to watch Friday Night Lights instead of the State of the Union speech, I have of course heard highlights and read news accounts of the speech. What was unprecedented in the speech was a direct slam against the Supreme Court. They handed down a decision last week that said that it was unconstitutional to prevent a group from distributing a movie about Hillary Clinton in 2008. The left has been apoplectic at this decisions and President Obama has taken a stand with the Keith Olbermanns of the country and called out the Supreme Court. Presidents never do such things at these speeches. Legal Times did some research on the matter and found very few references to the Supreme Court at State of the Union speeches. Only a couple of times were court decisions referenced and the solution was always a proposed constitutional amendment. But that is entirely appropriate. It accepts the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decisions and recognizes that the constitution needs to actually be amended to change the results of the decision.

What President Obama did last night was similar to what FDR said in his 1937 State of the Union: "The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government." (from Legal Times) Legal Times then notes that soon thereafter, FDR unsuccessfully attempted to end run the existing Supreme Court by adding new justices, also know as "court-packing." For President Obama to be linked with such a blatant effort to intimidate the Judicial branch is appalling.

TelePrompter President

How sad to see that our current president, Barack Obama, is so dependent on his TelePrompter that he used one last week in a five minute talk to a local Sixth Grade Class.

Of course, it has been my contention that it was Obama's off the cuff remarks about a Cambridge, Mass. police officer that were the beginning of the slide in public opinion about his presidency. So, perhaps he and his aides are fearful of more mistakes. In fact, he has not has a press conference since that one in July when he chose to get in the middle of his professor friend's police matter. While many are mesmerized by the cadence, delivery and prose of his prepared speeches, how much hope do you have in a man who needs a TelePrompter to speak to 12 year olds?

(1/29/10 Correction: According to none other than Rush Limbaugh on his radio show yesterday, Obama did NOT use the TelePrompter to speak to the school kids, but only relied on the device when speaking to the press at this event. So, I'll give him a pass on this occasion, but the fact remains that he is overly reliant on the TelePrompter.)

In contrast to President Obama was President Richard M. Nixon. While I was too young to really understand politics while he was in office, I was amazed in later years to see how brilliant he was in speaking to audiences. He rarely spoke with notes and was just an encyclopedia of knowledge. You could see him on C-SPAN in the early 90's talking about one of his books or answering questions in front of a public policy group.

Aftermath of Mass. Election

Great news that Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U. S. Senate. I had been surprised that more prominent candidates did not run for the Republican nomination because I thought this seat was winnable. The experts thought otherwise. But Mitt Romney gave Ted Kennedy a great battle in 1994 and then he later was elected governor. So, I thought he would be a good candidate. Romney's sights are set higher and a loss in a Senate race would be crushing for his ambitions so he played it safe. Perhaps a new face like Scott Brown's was what was needed though.

Interestingly, the White House is saying that the American people are frustrated and upset about the economy. To which I say, well what did you guys do about it? Well, their plan was enacted in February 2009 and look at the results. FaIlure! Why? Because it was a nonsensical plan that was created more to please various constituencies and members of Congress than to get the economy moving again. While Ronald Reagan also faced a terrible economy in 1981, he enacted a plan that made sense and in time it paid off. Does anyone believe that throwing money at CASH FOR CLUNKERS or TAX CREDITS FOR BUYING HOUSES is going to solve the problems in the overall economy?

I was young and opposed Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s but as I watched the results of his presidency I saw that he was right, in both his understanding of the economy and in his understanding of defense policy. Now we have been given one year of Obama, and the results are coming in and they are not good. 10 % unemployment -- about double the rate during the presidency of George W. Bush who had to deal with both the aftermath of the 2000 NASDAQ crash and the 9/11 attacks.

"During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate was 5.27%, roughly 1/2 half of what the unemployment rate is today."

One Year

Almost one year into the Obama presidency now.

On the plus side: The stock market stopped its precipitous decline in March and recovered a lot of its losses. That's a relief to those of us who kept our investments in the broad market with our IRAs, College Savings Plans, and 401ks. It always seemed to me like a giant over reaction on Wall Street, so staying the course was wise.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration went on record early on as taking no blame (And thus they now get no credit) for the ups and downs of the stock market.

On the negatives side: Despite a massive spending bill passed 11 months ago supposedly designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs, we have 10 % unemployment. It really was a terrible bill.

Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again despite America's efforts to be nice to the world. For some reason, even though we elected Obama, the Islamic Extremists still hate us. My experience and studies show me that accommodation does not appease our enemies, so I am not surprised. I hope that the Christmas scare awakens this administration to the seriousness of this threat.

UNBELIEVABLE!

As I told my wife, I can't believe I "supported" this guy in the 2008 Democratic Primaries.  Okay, I didn't ever actually vote for him nor did I send his campaign any money.  But I rooted for him against Hillary Clinton because I was so tired of the Clinton "dynasty."  

George W. Bush is looking more and more like the bravest, strongest and toughest President we have ever had.  Okay, that's a lot of Presidents, but still he was unafraid to take bold new chances and actually wage a WAR ON TERRORISM.  I urge you to read this George W. Bush speech on the War on Terror from 2005 and even watch the video.  Creating Guantanamo as a place to keep enemy combatants and using non-traditional means to deal with them.  That used to be the way we fought a war.  FDR was unafraid of hurting people's feelings and rights because he wanted America to win World War II. This guy, Obama, has pulled right back to where Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had put this country.  Being tepid and timid and weak against terrorists.  Obama is so concerned with his Nobel Peace Prize image that he will no longer wage this war against terrorism -- he will treat it as a criminal matter.  

These last two weeks have shown Obama is just going to drive this country as far to the left as he can make it go.  He's lost the center, as seen in the November 3 elections, so he's pushed for a Health Care takeover vote by the house, he's minimized the significance of the Fort Hood Terror Attacks by Nidal Hasan and now he's bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohamed from Guantanamo to New York for a trial.  And he is dithering about Afghanistan, which he had declared a year ago as a war we should be fighting.  Now, since his left wing wants out, Obama refused to affirm General McCrystal's request for an increase of 40,000 troops so we can wage this war properly.  All he has left, politically, is his far left base and the mainstream media.  All he can hope is that he can get them so enthused by his far left liberalism that they will overpower the independents and Conservatives who are just apoplectic at what has happened in just the last ten months under this guy.

I usually try to write with respect towards the office of the President but I am so  peeved this week that I have not addressed our President with the respect I usually do.  I will try to do better in the future...

Krauthammer on Obama's UN Speech

Last week, President Obama announced to the world at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh that Iran had another formerly secret uranium enrichment plant in use. He spoke tough words, but after it became clear that this news was known for some time, I wondered why did he not bring this up in front of the United Nations earlier in the week. After all, Iran's president was actually in attendance. Here's what Charles Krauthammer wrote today:

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb. . . On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention. Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action. Obama refused.

Krauthammer's opinion is that Obama did not want attention diverted from his speech which dreamed of a nuclear-free world. Check out the whole Krauthammer piece. It really demonstrates the naivete our president exhibits in foreign policy.

The Racism Charges

In an effort to deflect and shut down criticisms, the Obama Administration has sent out high ranking surrogates this week to declare that the opposition to the Administration's policies are rooted in an unwillingness to accept a black man as president. In other words -- racism.

The label of racist is, rightly or wrongly, the most damning one that an American can be given. It immediately shuts off discussion of the issues as the heart of the alleged racist is examined.

Because Joe Wilson of South Carolina got a little too excited during the Presidential address to the Congress and uttered out "You Lie," Jimmy Carter and others have resorted to the unfounded charge that this only happened because it was a black man that was president. Ridiculous! Like conservatives would just smile and look the other way as we see the radical changes being enacted and proposed for this nation. Conservatives loudly objected in 1993 and 1994 as Bill Clinton attempted to enact health care reform.

Ironically, while racism allegations were tossed around with no basis in fact this week, an ugly incident on a school bus where a bunch of black kids beat up a white kid on a bus was quickly brushed off as a mere bullying situation. R-I-G-H-T...! So, the Congressman who expresses policy differences is a racist while a bunch of thugs who beat up on a kid are not racist. Come on! Let's get real, here! They didn't beat him up because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character, to paraphrase MLK, Jr.?

Nine Months Ago . . .

As I have become a Facebook user over the past month, I have been uncertain as to how to use the blogs that I have created.  There have been some political items I have brought up in Facebook, but I am now thinking that I would be happiest to keep politics and Facebook separate.  Kind of the way Michael Jordan never endorsed Democratic or Republican candidates because why would you want to alienate half of your audience.  

But this site is for politics and if you're here you know where I stand.  

I wanted to take note of the fact that the S & P 500 today reached 1000 again for the first time since Election Day 2008.  The beginning of what I earlier called  Obama's Crash of '08.  His election marked the beginning of a steepening downward fall for stock prices.  Over the last three months, stocks have finally recovered to their November 4, 2008 value, and it is only fair that we note that.

Why is this happening?  I do not know.  I am an inactive trader right now because I do not feel confident that I understand the market and the government's efforts to intervene.  Perhaps the fact that Obama is facing struggles to implement his agenda is buoying the market.  It is certainly making me more optimistic!

Health Care/Insurance

So, this week, the Obama Administration is planning its takeover of the American Health Care system.  Let's see:  the banks have been taken over, as have the car companies; the federal budget has had an extra $800 Billion to spend in "economic stimulus" funds.  Unemployment is at a 25 year high.  So of course, move on to a new massive undertaking.  Do you like this stuff?  Having radical changes go on every month or so?   Is this what we elected?  

The term in favor today is "Health Care."  I prefer to call it medical insurance.  I suppose polls must show the combination of "health" and "care" elicits a more positive response than medical insurance.  The problem, so we are told by some of our political leaders, is that so many people do not have "health care."  What they really mean is that they do not have insurance which covers medical matters.  I grew up with no insurance.  I never had it until I was 24 years old, not counting college clinics.  And it wasn't something we fretted about.  If something came up, we went to the doctor and we got it looked at.  

But I cannot say that we can go back to those days of paying the doctor in cash or check with each visit.  Expenses are too high now.  Conservatives look at the high expenses and see a medical establishment not having to compete on the basis of price because consumers don't really pay the bill directly anymore.  They also see technological advances that are quite expensive playing a factor as well.  Liberals see greedy insurance company executives.  

The conservative solution is to have a catastrophic health insurance plan as well as a Health Savings Account.  Sadly, these initiatives have not gotten very far due to the roadblocks placed by the liberals in congress.  Now that they are in power, they seek to have the government be the one insurance company for all of us.  

I do not trust the federal government to create a better health insurance plan than the one I currently have, so I do not want them to interfere.  I also feel that their interference will hinder access for medical matters, and I do not want that to happen.

Most of all, can't we let the economy recover as well as deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Iran before we blow up our entire health care industry?

Politics and Cars

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he will seek (or was it mandate -- does he need Congress to approve?) to require higher overall MPGs from vehicle manufacturers.  I believe this was also combined with lower emissions requirements as well.  Wonderful goals, right?  We all want to get higher miles per gallon and we want to emit as little pollution as possible.  So, why am I against this?

Three reasons.  One is that the government has just taken over two U.S. auto manufacturers and is now saddling them with even more requirements that will further reduce sales, because it forces the price to go up.  In one sense, it makes the most sense for the Democrats running the U.S. government to just run the car companies because they set up so many of the rules and regulations for how to build a car that they might as well just build the cars and trucks themselves.  Can you imagine being an entrepreneur today who wanted to start up a new car company?  No, the smart creative types are getting involved with computers and biotechnology.  

Remember how the Democrats chafed at the restrictions placed on embryonic stem cell research by Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush?  They argued that these restrictions hindered creativity and progress in researching cures or treatments for many ailments.  Well, all the restrictions placed on the car companies over the last 40 years are what has killed the American automobile industry.  

The second reason I oppose this is similar in that the government has taken another step in killing the fun out of cars.  Thinking back to the glory days of GM and hot rods and Pontiac GTOs and TransAms or Chevy Camaros or Ford Mustangs.  Cars were fun! Now what do we have?  Boring cars like the Toyota Camry or the Honda Accord.  

Safety, fuel economy, and emissions regulations have boosted the price of cars to excessive levels.  $20,000 is probably just a starting point for a new car.  So, with prices that high, how many cars and trucks will one person buy in a lifetime?  Not as many, that's for sure.

A third point to consider is that there are inevitable safety tradeoffs when we raise the fuel economy standards as people are forced into smaller cars which are proven less safe than larger cars when involved in a crash.  So, to save ourselves from the mythical threat of Global Warming, we end up causing more real deaths as people are driving smaller cars.

Another Prime Time Press Conference

So, on Wednesday night, our President will have a prime time press conference to celebrate the completion of his First 100 Days.  He seems to like these shows in front of the American people.  That's fine.  But I never understood why every single broadcast network felt compelled to carry the show.  That's why I was happy to hear that Fox has decided NOT to air the news conference on its broadcast networks.  They'll refer you to its Fox News Channel to view it.  Instead, (and I love the irony of this), they'll be airing the Drama Series "Lie to Me" in its regular time slot.  (Easy and lame joke coming here . . .  "as opposed to airing the Reality Series "Lie to Me" which you will be able to see on the other broadcast networks and cable news channels." )

My favorite local newspaper, The Washington Times, wrote an April 29 editorial on the Obama press conference.  Check out their thoughts on the matter.  (Thay also could not resist the "Lie To Me" joke.)

President George W. Bush tended to schedule these Press Conferences in the middle of the day and would often just give a couple of hours notice for them.  Although I enjoyed his playful banter with the press and felt he did a good job at them, most observers felt that he was not successful in these venues.  So, he chose to do them at a time when most people would not see them.  And let's face it, the broadcast networks would not have obliged President Bush by airing his Press Conferences in prime time -- especially not on a monthly basis!

If Preseident Obama chooses to continue with these prime time appearances, I suggest that the broadcast networks should simply rotate coverage of them.. CBS one month, then NBC, then ABC, then FOX.  It's good for Americans to hear from their President, but we shouldn't have it forced upon us as though we are in the 1970s Soviet Union.

(updated 4/29/09 9:45 AM)